This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
"The Freedomites" sounds terrible, I also can't tell where it came from. Unless it is the translation that this party prefers, maybe it would be better to leave the name untranslated? - Rafaelgr (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It sounds more like a portmanteau of 'freedom' and 'sodomite' than a legitimate translation of Freiheitlichen. I'd argue for leaving it untranslated, but if we follow the more aggressive interpretation of WP:UE, 'Libertarians' is the only viable Anglicization I can think of. Q·L·1968☿20:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their website gives their name as Die Freiheitlichen (Freiheitliche Partei Südtirol). The second half of their name would be translatable as Freedom Party of South Tyrol. Q·L·1968☿20:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do support "The Freedomites" as it is a more literal translation. Please discuss before making such edits! What I consider unacceptable is the merger between this article and the one on the Freedom Party of South Tyrol: they are two distinct parties! --Checco (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Die Freiheitlichen: Freedomite is not an established English word. It is used almost exclusively to denote the Russo-Canadian sect of the Freedomites, which is completely unrelated to this party. Rafaelgr and QuartierLatin1968 are both native speakers, so I trust them that the use of the term in this context is objectable. Moreover I have not found a single reliable source that uses this translation of the name (there are only very few English-language sources that deal with this party anyway.) The literal translation of freiheitlich is "liberal" (not "libertarian" (German is my mother tongue)). However, German has both the word freiheitlich and liberal, and in Austrian and South Tyrolean politics they have very different connotations. Therefore, "The Liberals" or "The Libertarians" are not acceptable.
I have found only one reliable English-language source that treats this party: Regionalist Parties in Western Europe (Routledge, 1998), specifically the chapter by Holzer and Schwegler on The Südtiroler Volkspartei: a hegemonic ethnoregionalist party (pp. 158-173). They leave all names of South Tyrolean parties untranslated, including Die Freiheitlichen. But at the first mention (p. 169), they translate the party name (in brackets): Die Freiheitlichen (Freedom Party of South Tyrol). "Freedom Party of South Tyrol" would be acceptable, if there was not a differentFreedom Party of South Tyrol(Freiheitliche Partei Südtirols). So, my clear preference is to leave the name untranslated. Some party names cannot (and should not) be translated, compare Fianna Fáil, Forza Italia etc. --RJFF (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read with great interest both QuartierLatin1968's and RJFF's arguments, and I made my mind up on the issue. I think the best solution would be to move the article to Freedom Party of South Tyrol and, prior to that, move the article on the short-lived 1988–1989 party with the same name to Freedom Party of South Tyrol (1988) (of course we would need the cooperation of an administrator to do that). I agree that "Freedomite" is not an established English word, but I strongly support the need of an English title. The party is sometimes referred to as Freiheitliche Partei Südtirols (see for example the party's official Facebook page), is related to the Freedom Party of Austria and the article's title could/should reflect all this. Moreover, in a similar situation, it was decided to move the article on Die Freiheitlichen in Kärnten to Freedom Party in Carinthia. I thus support the Freedom Party of South Tyrol solution for consistency (with alike parties and other South Tyrolean parties) and WP:UE. --Checco (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: There are plenty of cases of parties with identical names (the only difference is that, in this case, the "later" party is much more relevant than the "earlier" one). If the solution I proposed is OK with you, I will take care of the disambiguation of all the links.
I broadly agree with Checco's solution as the least problematic plan on offer. Still, as a native English speaker, I'm not against 'The Freedomites' as a name per se, as I realise that translating the German term Freiheitliche into English is a problem - it's inelegant, but it works. The only other solution would be to translate Die Freiheitlichen to simply Freedom and call the article Freedom (South Tyrol), however that is IMO worse than any of the other suggested solutions.--Autospark (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, I also strongly oppose the translation of names. It's a proper noun - you may explain it in the article, but not invent a translation (unless the party itself uses a different name for different languages, which is not the case).--Sajoch (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The party refers to itself also as Freiheitliche Partei Südtirols, which is easily translatable. We have articles on the South Tyrolean People's Party, the Citizens' Union for South Tyrol, South Tyrolean Freedom... Why not having Freedom Party of South Tyrol? I would personally accept The Freedomites and Freedom Party (South Tyrol), but definitely not Die Freiheitlichen (please consider that the article on Die Freiheitlichen in Kärnten is named Freedom Party in Carinthia). I love consistency and I strongly think that English names are easily understandable by readers (per WP:UE policy). --Checco (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need and no sense translating a proper noun. Checco, you're also active on the italian Wikipedia where we use "Die Freiheitlichen". Same for catalan[1], french[2] and swedish[3]: no one translates proper nouns. So neither should we. Only if the party itself translates its name, we may adopt it (like for the "Greens", which call themselve "Grüne" in german, "Verdi" in italian or "Verc" in ladin - thus a translation is straightforward).
BTW: we also don't translate "New York" in italian "Nuova York", or "Bill Gates" to "Guglielmo Cancelli" to accomodate italian readers.--Sajoch (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Above you see the opinions of Rafaelgr, QuartierLatin1968, RJFF and mine - which all agree to leave "Die Freiheitlichen". You made the move without consensus!--Sajoch (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article was long named "The Libertarians" and, later, for some time, "The Feedomites", thus I was not the one to move the article without consensus. However, I'm much open to a title different from my preferred one (The Freedomites); I would support both Freedom Party of South Tyrol and Freedom Party (South Tyrol) (to which QuartierLatin1968 moved the article a few days ago) indeed. I just want to see consensus.
En.Wiki has its own rules and customs—I don't see why we should take example from low-quality Wikipedias such as it.Wiki.
Your examples are not appropriate for the case we're talking about. Please note the most parties from non-English speaking countries have articles with English titles: that's the case also of all South Tyrolean parties and most Italian parties. I don't see why Die Freiheitlichen should be the exception, especially because related parties, such as Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs and Die Freiheitlichen in Kärnten, have been translated too. --Checco (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline Wikipedia:Article titles#Foreign names and anglicization (commonly known as "Use English") does not say "Use English at any rate, in any case!" It says "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage" and "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." This name cannot be translated without loss of accuracy. The party has nothing to do with liberalism or libertarianism, so "The Liberals" or "The Libertarians" would be completely inaccurate. There was a different party called Freiheitliche Partei Südtirols (i.e. Freedom Party of South Tyrol), so we cannot use this translation (which would be a very free one, anyway). The case of the Carinthian Freiheitlichen is different. There are several English-language sources verifying the chosen translation. Moreover, it is the state section of (and before, it was closely related to the) Freedom Party of Austria, and it even used the abbreviation FPK (short for Freiheitliche Partei in Kärnten). So, this translation is legitimate. This is not the case here. Yes, English-language names should be used where they are existant and established. But in other cases, (including prominent ones like e.g. Sinn Féin, Vlaams Belang, Lega Nord) the names should be left untranslated. The necessary understanding for English-speaking readers can be provided by translating and explaining the name in the introductory section of the article.--RJFF (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, I support all the possible translations we talked about (The Libertarians, The Liberals, Freedom Party, etc.) and my favourite is Freedom Party of South Tyrol, for its consistency with Freedom Party of Austria and Freedom Party in Carinthia. The only option I really oppose is Die Freiheitlichen. The English-speaking reader would greatly benefit from an English title, and I firmly believe that we can have it "without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding" for him/her. --Checco (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Freedomite is almost an official translation of Freiheitlich as it is used by the Freedom Party of Austria in its English-language papers (see for instance here). It is used also by Wolfram Nordsieck in his well-known website. Apart from that, The Libertarians (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc.) and Freedom Party or Freedom Party of South Tyrol (1, 2, 3, 4, et.) are more widely used.
I fully agree with RJFF. There exists no authorative source for those translations. They are arbitrarily made up by a single editor. And despite there was no consensus on this talk-page to use any translation, this single editor moved the page. The documents by Wolfram Nordsieck et alteri all use the english names only in conjunction to the german names as a kind of explanatory addendum. The names should be left untranslated.--Sajoch (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop lying: I simply restored the article to its previous title (The Freedomites) and QuartierLatino1968 had moved the article to Freedom Party (South Tyrol). Prior to that, since its creation (by me) on 26 February 2007 to February 2013 (six years!), the article was long named The Libertarians. In fact, as I have observed, many sources use that translation. I support the current title (The Freedomites) or the article's original title (The Libertarians) or Freedom Party of South Tyrol/Freedom Party (South Tyrol). --Checco (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid calling others liars - simply check the facts: you alone choose to translate the name "Die Freiheitlichen". Neither "The Freedomites" nor "The Libertarians" was accepted by a majority here. The above contributors (Rafaelgr, QuartierLatin1968, RJFF and me, Sajoch) agreed to leave to german name. You ignored them!--Sajoch (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Libertarians was the title of this article for fully 6 yeas, The Freedomites for the next 8 months! Any new title needs to reach consensus. There is no clear consensus yet. Autospark and I support an English name, QuartierLatino 1968 himself has mixed views (see his move), RJFF might accept my disambiguation proposal (@RJFF: what do you think about it?). --Checco (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again you ignore the majority's opinion. You created "The Libertarians" on 26 February 2007 and the day after you were told, that's a wrong translation([4]). RJFF suggested to avoid inappropriate and misleading translations and moved "The Libertarians" to "Die Freiheitlichen"[5]. You then moved "Die Freiheitlichen" to "The Freedomites" hinting to an alleged agreement which didn't exist! QuartierLatino considers "The Freedomites" unacceptable, and argues for leaving the name untranslated. I too suggest to leave the name untranslated! Autospark has no clear position and actually mentions a new term "Freedom (South Tyrol)".--Sajoch (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no majority opinion!
BTW This user confused translation with ideology (as I explained above that's a typical mistake: there are "Labour" parties which are not labourite at all, "Liberal" parties which are not liberal at all and, very often, "Democratic" parties rejecting true democracy... so what?). In February RJFF moved the article, which had been named The Libertarians for six years, to Die Freiheitlichen, with no consensus; he had long been supporting Freedomites in Carinthia (see here and here), thus he had nothing to say with The Freedomites (hence the "alleged agreement"). It's not your fault, but aren't you ignoring the facts? --Checco (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that I'd like to keep The Freedomites as the article name, and wish that all en.wiki articles use English language names for political parties except for recognised exceptions (Israeli and Irish parties, etc). My suggestion of Freedom (South Tyrol) was that, merely a suggestion as a more acceptable for other alternative title, but in retrospect it is a weak suggestion.--Autospark (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see that other users are weighing in with their opinions. I just want to make a couple of quick points: First, regarding RJFF's earlier point, 'libertarian' and 'liberal' have very different meanings in actual political usage (particularly in the United States). (Briefly, libertarians are a right-wing populist movement that believes in the efficacy of the free market to settle society's problems, as well as in the inherent harmfulness of government action; conversely, liberals are left of centre and believe that government has the duty to intervene in the economy to correct for the inequalities and imbalances produced by the free market.) Austrian-style Freiheitlichen aren't exactly in line with US-style libertarians, but neither are they diametrically opposed, and etymologically, the words are more or less equivalent (Freiheit=freedom=liberty; Freiheit+adj.suffix→Freiheitliche; liberty+adj.suffix→libertarian). I agree, 'liberal' would be a mistranslation, but 'libertarian' is quite different.
I know that the English Wikipedia tends to interpret WP:UE aggressively; this would make the natural and obvious choice—leaving the name untranslated—less likely to survive. This is why I moved to Freedom Party (South Tyrol) instead, following the party's secondary name (which also fits that of the Austrian party on WP). Only later did I find that there was also an article on Freedom Party of South Tyrol, which seemed to be a precursor party (whence the party's secondary name); it seemed simplest to merge the two, though I probably did that more ineptly than I should have. Sorry if this has obfuscated the issue! The main point for me is that 'Freedomite' is awkward and unacceptable. Q·L·1968☿23:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that The Libertarians is a good translation (no coincidence it was the article's title for six years). It is supported by several English-language sources too (see above). A party named 'libertarian' does not have to be necessarily libertarian, according to any meaning (European or American)—there are many parties, whose names are the opposite of their ideology (in Italy there was even a Destra Libertaria, which was actually a national- and social-conservative party!).
However, the more I think about it, the more I'm persuaded that The Freedomites is actually the best (and most natural) translation. In this I fully agree with Autospark. Moreover, 'The Freedomites' has a virtually official status among the Freedom Party of Austria, the Austrian sister party of die Freiheitlichen (see here): this might convince even Rafaelgr, who said that he opposed it "unless it is the translation that this party prefers".
If The Freedomites were totally unacceptable for a large majority of users, we could fall back either to The Libertarians or Freedom Party of South Tyrol [or Freedom Party (South Tyrol)], taking care of disambiguating the current Freedom Party of South Tyrol article. --Checco (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the Austrian Freiheitlichen use 'Freedomites' semi-officially, that means that they've grappled with the difficulty of rendering Freiheitlichen in English, just like we're doing, except that they're probably all non-native English speakers and therefore miss out on the subtleties of the translation. I'm not persuaded that their usage is particularly relevant for us trying to implement the WP:UE rule, because, after all, *freedomite is not an English word. It's a nonce word that, as I mentioned before, sounds to me more like a homophobic slur than a serious translation. Q·L·1968☿16:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policyiesWP:UE and WP:OR are quite clear on this subject:
"If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject" - which in this case suggests to leave the german name "Die Freiheitlichen"
"In deciding whether and how to translate ... 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." - as other users here have pointed out, any proposed translation leads to confusion and misunderstandings, thus we should leave the name "Die Freiheitlichen"
"Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research" - reliable english sources always use the german name "Die Freiheitlichen" (and at most use the english translation in parenthesis - maybe because they found it here on wikipedia)
even in italian those names don't get translated [6]
We clearly hold different interpretations of WP policies—and that's not a problem: we're here to discuss. Any argument is relevant and useful, but I would personally leave it.Wiki aside: its policies and customs differ largely from ours. Moreover, I agree with QL1968 that Die Freiheitlichen would not survive easily in en.Wiki.
My preference is still for The Freedomites and I just found out that the term Freedomite has been frequently used by The Economist (The Economist!), when talking about the Austrian FPÖ (see here). If that's not enough for you, you might be interested (and surprised—as me) in knowing that also the BBC (see here), The Telegraph, (see here), The New York Times (see here) and many other leading English news sources have all used the term. This said, I'm still open to other solutions, but I don't understand whether there is a translation that could please most of us. --Checco (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the austrian party, but about South Tyroleans' "Die Freiheitlichen", which may have much in common, but different goals. One more reason to not use "The Freedomites", to avoid confusion.--Sajoch (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And interesting, that despite your sources about the austrian party being called "Freedomites" in some sources, the english Wikipedia prefers to call them "Freedom Party of Austria". So all your sources show, is that using "Freedomites" would only add confusion.--Sajoch (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to show how "Freedomite" is a much more established word in English than we thought. The Austrian party is called Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, hence Freedom Party of Austria; the South Tyrolean party is called Die Freiheitlichen, hence The Freedomites. You might disagree, but there's a logic in that. However, as said, I'm more than welcome to a different translation. --Checco (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There exists no established english name for this party. There's no need to translate it. And majority of the contibutors here is also against arbitrary tranlations. Please don't try to push your POV.--Sajoch (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Freedomites sounds indeed strange. Are they related to Dolomites? Unless there is evidence (from their homepage for example) of their name in English, it is best to leave it with the native name instead of inventing something that would be original research. Gryffindor (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In your edit summary you say "restore original name of article, discuss first", but that's not coherent with the article's history: the article has never been named Die Freiheitlichen in 6 years and 9 months of life, except for 2 days in February 2013. Thus, I expect you will immediately move the article to one of the two names it has long held in its lifetime: The Libertarians or The Freedomites. As you said, discuss first! --Checco (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-2007 use of English names for this party may be influenced by this WP article.
In my view, "The Libertarians" is the worst possible option. It is inaccurate linguistically, according to both German-English dictionaries I consulted, "freiheitlich" translates to "liberal", not to "libertarian"; but according to the Duden, the leading and quasi-official monolingual German dictionary, "freiheitlich" has two different meanings:
striving for, or characterised by freedom (=liberal)
In this case, the second meaning of the word is relevant, as the South Tyrolean Freiheitlichen are modeled on and supported by the Austrian FPÖ and considered its "sister party". While the first meaning can be easily translated into English (by the word 'liberal'), the second meaning has no English translation. Analysing the use of different translations of the name in English-language sources (especially online sources) is problematic. As you know, many authors, even of high-quality websites and reputable media, use Wikipedia as a mine of information, namely when they write about a niche topic like South Tyrolean politics on which very few English-language sources are available. With that said, I suppose that many of the post-2007 mentions of "The Libertarians" or "The Freedomites" may be influenced by this very article, and are no valid indicators for the actual English-language name of this party (which I still argue does not exist, at least not an established one). Wikipedia should be careful not to establish the use of certain names or translations by its own.
Moreover, I claim that giving this article an English-language title (any one of "The Libertarians", "The Freedomites" or "Freedom Party") is not beneficial for (English-language) readers. Someone who has no prior knowledge of South Tyrolean politics at all, will not recognize any of these names anyway. They will click on the link, and there they will find an explanation and translation of the name and a characterisation of the party. On the other hand, a reader who has already some knowledge of South Tyrolean politics will rather recognize the original (German) name, than any of the (as I argued inaccurate) translations. Someone who has already read a text about South Tyrolean politics, in which e.g. Die Freiheitlichen is translated as "Freedom Party" may not recognize "The Libertarians" and vice versa.
"Use English" is a guideline that has to be applied sensibly, not a commandment that should be enforced aggressively. In this case, its application is not useful to anyone.
As a last point, I want to repeat that of all proposed English translations, "The Libertarians" is the most inaccurate and unsuitable, and should be avoided at any rate. After Checco has shown that high-quality English-language media (incl. The Economist, BBC, The Telegraph, NYT) use the word "Freedomite" in this context, I am no longer convinced that it is as unacceptable as some users have earlier claimed. --RJFF (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "high-quality" media, Checco mentions, are all about the Austrian Freiheitlichen, not about South Tyrol - so they cannot be cited here. Fact is: there exists neither "The Libertarians" nor "The Freedomites" in english media for this party.--Sajoch (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to take issue with one of RJFF's points, viz. that "the Libertarians" is the most inaccurate and unsuitable. RJFF is right that readers with a little knowledge of the party may not recognize the name at once, but frankly, the basic problem with "libertarian" is that it doesn't start with the letters FR. In English, "freedom" and "liberty" are doublets; we have many of these, typically of Anglo-Saxon and Romance origin but meaning substantially the same thing. (Freedom and liberty are very near synonyms; although some doublets have quite different connotations, that is not the case here.) If I ask myself what English word most plainly describes people who are, or claim to be, 'into' freedom, the best answer I can think of is "libertarian". We use it in English to describe political movements, including right-wing populist ones. It's not the most obvious translation, but I think it's the best.
"Freedomite" just sounds odd (Rafaelgr and Gryffindor thought so too); it's certainly not a word in general use, or one that political junkies like myself would recognize. I thank Checco for finding instances of its use in high-quality media like The Economist and the BBC, but all that suggests to me is that their editorial boards were also at a loss of how to render Freiheitlichen and went along with an ill-advised nonce translation off the Austrian party's website.
Sajoch makes the point that (in effect) we don't have Freiheitlichen in English political vocabulary. Typically, when an English-speaking party wants to advertise itself as being all about freedom, it either calls itself 'Freedom Party' or 'Libertarian'. To my mind, these are our options for an idiomatic translation. I say if neither finds consensus, we just say that we can't make WP:UE work here and go with Die Freiheitlichen. Q·L·1968☿21:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are English sources citing The Libertarians of South Tyrol (see for instance 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6), others The Freedomites of South Tyrol, but that's not the point here. As RJFF masterly noted, while some English sources could be influenced by the 2007–13 name of this article (The Libertarians), it's clear that The Economist's articles like this from a 1999 issue (adopting Freedomites) could not. That "high-quality" media have used Freedomite is an evidence that the term is much viable than we thought. Moreover, as we already understood, Freedomite is virtually an official translation as it is used by dF's Austrian sister party in official documents. The Freedomites is probably the best translation and the compromise solution we have been looking for. Many thanks to RJFF for his sensible thoughts. --Checco (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the sources. They are either post-2007 and mention "Die Freiheitlichen" in conjunction with "The Libertarians" (this is a clear evidence the translated name is not widely known/accepted - maybe they found it only here in Wikipedia). Or they are about the Carinthian party (like the Economist talking about "The (carinthian) Freedomites".--Sajoch (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that the examples provided by Checco are far from authoritative indicators for the correctness of this translation. One is a self-made website of an online campaign group, one is by a non-native speaker of both English and German, and why should big news media that publish a press agency report about South Tyrolean issues no more than once in a year or several be considered experts on South Tyrolean parties? Moreover, I have to contradict QuartierLatin: the difference between freiheitlich and 'libertarian' is far more than just etymological. German has all three words: freiheitlich, liberal and libertär (i.e. 'libertarian'), each with its own definition and connotations. And the definitions and connotations of freiheitlich and libertär are quite far from each other, even though you should think they should be nearly synonymous if you only analyse the literal meaning of the root words. --RJFF (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I just wanted to say that, even though there are some sources using The Libertarians for dF, much better would be to use The Freedomites, which has been already applied to dF's Austrian sister party by high-quality English sources. dF is just a small party, so it's not a surprise that it has not been cited yet by The Economist. My point is simply that the term Freedomite is applicable to dF too as it has been used by high quality sources: I agree with you, RJFF, when you said that Freedomite is not "as unacceptable as some users have earlier claimed". --Checco (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think The Freedomites would be the best name for this article and a good compromise solution. As I have argued (and showed) the term is more widely used than we thought. Moreover, its virtually official status partly answers to Rafaelgr's "unless it is the translation that this party prefers". This said, I support also QL1968's proposal, especially Freedom Party of South Tyrol [the current Freedom Party of South Tyrol on the 1988–89 party would be moved to Freedom Party of South Tyrol (1988)]. Consistency would be guaranteed. --Checco (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The best solution is to leave the proper noun as it is. It's the only solution accepted by most editors here. You, Checco are the only one against it. There exists no constraint for consistency. We do not have to translate names: "Forza Italia" also isn't translated - no Wikipedia policy forces us to practice OR.--Sajoch (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, 99% of party names are translated in en.Wiki. We're looking for a compromise and the state of the art is not exactly as you put it. Autospark and I support The Freedomites, RJFF can live with that, QL1968 has proposed (and previously moved the article to) Freedom Party (South Tyrol) or Freedom Party of South Tyrol (and I agree), QL1968 and I both accept The Libetarians, etc. Even Rafaelgr, who is no longer active in en.Wiki btw, in his short post opposed The Freedomites "unless it is the translation that this party prefers" (which is pretty much the case).
Even though The Freedomites is my favourite choice (and the article should be moved back there, while we reach a different consensus: that was the article's name when the discussion started), my guess is that Freedom Party of South Tyrol might get virtually unanimous support (as QL1968 noted, dF are idenified also as Freiheitliche Partei Südtirol in their website) . --Checco (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Last try: not "we" should translate the party names, but mainstream media. If there's no occurence of one of those arbitrarily translated names in media (and in fact there isn't), we are not allowed to invent one - that would be original research. Your predilection for one or another is pure WP:POV and has no weight. BTW: "Die Freiheitlichen" is a proper noun, for which no policy demands translation (see WP:UE). So we have to stick to the only officially used name, which is "Die Freiheitlichen".--Sajoch (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We did not invent anything. Mainstream media (The Economist, BBC, NYT, etc.) translate Freiheitlichen with Freedomites. That translation is easily applicable to dF, a small and little-known outfit which is btw the sister party of Austria's Freedomites. Literal and used by mainstream media: that's why The Freedomites is my favourite choice, but I crave for compromise. --Checco (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sajoch's point, English Wikipedia regularly invents translations for foreign-language party names. Whenever a new political party forms in a non-English-speaking country, and Wikipedia gets an article on it, the name is anglicized routinely (however barbarously). Wikipedians don't always refer to existing translations out in the media, which are often hard to come by; when they're there, they've often been invented ad hoc by news angencies staffed by people with limited bilingual abilities and tight deadlines. On Wikipedia we can crowd-source the work and get people with a diversity of linguistic strengths to tackle naming and translation thoughtfully. Q·L·1968☿06:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@QL1968: Thanks for you thoughtful comment. Given the sources, would you accept The Freedomites (already endorsed by others)?
@Autospark, RJFF, etc.: Would you accept Freedom Party of South Tyrol or Freedom Party (South Tyrol)?
My preference of the two (if we cannot agree on The Freedomites, my first choice) would be Freedom Party of South Tyrol, as it is a near enough translation of the alternative party name given by the organisation on their website and Facebook profile (Freiheitliche Partei Südtirol).--Autospark (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't stomach The Freedomites. For me, it's just not a real English word. If the Austrian sister party uses it, it shows their lack of linguistic finesse. If international media use it, it shows their lack of discernment. The way I see the discussion breaking down, "Freedomites" is unacceptable to some of us, and "Libertarians" to others, while several of us would prefer not to translate at all (traduttore, traditore), but nobody has really come up with a specific objection to "Freedom Party of South Tyrol", which seems the best compromise, in line with the English name for the Austrian party as well as with the South Tyrolean party's secondary name. Q·L·1968☿17:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who are we to judge the media's discernment? I still think that The Freedomites is the best translation, but I also see that Freedom Party of South Tyrol might be the best compromise solution. --Checco (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not see the advantage of giving this article any of the different circulating English translations as a title. The mere existence of so many different possible translations (all of them somehow inaccurate) should, in my opinion, be a reason not to use any of them as the title. None of them is really established, there is no legitimate reason to chose the one instead of the other. Each choice would be somehow arbitrary. This is really a case where a foreign term has no fitting English equivalent. In this regard, it is a parallel to Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin, a case in which WP:Use English should not be applied too rigorously (which the guideline says itself: see section No established usage in English-language sources).
I have to repeat myself: an English-language or international reader who has already some knowlege about South Tyrolean politics will rather recognize Die Freiheitlichen under their original name than some ominous "Freedom Party", "Freedomites" or "Libertarians". A reader who has no previous knowledge at all, will not recognize any of them them, anyway. They may wonder "Die Freiheitlichen - what does that mean?", then click on the link and find an explanation. Would it be detrimental to them? I don't think so. --RJFF (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think RJFF might be right. Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin figure regularly in English-language media (certainly in Ireland and its diaspora), but I notice that a party like Vetëvendosje!—nearly as obscure to many English speakers as Die Freiheitlichen—is treated on Wikipedia under its Albanian name. Q·L·1968☿19:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC) (PS: Why "ominous"?)[reply]
That's not the case of the party we're talking about. Virtually whenever this party (or its Austrian counterpart) is mentioned in English-language media, it is translated. There are exceptions to the WP:UE rule, but both Vetëvendosje! and the present article should not be among them.
Answering to RJFF, I have to say that the existance of so many different possible translations (all of which accurate, in my view) is not a reason not to use any of them as title, but the evidence on my (and other users') good faith and will to compromise. An English-language or international reader who has already some knowlege about South Tyrolean politics would easily recognize the party, whatever its name, but the other 99%, formed by readers having no previous knowledge at all, would greatly benefit from an English title, as consistency would. --Checco (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced, many here haven't read WP:UE, otherwise they would have noticed the advice: If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians.... And as we have in fact no reliable sources at all, moving to Die Freiheitlichen is the solution suggested by WP:UE.--Sajoch (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having read WP:UE, I have to say that there are several reliable sources using "Freedomites" (or for that matter, "Libertarians"), thus I continue to support the opportunity of an English name.--Checco (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Checco created this article as "The Libertarians" in 2007 and was immediately criticised for this arbitrary translation (see [7]). Unfortunately this page and its talk-page lived long unnoticed, and only minor changes were applied by varying editors or bots. In February 2013 RJFF finally also noticed this bogus translation and changed the name to is proper noun "Die Freiheitlichen". Then Checco stepped in and changed it back again. Rafaelgr proposed in August 2013 to leave the name untranslated. Then came QuartierLatin1968 in October and also proposed to leave the name untranslated. In November RJFF stated that his clear preference is to leave the name untranslated. And I also support "Die Freiheitlichen", citing Wikipedia policies, which force us to leave the name untranslated, as there exists no widely accepted english name.--Sajoch (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sajoch's history is quite partial. Everything has been already pointed out above, but let's do it again for the sake of clarity.
All users (including IPs) are free to edit on WP: everyone can step in, discuss and edit. I created the article under the name The Libertarians on 26 February 2007 and User:Gryffindor immediately edited it. For fully six years the article's name remained stable (an IP user immediately criticised the name, while confusing it with its ideology: often they do not coincide, as I have extensively argued above). On 28 February 2013 User:RJFFmoved the article to Die Freiheitlichen and had nothing to say when, on 2 March, I moved it to The Freedomites (in fact, he had been supporting the use of Freedomites as part of another article's name—see here and here). Eight months later, on 11 November, User:QuartierLatin1968 stepped in and moved the article to Freedom Party (South Tyrol); although I could live with that name, I rollbacked his edit and started to discuss. Today User:Gryffindor briefly moved the article to Die Freiheitlichen and later moved it back to its original name, The Libertarians. And here we are. Users' views and interpretations of WP policies are not monolithic as User:Sajoch puts them. There is thus room for compromise, although at the moment no clear consensus has emerged yet.
Everyone's arguments are valuable, but it is not true that WP policies "force us to leave the name untranslated". In fact, in most cases, party names are translated in en.Wiki. South Tyrolean parties are no exception. As I have said many times I support The Freedomites (the term Freedomite is used by dF's Austrian sister party in its official documents in English and has been used by many leading news sources, from The Economist to The New York Times—see above), The Libertarians (this translation, used by several news sources for dF—see above, does not mean that the party holds a libertarian ideology—see above) or Freedom Party of South Tyrol / Freedom Party (South Tyrol) / Freedom Party South Tyrol (dF are known also as the Freiheitliche Partei Südtirol). In the last case we would need to properly disambiguate the already existing article on the short-lived Freiheitliche Partei Südtirols (please note the final "s", making the two names slightly different).
I'm confident we will be able to agree on a name both accurate as translation and consistent with the other articles on (South Tyrolean) parties.
I don't want to get into a feud about it, but for the record, Checco is also skipping a step in saying, "on 2 March, I moved it to The Freedomites. [...] Eight months later, on 11 November, User:QuartierLatin1968 stepped in and moved the article to Freedom Party (South Tyrol); although I could live with that name, I rollbacked his edit and started to discuss." In fact, I had started to discuss over two weeks before the move (22 and 28 October), and only proceeded to move the article when it seemed like no one else had anything to say. I'm glad that's not the case, however, and that other people are now sharing their views. Q·L·1968☿22:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Sajoch's diligence, but I think that the above summary is a little bit arbitrary as it includes an arbitrary choice of each user's words and does not acknowledge some of the advancements in the discussion. I won't take part to the summary. --Checco (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really tried hard to include all expressed opinions... But hey, this is Wikipedia. As I said, you're free to add/edit, like QuartierLatin and Autospark have thankfully done.--Sajoch (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC) — No doubt, but that's what I think—and also Autospark has not edited the summary yet. --Checco (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Five users (Autospark, QL1968, RJFF, Sajoch and I) have consistently took part to the discussion on the article's name. There is no consensus yet, thus I reverted yesterday's move by Sajoch and moved the article back to "The Libertarians", though I like better "The Freedomites". --Checco (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry for what has happened to this page. User:Sajoch took advantage of the holiday season in order to move the article without consensus. Following his complaint (full of false facts), the article was moved to Die Freiheitlichen and protected.
Five users (Autospark, QL1968, RJFF, Sajoch and I) have consistently took part to the discussion on the article's name. There is no consensus yet as two users (Autospark and I) want the title to be in English (possibly The Freedomites, but, as I have repeatedly stated, I support also other translations), two users (QL1968 and RJFF) hold mixed views and a fifth (Sajoch) supports only the German name.
My suggestion is that the article should be moved back to the name it had (for eight months) before the discussion started in November—The Freedomites or its original and long-term name (six years!)—The Libertarians. --Checco (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is "consensus"?!? We have 8 opinions here, counting also the IP, who first objected (the day after creation of this article[8]!) that Checcos translation is original research. Only one other person voted for an english name, the other 6 agreed to leave the german name. There are zero, no, nada sources for any arbitrary translation - deal with it.--Sajoch (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You moved the page on 26 December without consensus, without even bothering to come here and say anything about it.
Only five users have consistently discussed on the issue and they are split (the three more have never engaged in discussion with others), there are plenty of sources for both The Freedomites and The Libertarians, there was no vote (or at least people did not even know they were voting; btw, please take a look to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion). I'm very sorry to have to repeat myself all the time.
Without consensus, the page should be moved back to one of the two names (The Freedomites and The Libertarians) it held for a long time.
I'm very sad for what is happening and for the first time, after eight years of "service", I'm thinking about quitting Wikipedia. The reason is what has happened to this article a couple of weeks ago: one user (Sajoch) moves the article with no consensus and an administrator protects the page from moves. Isn't it astonishing? I still believe in the good faith of the administrator in question and I'm trying to convince him to follow Gryffindor's November example: unless a new consensus is formed, there is no reason why the article should stay at Die Freiheitlichen; having this as the article's name has tilted the discussion in favor of one party (basically one user, as the others have mixed views) against the other. Everyone knows that in WP:RMs the "incumbent" name is advantaged by "incumbency" and the current name is there not to to consensus but due to a sleight of hand, a trick. Sajoch is cheerfully "fixing" all the links to this page with his preferred name, which has now a big chance of becoming the article's stable name by default. I thus ask any andministrator, especially the one who intervened in Sajoch's help, to move the article back to its established title and I urge all the users involved in the discussion, including those with mixed views, to support in my effort. In particular, I rememeber RJFF asking me to take a similar position in a similar case. I think that should be considered by everyone a rule of Wikipedia: articles should not be moved without consensus; if someone breaks the rule (as Sajoch did), the article should be moved back to its previous name. As I wrote somewhere else, the "law of the strongest" should not be the rule in Wikipedia. I hope that all the intellectually honest users, no matter their opinion on the article's name, will agree with me. --Checco (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Checco, most of the name of political parties all over the world are translated in English, why this one should be in German? -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Checco, there was no consensus for the move, and Sajoch has been intellectually dishonest and an opportunist for altering the article name and 'fixing' it without consensus. Also, it is a basic tenet of en.wiki that political party names are translated from their native names into English, unless there is a very good reason.--Autospark (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only an edit which is not disputed or reverted by others can be assumed to have consensus. Unfortunately Checcos translations of "Die Freiheitlichen" never reached consensus and were disputed since the first day and renamed several times by dfferent editors
(here, here, here and here).
Checco never agreed to discuss and always only tried to force his original translation (which, I repeat, is backed by "no" source). I tried to sum up all opinions of the different editors on this talk-page, and the outcome was clear: leave the name "Die Freieitlichen".
Checco, not being pleased with this outcome, didn't hesitate to call an italian friend for help on italian Wikipedia, advising to use e-mail for confidential comunication
(stealth canvassing: see here) and also falsely accusing me of having found a corruptible admin ("amministratore compiacente") who blocked the page.
He then tried to convince the admin (EdJohnston) to rename the article (calling me aggressive and defining the move "just a technical move"). But the admin's advise to use WP:RM didn't please him (most likely he knew, he would get outvoted - see summary above).--Sajoch (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sajoch, I certainly did a mistake when I gave vent to my sadness and disappointment when talking with an user I often discuss with (often with different views), but once again you wrote a lot of false things, starting from your deduction on the e-mail issue (I would ask you to assume my good faith).
It is purely false to say that I "never agreed to discuss" (simply, the article was not in my watchlist until a few months ago!), that I "only tried to force [my] original translation (since we started discussing, I always aimed at compromise and accepted many translations) and that my "original translation" is "backed by 'no' source" (there are plenty of sources using both "Libertarians" and "Freedomites", as shown above). Finally, the outcome can't be "leave the name 'Die Freieitlichen'", simply because the article has never been titled "Die Freiheitlichen" except for a couple of days in March 2013 (the article's name was "The Libertarians" for fully six years since February 2007, then "The Freedomites" for eight months and finally "The Libertarians", again, since November 2013).
Coming to the five links you highlighted (I'm sorry to repeat myself once again):
"here": in February 2013 RJFF moved the article to "Die Freiheitlichen", but subsequently did not oppose my move to "The Freedomites" (in fact, he had long supported the use of "Freedomites" in another talk page)
"here": on 11 November 2013 QL1968 moved the article to "Freedom Party (South Tyrol)" not to "Die Freiheitlichen" (and later accepted "The Libertarians")
"here": on 19 November 2013 Gryffindor moved the article to "Die Freiheitlichen", but soon after acknowledged his mistake and moved it to "The Libertarians"
"here": this does not need further comments, it's your move!
As you understand, it is not useful to get hold of old comments or moves out of context. The fact is that five users have consistently discussed in this talk page over the last months: you support only the German name, Autospark and I support an English translation (prefereably "The Freedomites", but also other proposals, like "The Libertarians", are OK), RJFF and QL1968 have mixed views (while both accepting "Die Freiheitlichen", the former doesn't rule out "The Freedomites", the latter would accept "The Libertarians"). When no new consensus is formed, the established name should stay.
I thus agree with Autospark, when he underlines that "there was no consensus for the move, and Sajoch has been intellectually dishonest and an opportunist for altering the article name and 'fixing' it without consensus." And yes, what I asked to EdJohnson (who endorsed your position without bothering to read the discussion) was just a "technical move" as your 26 December's move was highly questionable and not supported by consensus. Why didn't you start a WP:RM?
As always, I aim at compromise. Here is my compromise proposal: let's move the page to "The Libertarians" (as original name of the article, per Gryffindor) and then let's start a WP:RM to "Die Freiheitlichen". If the move is accepted by a majority of users, I will be the first to acknowledge and support the outcome. As of now, what is more important to me is that Wikipedia principles and rules are respected: unfortunately, that has not been the case with your move. By following the path I propose to you and the other users, you will probably get your preferred name and, more important, the outcome will be accepted by everyone.
Please Checco, don't pervert the facts. You were asked by the admin EdJohnston to start a WP:RM. Why didn't you do so? Concerning the alleged sources for your arbitrary translations, you repeat that there are plenty, but you fail to list a single one. And no, this is about the South Tyrolen party, not the Carinthian party - you cannot misuse unrelated sources to support your pov. You say, the article wasn't on your watchlist?!? You created this article in 2007, you are the main contributor and you are the only one editing on it each year ever since. Even if it wasn't on your watchlist, you cannot claim you didn't notice other editor's complaints about your improper translation since day one.
I did not "pervert" any fact. You did it many times, but I believe you can turn back to intellectual honesty. EdJohnson did not ask anything to me, but, yes, he counseled me to start a WP:RM. I already explained that this is not fair: as also Autospark noted, you moved the article with no consensus, thus the article should go back to its previous and established title. And yes, this article was not on my watchlist until 11 November, meaning that I have never read the discussion before 11 November QL1968's move. I have created hundreds of articles, not all of them are in my watchlist, which I carefully edit all the time.
Please consider my proposal: it re-establishes "legality" and provides you with a "legal" path toward your goal.
Other users: please consider my proposal too!
Regarding the sources on "The Libertarians", there are many: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc.
Regarding "The Freedomites", the sole fact that newspapers like The Economist or The New York Times use "Freedomite" and "Freedomites" for the much larger (and related) Freedom Party of Austria means that those terms are not POV translations.
Ps: On the Nick.mon's issue, you are contesting my style of writing (smaller font for asides and links used that way are typical of me—and it.Wiki too) and accusing me of something you have no evidence of. I already said it was a mistake to let off stream with him. My question about the e-mail was not related to this issue, believe it or not. I have nothing more to say about it.
I don't agree with Sajoch. I wrote to Checco to ask him something about an Italian election article, and then he told me that there was a discussion about the name of this page. I just wrote what I personally think. We are not friends, we are just users of en.Wiki and we discussed a lot on Wikipedia as you can see, and I am not "user of it.Wiki" in fact I don't use it for a long time. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-2007 use of English names for this party may be influenced by this WP article. May I repeat RJFF (see above): the sources you cite are all dated 2008 or later (some even explicitly citing Wikipedia), after you created this article. The party exists since 1992 - in 15 years there would exist some sources backing your claim, don't you agree?
There's no evidence for what you say. Either "The Libertarians" or "The Freedomites" are good translations, but that's not the main point here: there is no consensus for the current name of the article. As Autospark precisely and concisely wrote, "there was no consensus for the move, and Sajoch has been intellectually dishonest and an opportunist for altering the article name and 'fixing' it without consensus. Also, it is a basic tenet of en.wiki that political party names are translated from their native names into English, unless there is a very good reason." --Checco (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two months ago this article, which was long named "The Libertarians" (for six years), "The Freedomites" (for eight months) and again "The Libertarians", was moved without consensus. There is no need here to repeat arguments and chronologies (anyone can read the above discussions), but I feel it's useful to remember how the current name, which is BTW the original-language name of the party, is the result of an aggressive decision by one user, whose irregular move was approved by an administrator who ignored the lack of consensus. I'm not going to move the article again today, but I'm going to add two possible translations, which were consistently mentioned during the previous months and are supported by sources. --Checco (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You repeatedly (here, here and also some months before) inserted refs to alleged documents that use an english name for "this" party. But those refs are all for the austrian FPÖ. Austria is not Italy, and the FPÖ is not the same party as the south tyrolean "Die Freiheitlichen". Thus those links are unrelated- see WP:RSCONTEXT. Reinserting those links is vandalism.--Sajoch (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete "your" translation "The Freedomites", so don't be offended. I simply eliminated those references which are not pertinent: those translations are for another party in another country. Please stop this stupid edit-war.--Sajoch (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No-one wants an edit war, but you removed sources which are perfectly valid for the translation of Freiheitlichen to "Freedomites"—and it does not matter which party they refer to as long as they refer to the word Freiheitlichen. As you might have noticed, I am not the only one supporting the inclusion of those sources. This said, I appreciated all the other changes you have made to the article and I also agree that the party might be classified as liberal (but do you have any sources about it?); I would just ask you to provide a source on the fact that the "scandal on advanced retirement payments" involved all th members of the Provincial Council (or did you mean all the dF's members of it?). Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) Those references absolutely are not valid. Similarly you cannot move "Albert Einstein" to "Albert Onestone" and insert references that show "one stone" to be a "valid" translation of "ein Stein". In another context the translation would be correct, but nouns should not get translated. We can only report what's out there. We are in no way allowed to translate names ourserlves.
2) Source for "liberal" is the partys own statute on their webpage ("liberale Politik").
3) In the scandal on advanced retirement payments all members of all partys in South Tyrol and Trentino were involved, as all of them got the retirement payments in advance (that was nothing specific to this party) - you simply should have read the newspapers.--Sajoch (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1 bis) Checco you're the only one insisting on using those false citations. Autospark undid my removal with the motivation "unexplained removal", because he didn't notice, that this wasn't my first removal and the problem was broadly explained in the talk page. I reverted your reinsertion of those bogus citatins many times. A summary s not needed, if the previous edit is considered vandalism. EOD.--Sajoch (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) Those sources are perfectly valid as they show that freiheitlich could be translated into freedomite.
2) Unfortunately a party constitution is not a third-party source, but I agree that the party could be regared as liberal.
3) OK on this, but why didn't the leaders of other parties resign?
1) Citations have to be relevant for this article, and should not be misleading
2) If you agree, you're free to add the definition "liberal"
3) Why other parties didn't take similar steps is unknown. I believe, they are glued to their chair due to the high salaries they get. Compared to other parties, the behavior of dF was exemplary. The only party not affected by this scandal was M5S, as that party didn't exist in previous legislation, when this shameful law passed.--Sajoch (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the reasoning behind your 1) and, without sources, I wouldn't add "liberalism" by myself—but I wouldn't remove it from the infobox if you add it either. Many thanks for your explanation on the scandal!
Post-2007 use of English names for this party may be influenced by this WP article.
The article on Nationalia[9] is from 2008 and takes its wisdom from this Wikipedia-article. Also the map there is copied from Wikipedia[10]. We are not allowed to create circular references with Wikipedia. I aready notified this a few months ago (see above). See WP:CIRC. Please pay attention.--Sajoch (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the map, there is no evidence that the source is copied from Wikipedia. Its content is not included in any article of the encyclopedia, as far as I know. Also, the fact that the source dates back to 2008 is not a problem; why would it be? I will thus re-insert the source. --Checco (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's abundant evidence for a circular reference: Your naming of this article (in February 2007) predates the existence of the referred document (dated October 2008), so you cannot use it for your purpose. Even in case of doubt, we don't need that reference (you already added 4 references, so a fifth is pure bloat), so why bother to include it?!? Stop continually reverting my edits - that's pure vandalism. If you insist, I will invalidate also the other 4 references, as they are even more recent in time. This is the last warning.--Sajoch (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are a quite strange guy, who always tries to impose his views without consensus. You got the article's name as you wanted and without having sought any consensus, but you always want more. There is no evidence that the source was copied/inspired by this Wikipedia article (yours is a mere supposition), thus I will re-insert it. The fact is that there are plenty of sources translating Freiheitlichen into "Libertarians" or "Freedomites", and you don't want that to be known. Of course, if you are going to produce evidence that the source was copied/inspired by Wikipedia, I will be the first to support its removal from the article. --Checco (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not YOUR article. All references you cite are posterior to your arbitrary namings. You should find references which predate your edits - good luck!--Sajoch (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean it is YOURS? You act like you think it is and it is the only thing you do on Wikipedia. Moreover, you should know that my favourite translation is "The Freedomites", not "The Libertarians". --Checco (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be stubborn (both of you). We do not need this reference anyway, because we have alternative—probably more reliable and uncontroversial—sources verifying the same translation. --RJFF (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source is as good as others. The main problem here is that Sajoch, a single-issue user obsessed with this article, gets what he wants virtually always, without seeking and/or obtaining consensus. Why should we appease him also on this? Isn't the source OK? --Checco (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Sajoch is behaving in an inappropriate way on WP by not seeking consensus, over-riding other users and causing needless arguments. This is a collective endeavour, and needs to be solved by consensus rather than a single user unilaterally dominating an article.--Autospark (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Die Freiheitlichen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_South_Tyrol_%28de%29.png?uselang=de){kind=link}