Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

WikiProject Ireland Collaboration
Home	Discussion	Related projects	Members	Templates	Statements	Ballot page
Project main page	Discussion	Related projects	Members and moderators	Useful templates	Statements on the problems	Also: Intro text and position statements
Everybody is invited to participate in discussions here. The discussion will be moderated by a panel appointed by ArbCom. Moderators can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted. If you have a complaint about a user, please try to resolve it on their talk page first. For any complaints, please always be specific and provide links. Please, for the moment, refrain from discussing the individual Ireland naming options until we agree on a procedure.

If status quo is endorsed?

What happens if "F" is the winner. Will it be the beginning of massive edit-wars if the pro-RoI linking see it as a go ahead and endorsement to change every link on Wikipedia. I thought this process was to put an end to this disruption once and for all. As the poll now stands it looks like I have been over optimistic. Tfz 19:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

After the polls close people here have to agree on when Republic of Ireland can and can not be placed in text. If F doesnt win then no move can take place until agreement is reached on that, nobody should really be changing ROI / Ireland in text till after agreement. We need very clear details of what it can and cant be used to avoid edit wars on that. And if C wins which is quite possible looking at the vote so far, we need clear agreement on when the general article on Ireland is to be linked to rather than the island or the state. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is important that an agreed-upon factor is that even if it's clearly obvious that the polls favor one option or another, no page moves or changes are engaged until we've evaluated any remaining factors (namely, how "Culture of (the country)"-type articles should be called and how to refer to the country when there is possibly confusion to the island or Northern Ireland. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The vote is on the title of the current Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation) articles only. No more. No less. No content. No other articles. Only those three pages. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, for 85% of the time the word Ireland is used in conjunction with the state of the same name. Islands do not matter a lot, for example the name Hispaniola is seldom mentioned at all, and it is quite a big island. Tfz 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sport? Religion? Culture? Language? History? Ethnicity? Citizenship? ... but certainly most of the time you can tell one "Ireland" from the other in context. New York is a city, not a state. New York is also a state, not a city. But in most articles, it's clear from context which one we mean. (Incidentally, "New York" may more commonly refer to the city, but the article on the state is at New York on Wikipedia. A parallel to our situation, maybe?) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

'Upstate New York' to distinguish it from the most popular usage of the name, and the state named Ireland is indeed the most popular usage of the name Ireland, at least 85% of the time. Yet we don't have to endure Metropolis of New York at Wikipedia for fear upstate New Yorkers might be offended. Tfz 21:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If the status quo is the winner then surely there is no need to change anything? Or am I missing something? Fmph (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a parallel issue about what to call the island vs. state in articles - but there's more-or-less consensus on that already. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What happens if "A", "B", "C", "D", or "E" is the winner. Will it be the beginning of massive edit-wars if the anti-RoI linking see it as a go ahead and endorsement to change every link on Wikipedia. I thought this process was to put an end to this disruption once and for all. As the poll now stands it looks like I have been over optimistic. Mooretwin (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (I raised this point at the outset of this process, but was ignored/dismissed. I don't recall Tfz backing me up. Mooretwin (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin, I never went from article to article pushing a pov into them, changing linking, changing terminology, air-brushing history. My philosophy is, "tell it as it is, even though the heavens fall". It's a queer encyclopedia that calls a country by a different name than its proper name. Some editors around want to be British when it suits them, and Irish when it suits them, depending on the line of pov they are spinning. That's why Wikipedia is becoming a bit of a joke within certain circles. Tfz 23:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as the articles arnt moved until after agreement on all this is reached here there shouldnt be anyone trying to make changes following the vote closing. Im very glad the moves are not going to be made before we get onto a debate about it here because i suspect there would be several people going around removing ROI from the text where ever possible. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) What has happened in the past is that where disambiguation is necessary - and only where its necessary - within articles, 'Republic of Ireland' gets used. Where dabbing isn't necessary, RoI gets pipelinked as 'Ireland'. So in an article you might see a sentence like "The Republic of Ireland has 26 counties, while Northern Ireland has 6", or one like "Ireland's GDP is expected to fall by..." That seems to have worked reasonably well. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If F wins just a general agreement on the wording linked above would be enough, its if F loses and the status quo changes that there are implications for all these things and i think we need far more clear and detailed acceptence of when it can and can not be used before the move takes place. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Mooretwin had some sensible suggestions previously on this, which I see repeated here. I agree with Bastun above. I'd be happy to change the article, but leave RoI as a dab where necessary (a correct use of a description IMHO) --HighKing (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But not as the title for the article. Sarah777 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Attention needed on Position statement talk page

Im not sure how many people have the position statements talk page on their watch list so i thought i would just mention it here incase people did not notice. If people could take a look and comment please.. here. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Rockpocket 01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Andersons Thatch Pub

What do we make of this? Sarah777 (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability? Personally I would {{prod}} it and see if the creator can provide reliable sources. Rockpocket 01:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Prod it. If it makes notability then cool but we can't have a page on every pub in Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Supermarkets in Ireland

I just cleaned up a move from List of supermarket chains in Ireland to Supermarkets of the Republic of Ireland, pursuant to the "no page moves" policy. However, looking at this, I see that the page uses the {{Europe topic}} template, which points to "Republic of Ireland", since that's the current location of the article on the state. In the interest of avoiding a redirect, should I move it to List of supermarket chains in the Republic of Ireland, or just leave it where it is pending the outcome of the vote? Assuming the result is "leave it", can anyone confirm that there aren't any Northern-Ireland-only chains in the list? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is fine (assuming there are not NI only chains listed) for the moment. It can perhaps be revisited once the current poll is finished, and the issue of referring to the state/island is resolved. Rockpocket 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the review.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. This will be fine if there were no supermarkets in Northern Ireland and in fact most of these supermarkets have had branches in the north for a long time. The Mace has almost 200 stores in Northern Ireland. Most of the supermarkets on the list arent even run by Irish companies with more than 50% not even based in Ireland. You should not even think about moving things without discussion. What is the improvement in such a move? Why don't you create a Republic of Ireland list without affecting the Ireland list? Where do we get the idea that there is no Ireland save for the republic? Wise up please. ~ R.T.G 12:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of faith in the "Ireland" Collaboration project

There is no "Ireland" collaboration project any more. Months ago, the principle of compromise was agreed. The details were considered to be too big for a single vote, so the first vote was to decide the article title. Editors that had previously agreed that a compromise was necessary have now decided to attempt to hijack the current process and vote to maintain the status quo. This isn't the principle underpinning the current vote, and it isn't the mandate given by Arbcom, and as a result a number of editors have withdrawn from the process. Let's agree to return to discussions when the spirit and principal of compromise returns. Hopefully the withdrawn editors will not consider the current hijacking a betrayal of trust and honest effort, and won't be too pissed off to return in good faith. I'd wait a little while though. --HighKing (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if you want to claim this vote is void and we all have to go back to the start then so be it but i will not be supporting any compromise if forced into such a position. Demands for compromise and change because the vote is not going the way some had liked is simply unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) No - the vote is now a valid mechanism for measuring majority. The vote was a step in a process of many steps to construct an agreement on a solution. But that process is now void since many people who signed up have reneged on the previous commitment to compromise. The position/statement of having no intentions, ever, to compromise is becomming apparent. It's just a pity you (and others) couldn't have said that right from the start - would have saved me and other editors (who are pro-compromise) about nine months of effort. --HighKing (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what the ballot page says. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Who thought it would have went any other way. Force of numbers and bias were always going to skew what happened in a poll, this is why I objected to the poll to begin with. BigDunc 12:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well i wish someone would of told me F would be doing so well.. i thought it would struggle far more than it is considering this voting system is clearly designed to make it hard for the status quo to win. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that you don't see how the problem IS the status quo, why do you think this all started? BigDunc 12:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The status quo has lasted well over 5 years and clearly works even if a few have a major problem with it. We cant change things just because some people do not like it. This claim that ROI is offensive (which is the only justification ive seen for change) has really been put to bed with endless examples of use by the Irish government, its ministers, Irish media etc. People on that talk page have continued to ask for evidence that ROI is offensive.. nothing has been found as far as i can see. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. This proves we're right back where we started. So much for the past 9 months. I'm not even going to bother to argue your points - it looks to me like you just cut and paste the same arguments from one place to the next - they've all been answered in the past. So let's go back to pretending that RoI isn't offensive in the slightest, that's it's a perfectly valid name of the state, and that it's only one or two indignant editors that keep objecting but everyone else is fine with it. Makes sense. --HighKing (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, if I've got you right here: ... ... it must be changed because it's a problem ... and it's a problem because it must be changed ... and it must be changed because it's a problem ... and it's a problem because it must be changed ... and it must be changed because it's a problem ... and it's a problem because it must be changed ... and it must be changed because it's a problem ... and it's a problem because it must be changed ... and it must be changed because it's a problem ... and it's a problem because it must be changed ... and ...

Is there a name for this kind of reasoning? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So, if I've got you right sony, it's a case of ... ... there is no problem, there has been 7 years of peace across Wiki, we're in an Arbcom process because of one or two editors, and we can try to steamroll compromise by reneging on prior commitements to compromise ... there is no problem, there has been 7 years of peace across Wiki, we're in an Arbcom process because of one or two editors, and we can try to steamroll compromise by reneging on prior commitements to compromise ... there is no problem, there has been 7 years of peace across Wiki, we're in an Arbcom process because of one or two editors, and we can try to steamroll compromise by reneging on prior commitements to compromise ... there is no problem, there has been 7 years of peace across Wiki, we're in an Arbcom process because of one or two editors, and we can try to steamroll compromise by reneging on prior commitements to compromise ... there is no problem, there has been 7 years of peace across Wiki, we're in an Arbcom process because of one or two editors, and we can try to steamroll compromise by reneging on prior commitements to compromise. --HighKing (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"...there has been 7 years of peace across Wiki..." For the most part, let's not exaggerate the situation. "...we're in an Arbcom process because of one or two editors..." Not quite - a good number of editors have sound reasons for wanting the ROI page at IRL, but the disruption was been caused by a clutch of editors (on both "sides"). "...we can try to steamroll compromise by reneging on prior commitements to compromise." I don't know what you are referring to. What commitment? To what compromise? Maybe you can indicate what you believe was agreed?

There is a problem, but hysteria and circular logic won't get us out of it. Pointing out the illogic of statements is not the same as burying one's head in the sand. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

lol ive got a name for it but i cant say it here. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A vote was agreed because, after months of trying, agreement was considered impossible. You know this. You were all for having a vote. Don't you remember? Likewise, Evertype was probably the most enthusiastic advocate of a vote. Now suddenly it's "compromise" you want (which oddly translates as nothing of the sort). What's gives? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(repeat) No - the vote is now a valid mechanism for measuring majority. The vote was a step in a process of many steps to construct an agreement on a solution. But that process is now void since many people who signed up have reneged on the previous commitment to compromise. The position/statement of having no intentions, ever, to compromise is becomming apparent. It's just a pity you (and others) couldn't have said that right from the start - would have saved me and other editors (who are pro-compromise) about nine months of effort. --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait! We agreed to have a vote ... and now you're saying that as part a of that was an agreement to all vote the way you want? Where was that agreement?? We agreed to have a vote on the IRL/ROI/(dab) article names (no more, no less). Full stop. The other stuff (if that's what you are referring to) were to be left until after the vote. What compromise/agreement are you referring to? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we agreed to have a vote .. one step of many as part of a process to reach agreement, etc, etc. Based on the last attempt by Masem to reach a consensus on the compromise which was:

• The island remains at Ireland
• The 26-county state moves to Ireland (state)
• Republic of Ireland redirects to Ireland (state)
• The disabmiguation page remains at Ireland (disambiguation)
• Blue-Haired Lawyer's means of how to refer to the state when potential confusion arises with the island and N. Ireland should be used. (see [#Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland in articles|above] for the details but primarily using "Republic of Ireland" when confusion may arise particularly with "Northern Ireland", "Ireland" alone in all other cases.
• Hatnotes for dabs and additional redirects will be added as necessary (eg, Ireland (state) may need a Northern Ireland dab hatnote).

Where in that does it say that we'll just retain the status quo? And that was in the middle of June btw, it's not like it's ancient history! *That* is the process we're following, because agreement couldn't be reached on the article title, we went to a vote. And including "F" was required so as to present a wide choice. But a vote for "F", by editors here who were supposedly/allegedly working on a compromise, effectively is a vote to disengage from the current process and to not work out a compromise. --HighKing (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Masems request for compromise which i think i supported FAILED which is why we moved on to a vote to get this matter solved once and for all. It was an informal vote, those who supported the compromise were in no way saying they would vote that way in the real vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Why are we having a vote if we agreed that we would have "IRL/IRL (state)/dab"? Why did you want a vote if that was agreed already? Why did Evertype? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you find it amusing. If anything, your LOL is pretty inappropriate in a response. Masem's poll (above), which failed, is why we're having a vote. He tried to wrap too many issues into one poll, so the decision was to split things into smaller, more digestable pieces. But the principle was to move the article, and reach agreement on other article titles and content. So we're voting now on the article title as part of the Arbcom ruling instructing us to reach agreement on a process. The process is not the vote on a single issue of an article title. The process is all the points outlined by Masem as a package. So where did the compromise that people agreed to suddenly get polarized into a single vote? In your heads gentlemen, in your heads. This vote for option "F" solves nothing, and effectively ends this project. We've stumbled at step one. We're right back where we started (and maybe even worse since there'll be a lot of angry and disappointed editors over this complete waste of time). --HighKing (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hes laughing because what you are saying is very funny. Its hard not to laugh at people inventing / changing history. Masems compromise failed so we agreed to put where the articles belong to the vote. what the hell do you think this poll has been on if you think we already decided where the article is going to be placed? ive never heard so much nonsense, jesus. There was never anything written down saying the articles will change, this process was to decide IF change was needed and if so to what. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BW. I don't want to fall out with you - but perhaps (like me earlier) you're letting frustration get the better of you. Calling another editor's opinion "nonsense" should even get you a block on the DrKiernan scale of blocking (but hey, you're British *and* you share his opinion, you've nothing to worry about) --HighKing (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for laughing but what you said was funny (and I'm sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful). You said we agreed to something, but if we did why are we having this vote?? If we agreed to go with 'D' then what are 'A', 'B', 'C', 'E' and 'F' doing on the ballot? Why did we have that "xxx" vote? Come on, man, this is ludicrous, you weren't hoodwinked on anything. All the other stuff (in-article use, other article titles, templates, etc.) is still all up in the air - and in fairness we're all basically agreed on that anyway. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's funny to you - after all, you've voted for "F" and fooled the rest of us into believing that you were interesting in solving this 7 year problem. And it is disrespectful - I've better things to be doing now than wasting my digital breath if it's only serving to amuse you. I'm not going to repeat my response either - if you're genuinely interested in having a discussion, go back and reread it, the answer to your question is there. But all the other stuff (in-article use, etc) is *connected* to the *same issue*. Without agreement on all, there is agreement on none. That's why a vote for "F" (which rejects compromise), will result in no cooperation or compromise on *any* issue. The sooner Masem declares this project over, the better. --HighKing (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsuspension notice. Carry on as normal, people. Unilateral "declarations" aren't helpful. The fact of the matter is that three people have struck out their votes, and two more removed them because they objected to being profiled. Over 150 people are still participating. I have seen no compromise offered, other than "The status quo is not acceptable, you should agree to move the article to something else other than what the majority want, you're being unreasonable if you don't." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think some people need to read the ballot -

• "As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter."
• "Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the state will be referred to in the text of other articles."
• "You are about to vote on the names of the Ireland articles. This is a poll of the Wikipedia community that will be binding for two years. The WikiProject Ireland Collaboration asks you to please make sure that you are familiar with all of the relevant issues before casting your vote." - How can anyone be unclear what this poll has been on? Why is it only now that people suggest we are voting on the wrong issue??? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And I think some people need to read the Arbcom ruling....and I also think some people should go back and check on what exactly was meant by "there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue". Which issue do you think is being referred to exactly? (hint: read the Closure section, Archive 9). --HighKing (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This collaboration project is the process Arbcom requested.. this process decided there was no way forward but a vote. This was accepted by many people, not just supporters of F. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You reckon all they wanted was a collaboration project. Interesting perspective. --HighKing (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They wanted a process to decide the naming dispute. This process was set up, it tried for 5 months to get consensus but it failed so the majority agreed with a vote open to the community. You should really read back on what has happened here. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unlike you, I've already read back, but feel free to take your own advice. So which is it? They wanted a process, or they wanted a collaboration project? Or are you still reading that bit? And over the 5 months, what was it that we were trying to get consensus on? What was the process? And when you get to the bit where having a vote was decided, what was it that we were trying to decide on at the time? (hint: I've already posted that answer above to sony). And why was the current vote a subset of the last poll by Masem? etc etc. Sorry for being smarmy here, but you can probably understand my frustration. I especially don't like the behaviour of a single editor being made the scapegoat for not compromising at all, but your comments and apparent ignorance of what how we got to the vote defies belief. --HighKing (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem will have to explain this for you. Your attempts to make out like we are voting on the wrong thing or there was no majority support is wrong. I am now more against compromise than i was an hour ago thanks to this nonsense. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

BW, nonsense? I suppose the name calling had start sometime. Real mature. --HighKing (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not know how else to responsd to nonsense. Would you prefer i lied and called this a very interesting and factual discussion? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you maybe do need Masem to clarify things for you, HK. Certainly I'm on record on this project, at various points during the discussion as insisting that the status quo be retained as an option in any decision or eventual vote, and nowhere was that rejected.

I'm still mystified, too, as to what "compromise" is being offered, because all I'm seeing is "The compromise is that the 'status quo' must change." And BritishWatcher may well be willing to agree to such a "compromise" if he's eventually worn down and gets his "Yes, yes, we all agree that RoI isn't a British POV imposition" - but that's useless to me because I already know that. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

People can claim what they like imo. When they do so, if they want or expect anybody but the usual suspects to go along with their personal assertions, they merely have to explain their silence when things like this are brought up. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Quote: "The aim of this project initially will be to bring editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland ,Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland, Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism together." Buckling and dying over the "Where does the republic go?" issue would fall sadly short of even attempting that goal, would it not? What HighKing should be saying is not that this project has come to its end but that it hasn't even been started yet. The Ireland naming issue is not the be all and end all and anyone signed up here who thought that was it should take their name down or reconsider? ~ R.T.G 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I will stress again what Remedy #1 from the ARbCom case said: The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement.

(Highlights are mine). So first, it can be easily seen out the door that people were clamoring for a vote, which, I don't know about you, but I read as clearly falling in line as being a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view. Heck, I'd even say with how ArbCom put this, they knew a vote would be the most likely outcome as the mechanism. So we've done that part successfully. I'd also say the means to develop "reasonably agreed-upon procedures" was also followed, as while I know there were some dissenters to the vote process, it was mostly agreed to and the details therein. There are people that are disputing this, but it needs to be taken as common sense just looking at this whole issue is that you have people embittered by the whole process that they aren't going to move one iota from their position, so of course they're going to look for disputes if their option is not going. For all practical purposes, the Collaboration Project has worked towards it resolution. It's people that are insisting that because that resolution is heading towards a solution they don't want that are bringing this down, but here again, I stress ArbCom's point: we were to try to assess consensus or majority view. Someone was going to lose here (insomuch as winning and losing mean anything on WP), but being a sore loser is not helping anyone.

Yes, we did make one mistake: this poll should have been private during polling to prevent the problems during the poll that we're seeing now, but we're getting it done, the interia for it is there. We still have a month left and we can still discuss alternate paths, though I strongly recommend editors not use the poll as a piece of blackmail to convince people to their side or another. AGain, I offer that we don't have to blindly access the STV winner as the answer, if there's clearly evidence that a solution, simply due to the STV process, would otherwise be more preferred even if not the first choice of all voters. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In otherwords 'calm down' folks & let's review the results in September & then go from there. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem, your interpretation is fine, to a point. To re-highlight a particular point of the Arbcom ruling; appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. This isn't about just the Article name. In fact, all along right up to the lead-up to the vote, we were talking about a comprehensive solution involving not only the naming of the article, but also related articles, and content within articles. The poll that you proposed which immediately lead to the decision to vote was a comprehensive solution. This failed to get consensus, in large part due to it being made up of smaller decisions where some editors might agree with 2 decisions but not agree with the 3rd, etc. So the answer at the time was taken to break it up into the component/smaller decisions and decide these seperately. All along, the article name decision was the one most editors had already agreed on, although not where the resultant article would reside. But all along, every comprehensive package discussed included this change. That's what most editors had signed up for. Look back in the archives, all the way back to Scolaire and Mooretwin's proposal, and see the list of editors that supported it. Roll the clock on for subsequent polls to see the list of editors who supported the comprehensive solution. The "mechanism" agreed, including voting, was in this context - the principle of that very same comprehensive solution. Nowhere was it agreed that we were abandoning this approach. Nowhere was it agreed to deal with each individual option as a stand-alone seperate decision.

The mistake wasn't that the poll should have been private. This mistake was to break the larger task up into smaller tasks in the belief that people would vote with the bigger picture in mind - the bigger picture being the shape of the comprehensive solution that was being discussed for 9 months prior to the vote. This vote has proved that it is not possible to vote on individual component parts, since editors did't believe that a "compromise" on one aspect (say the naming of the article) will carry over to a compromise on a subsequent vote (say the content of articles, or pipelinking, etc), the the fear of subsequent betrayal outweighed whatever good intentions were present beforehand. In effect, they got their retaliation in first.

Your statement that "someone was going to lose" only carries as far as this single step of a multi-step process. But the multi-step process will not go any further. Getting the retaliation in first has consequences, and the most obvious one being that polarized views will become even more entrenched, nothing will ever be decided by a British majority vote again where the opportunity to be "betrayed" exists, and agreement over the remaining items will fail resulting in the entire process failing.

That's the reality of where we are, and the consequences of this "F" vote. The only "sour grapes" I have is the amount of time and effort I put in here.

Some editors have contacted me and said that it isn't over and things can change between now and then. Seriously, I'd like to believe that. Right now though, I've no reason to believe it will happen. People who didn't realise the implications of the first vote, and who voted in good faith for "F" in a standalone vote situation, will resent this "gun to the head". In fact, anyone who voted for "F", if what is on these talk pages is anything to go by, has become more entrenched in their decision, not less. I don't believe I'm wrong in this, but I'd dearly love to be. --HighKing (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there were calls for a comprehensive package, but that did not gain wide acceptance compared to just voting on the article names, and, from someone trying to streamline the process, there's a good reason for this: every little decision that we're asking on a poll will exponentially increase the number of options we're asking pollers to reply to. The more options we ask, the more people we'll likely scare away on size, and the less feedback we get. For example, I forget the name, but there was a set of rules someone suggested for how to refer to the state in article text, which mostly had acceptance save for the fact that it presume ROI was an acceptable term. If we had included discussion the way the state should be described in article text along side its name, then we'd have likely had 3-4 additional options for each of the multi-faceted "rules of thumb" to put up in the poll. Suddenly one question with 6 choices becomes 6 questions and a total of 20-odd choices to review. That becomes nearly unmanagable in an environment like this, judging by the current poll. This doesn't mean that once the naming polling is all said and done, that concludes the project. As noted, no one should be moving pages (if that is needed) until after we also discuss - and if necessary present a secondary poll - what the side issues to page naming are and their resolution. This including the "Economy of X"-type articles and categories, and how to refer the island and state within article text. We are also not bound to strictly go by the results of the current poll - they need to guide us, and it would be disingenuous to accept the least-favored answer as the solution, but while SVT has strengths, it also has weaknesses that we can talk and decide to ignore.

This project is not done until it completes the package. The naming is the necessary first step to streamline the rest as it will necessarily drop out options for the other factors that would then contradict that.

But again, I stress the fact that ArbCom recognized that there was entrenchment of views here when they asked this project to figure out "consensus or majority". No one can help those that are already firmly fixed on their opinion; the best to hope for is to make them understand that this poll is helping identify the majority view at the present time, and to at least help to continue to improve the encyclopedia in all other aspects. The two-year binding part helps to make sure we review this poll; maybe between now and then there's some major news revelation that significantly alters the landscape of how people view the naming of the island and country, and thus a reassessment would be appropriate. And of course, WP:CCC. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You say that a comprehensive package did not gain widespread acceptance. That's true in so far as any specific comprehensive packages proposed didn't gain widespread acceptance, but the principle was agreed. Your specific proposal was the last comprehensive package polled, and it failed to get consensus. Again, to reiterate most strongly, not the principle of a comprehensive package, but the details within the package. Again, to reiterate most strongly, not the principle that the article name was to change, but the detail of where it needed to belong in the context of the other articles.

You've correctly identified that this poll isn't the last step. The elephant in the room though, is this first step - the problem I foresee is that there is a sense of "betrayal" about this vote - it was agreed on the back of editors from "both sides" discussing a multi-faceteded approach. The primary issue for many editors is the name of the article. But we now have a situation where this vote is currently showing support for the status quo - even though many editors agreed to change the article name. In truth, it was a leap of faith for editors to agree to a vote where a British majority would decide such an issue, but in the spirit of compromise it was agreed (although we still had dissenters). It would never have been agreed if a betrayal was suspected. Many editors feel rightly stitched up on this. The general feeling is now for editors to band together is strict hardline no-compromise attitudes and block further concessions.

So how can this be fixed? Hard to say, impossible to know. Genuinely, I don't see how any further progress can be made, even if suddenly this vote result swung to a different result. A lot has been said on various Talk pages which will be difficult to retract or forget in the context of the next time a leap of faith is required. Just my 2c for today. --HighKing (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet again - you can, if you wish, look at the poll as having three constituencies - British, Irish, and "Other". All three "constituencies", including Irish are currently voting in favour of one option. There is no "British majority". In fact, analysis of the voters/voting patterns has shown a net swing of precisely 4 British votes. (See poll talk page). In the face of this fact, it is pointless to keep talking about a "British majority". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is my first (and only) comment about the validity of profiling (which, btw, you were SO against if I recall). It's bunkum. For example, how many of the "Irish" are actually "Northern Irish" who are "British" and/or "Unionists"? The argument that they are as Irish as anyone else isn't in question - which is why profiling based on "country" is bunkum. What the poll is really trying to establish is that UK/British editors have a majority (which they do). Stuffing the "Irish" vote with what amounts to "British" voters is as invalid, and as contemptuous a tactic, as I've seen. And you should know better, because normally you try to be much more balanced and even handed. And another thing. Looking through the contributions of many of the "Other" voters shows many have edit histories on very specific English articles and British articles (and very few edit any Irish related articles). So let's put to bed each "side" trying to "prove" one thing or another using incomplete datasets and conspicuously dodgy collation techniques. It's a can of worms that just leads to more arguments. The fact that there is a "British" majority is obvious, but short of asking each editor to be accurately profiled (and trusting the result), the techniques used will only start other arguments. --HighKing (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was indeed against publishing a profile of voters on the Poll's talk page during the vote. I still am. The profiling I've conducted will stay off-wiki until the poll is over - and will certainly be open to correction. How many of the "Irish" are actually "Northern Irish" who are "British" and/or "Unionists"? From what I've recorded - zero, hopefully. Anyone from NI who didn't self-identify as Irish on a userpage is down as either "British" or "British assumed." "Stuffing the "Irish" vote with what amounts to "British" voters is as invalid, and as contemptuous a tactic, as I've seen." Where've you seen that done, then? Because I certainly haven't done it. If anything, I've overstocked the "Other" and "British" columns, e.g., where I can't see that the person with the Irish username actually says that they're Irish. Please - AGF. I would be all for an end to "each "side" trying to "prove" one thing or another using incomplete datasets and conspicuously dodgy collation techniques" - but the corollary of that is that claims about one "side" imposing it's majority on the other should also stop. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration means everyone working together, the poll has exposed the lie in that. We are not here to name the 'island and the country', we are here to solve a 'Wikipedian problem' and nothing else. About time ArbCom grew up and took their responsibilities, and less 'washing of hands'. Tfz 14:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem, all sound except that the vote was initiated under the premise that it would be binding for three years. Regarding WP:CCC, we have never had consensus on this, only mutually-exclusive alternatives and a majority view in favour of one. Consensus does change, and majority views change too, but despite countless repetitious polls this view has not changed in seven years. Leaving the result of this poll open-ended means it will be the same as every poll that has gone before it: it will close on Sept 13 and on Sept 14 another will open somewhere else.

This poll is binding for two year. That is what was agreed. All other matters are all still the air - although, in fairness, we are pretty much in consensus about them, I think. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This poll is binding for two year *only* if the entire process gets agreed. Arbcom did not give a mandate for merely renaming this article (which, I believe, is the mistake (and wrong assumption) being made here. Masem, please clarify. If not further agreement can be made on any other issue, the process to reach agreement dies (and therefore any sub-agreements made in order to agree the process die with it). Because it this isn't the case, better clarify now. --HighKing (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading Arbcom's decision, and the first remedy: "The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles", the scope of this project is technically limited to the island, country, disambig page, and the various articles of the style "Economies of (whatever we call the country") type articles. How the island or country is referred to in the body of other articles does not seem to be covered, but it clearly makes sense that this be considered after deciding th ename issue. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Masem, swift response. But you haven't addressed the precise query. You've mentioned a number of related (but different) items this process has to address. This vote addresses one item. I assume an all-or-nothing approach, in that if nothing more can be decided, then the process has failed. For example, if we chose to address "Economies of X" next, and we don't reach agreement (cos we are *never* going to agree a vote and get ... hung out to dry ... again), then what? There wasn't ant discussion or agreement that the article name decision would be maintained outside of the overall Arbcom process, so that would leave us back to square one. I'd just like to ensure clarity at this point, to sharpen everybody's awareness on the importance of compromise. --HighKing (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Then Remedy 2 kicks in, which means the decision how to go forward is taken from IECOLL and placed in three non-involved admins. But with the key poll being run right now I don't believe that step needs to be an issue; we just have to recognize that due to entrenchment, someone is always going to disagree with the results, the hope is to minimize that number. --MASEM (t) 11:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"If not further agreement can be made on any other issue, the process to reach agreement dies .." No page moves will take place until (what I'm calling) "the substantive matters" have been resolved. But I don't think that gives right to filibuster or any other form or obstructionism to anyone. If the vote returns a result you or I don't like, we don't have the right to walk away from the process and say it collapsed and therefore the vote counts for nothing. We agreed to a vote, and agreed we would be bound to it. I agree there is more to discuss, but refusing to discuss it (or derailing it in any way) will not nullify the vote. Masem? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A secondary poll might well be useful. -- Evertype·✆ 07:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

@HighKing: "nothing will ever be decided by a British majority vote". Quite correct. The poll on Ireland article names is an en-WP-wide poll. British, Irish, and "Other" all get to vote. And the last time I checked, each of those three "constituencies" all favoured one option. The claim of imposition of a title on Ireland-related articles by British wikipedians is a complete red herring. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Each don't. Of course, your analysis is off-wiki. Care to email it to me? --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

@Evertype: Such as the one Masem mentions above on "what the side issues to page naming are and their resolution. This including the "Economy of X"-type articles and categories, and how to refer the island and state within article text."? I honestly think we can get consensus on a lot of those issues, and starting another poll soon after the... er... drama we've had on the current poll might be (even more) polarising/divisive? I wouldn't object to one, but I do think we should look at the possibility of achieving consensus on the other issues first. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. I'm *still* waiting for Masem to clarify the question I asked above, but this poll is not a stand-alone poll. If we can't reach agreement on a process for all issues, then this vote won't be binding. Once the process fails, all constituent parts also fail. --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Substantive issues

There's a lot of bad feeling brewing up again and a sense of "winner-takes-all" regarding a result to the vote. First, I'll begin by saying that what I signed up for with this vote was just that - a vote. The result, I had thought was agreed, was to be binding for two years. But there's still a long time left to go and our energies would be much better spent, I think, looking at constructive things.

With that in mind, I'd like to propose that we look at the wider issues now, while the vote is on-going. I think this is an opportune time to look at these things because:

1. Looking at them now will head of a bad tempered/triumphalist discussion after one options "wins" on September 13th
2. Having these discussions now, I think, will favour those editors not align to the option that looks like it is going to "win" right now (since those editors in favour of that option will be less inclined to rock the boat and will be more, I think, inclined to agree with arguments from the other side not just for the sake of peace but for the sake of compromise).

The substantive issues, as I see them, are:

• Titles (except IRL/ROI/dab):
  • Use of ROI/IRL in article titles
  • Use of ROI/IRL in category titles
  • Redirects between ROI/IRL articles/categories
  • Dabbing of ROI/IRL
• In-article use of ROI/IRL
• Use of ROI/IRL in templates

Is there will to discuss these matters now? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not know - serious damage has been done - perhaps all need a "time out" ? -- ClemMcGann (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Having something to talk about here that we have some control over (unlike the vote which we cant really do anything about now its started) will allow us to focus on things that need sorting anyway. Its probably best to try and sort such things now and forget the ongoing poll for the time being, if we are here we aint fighting each other elsewhere. Although i think we should focus on how to use Ireland/ROI in text because that doesnt have any impact from how the vote goes. The naming of other articles / templates is more impacted by whats chosen there. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Pretty cheeky/disrespectful to stitch us up on this part of the current process and expect to continue with the rest? That's not what is generally understood when we talk about reaching a compromise. That's generally not what's understood when 6 months of discussions recognized that the article title has *always* been the biggest obstacle to reaching agreement. You've seriously got to be joking (probably why you've been leaving LOL's all over the place). This process is broken. Opportunity spurned. Back to the drawing board to reach agreement on a new one. One that deals with the entire issue and concentrates on the bigger picture. --HighKing (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We can go back to the drawing board if you want HighKing, You can argue for another 6 months why you think the article should be moved and others will oppose it. Shall we keep doing this till we are all dead? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it, HighKing. What result exactly did you expect a vote was going to give us? A popular vote will give us the order of preference for a sample of the community. That is exactly what we are going to get. Personally, I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) that the status quo looks likely to prevail, but that is clearly what this sample of the community wants. That is not a stitch up in any way shape or form.

If editors wish to withdraw because they disagree with the process, result, or the inherent biases that any poll has, then that is their prerogative. However, all those things were evident at the beginning (we knew that the process was, we knew there was going to be a result that would not satisfy everyone and we knew the limits of a poll), so there is no reason whatsoever to justify retroactively invalidating a poll on this basis. If there is one thing that I have learned on Wikipedia is that toys always get thrown out of prams. I have no doubt whatsoever if the result went the other way there would be at least editor who would withdraw in protest. Like it or not, the poll result will tell us exactly what it was designed to do: it will identify the preference for a sample of the community. If it turn out that F tops that preference, then it is clearly not the case that the current the article title is the problem in the eyes of that sample.

We set our stall out at the beginning: we have discussed and debated to no avail. We decided a poll would be the only way to move forward. Unless there is evidence that the poll has an previously unforseen flaw, there is no good reason to abandon it now. Rockpocket 19:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the bias demonstrated (which Rock now calls "the inherent biases that any poll has" and which several British editors are still denying exists in this case) has changed the situation. It has demonstrated that this issue cannot be decided by a vote, because British pov will always be imposed on the article. Furthermore the censorship and intimidation of Irish editors has invalidated the process even if the political bias didn't exist. The poll is dead. So I have no problem discussing the options. Sarah777 (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, when the smoke clears, I may be the only editor left standing. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks G'Day, that was helpful. Also Rock, how you can maintain that "If it turn out that F tops that preference, then it is clearly not the case that the current the article title is the problem in the eyes of that sample" solves anything?! 90% plus of those editors never edit the article; a majority of those who live in the place object to the title; a significant number of the editors active on the article (haven't "profiled" them) object to the title. Nothing solved; political imposition of British pov confirmed - that is the only lesson learned. Sarah777 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If theres any bias in the setup of the poll, its against F not in favour of it. F gets the majority of first pref votes, but because we are using STV F has to take on all other votes combined. First past the post would of made it alot easier for F to win, especially if wed of banned all this vote changing that is happening. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty convenient for many editors here to forget that this vote was one step in a longer process. This step is not a stand-alone vote. So how do you think the discussions on .. how to dab within content, say ... is likely to go? Right now, instead of the majority of editors voting together (from "both sides) to reach agreement, we'll end up to *not* agree on a vote the next time, and we'll fail to reach consensus because one "side" can't be trusted, and this process will be shown to be broken. Back to the drawing board. --HighKing (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is but one step. There have been steps before it and there will be steps after it. So lets take the result for what it is, and move to the next step (which is DAB). Unless you have a miraculous solution to achieve what proved impossible before (a consensus based approach) then going back to the drawing board on the article name issue is not constructive. No process is perfect, but rather than decry the problems with this one, does anyone actually have a practical, workable alternative to offer? Rockpocket 20:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, right up till the middle of June, while we were discussing this step, you have to remember that we were discussing it in the context of a bigger package of compromise. There's (obvious) dependencies between steps. Right up until June, we were talking about the bigger package, with editors from "both" sides agreeing. Except, now that it comes to a vote to ratify it, we get this farce. Check the archives. Archive 9, section related to Closure. Look at the Masem's proposal. It didn't fail to reach consensus on the principal of compromise, especially renaming the article. It failed because the proposal was too big and needed to be broken down - hence this vote on the first step. But if people don't follow through on step 1, they've only themselves to blame if the process fails at the first step. All very well to say "Move on, lots more to do", but you won't get a consensus for anything more. This process it broken. A vote for "F" is a vote to retain the status quo, and all the baggage and disruption that comes with it. I hoped, as did other editors, that common sense would rule the day. More fool me. I won't be taken in again. Sad thing is, this is just going to result in more entrenchment and disruption than previously, since some editors will likely use this "vote" as an endorsement of the status quo. --HighKing (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well assuming it remains as it currently is, this result of this vote 'is an endorsement of the status quo. I struggle to understand any other interpretation. You seem to be coming from a position where the status quo is an unacceptable result and therefore if it remains there will be further disruption until it is changed. The status quo is no more inherently incorrect or unacceptable then any other option. This result was always a possibility of the process we agreed on. It is not a good reason to discard it because a noisy minority vows to continue to dispute it. Rockpocket 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with HighKing on this one. That's why I advocate that people avoid giving votes to A, B, and F—none of those are compromises. (I think the main reason we see F in the lead is voters who give a weight to all six options rather than leaving some off. Maybe Rannṗáirtí can crunch numbers and see about this. -- Evertype·✆ 07:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Maybe Rannṗáirtí can crunch numbers and see about this." (Surprisingly, maybe) it's the complete opposite. "F" blazes the field on first preferences. At the last count I did, 77 votes made 50%+1 and "F" had 71 first-preference votes (i.e. it almost wins on the first count). "F" does less well on transfers, with transfers going to "F" at a rate of 2:5. But even discounting transfers to it, "F" is still the most popular option by 11 votes (i.e. 60 votes for "E" after transfers, 71 votes for "F" counting first prefences alone). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Preference figures here. Counting first and second preferences combined, F wins. 1st,2nd and 3rd F wins. add 4th, 5th or 6th F wins. Least disliked option (lowest number of no prefs) F wins. Add 6th prefs to that, F wins. Add 5th... you get the idea. Whichever way we measure it now F is both the most liked and least disliked option among the Wikipedia community. Valenciano (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, its a conflict creating option not a conflict reduction one. However its the status quo ...--Snowded ^TALK 12:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This process was set up to resolve the problem, there was never any condition that the article titles had to change. If the majority of the community support the status quo then they do not consider the reasons for change to be enough to justify that change. Once the articles are locked into position for 2 years it will reduce the conflict because no one will have anything to gain from fighting over it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That is very naive BW, naming the article will not prevent major debates over what name is used on other articles. Other related issues (British Isles) for example will become become proxy battle grounds. Its never good in a conflict for one side to win the major battle (something Everytype has been trying to explain to you). --Snowded ^TALK 13:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It will resolve the problem of the main articles by locking them into place and provided we get a very very detailed explanation on when to use Republic of Ireland in text and other article titles then there will be less room for dispute. As for the British isles, there are always ongoing battles over that anyway, i see that as a reason why changing article titles here may set a bad precedent.

I have said i support compromise and that is still the case, but it must be on certain conditions and that includes the acceptence that Republic of Ireland is NOT British POV and that such comments should be considered a violation of WP:AGF. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Gerrymandering concern

Here is a way of affecting the outcome of a vote. Walk into the polling station waving your arms while the vote is underway and convince everybody there was a problem in the government and all votes are off. Everybody goes home. You, and anyone you have shared your plan with, enter the votes you please. For this reason I would like to see the above section started by HighKing removed for at least as long as the voting is open on Ireland naming disputes. I do not wish to suggest that HighKing is plotting or intending to undermine those votes but I must point out clearly that if anything could, this is it. I hope HighKing himself can consider this. Telling everyone to go home that the polling station is closed while votes are still open is just not on, even if he meant no harm and has good basis for every word. Remove it and anything else that might suggest voting is off or invalid until voting ends.

• If I only came here because I got a reminder on my talk page and the section with the BOLDEST LETTERING said "This vote is invalid!"... where does that lead?

• Nobody will hurt if that section is removed immediately. ~ R.T.G 23:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Looks like the F voters go to bed early and get up late!Sarah777 (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You appear to miss the point. I'm not saying that this vote is closed, I'm saying the "process" is broken. This vote is not the process. The vote is one step in a multi-step process. I'm pointing out the consequences of "F" - which hopefully, yes, will affect the vote. Anybody who is interested in actually really solving this dispute should be aware of the consequences of an "F" vote. I've replied to Masem above in more detail - probably better to read it there than repeat it here. --HighKing (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You wrote a sign saying "NOTICE:" this project is false, everything is finished already. You are directly disrupting the project, making it appear the project is invalid, while it co-ordinates a vote on one of its key principles. The discussion between you and Massem further down the section isnt related to this problem. Going around putting up signs like "SUSPENSION NOTICE" is vandalism. I am getting annoyed that you would discuss it without correcting it. ~ R.T.G 19:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It should have been reverted immediately that anyone pointed out the problem. I have altered the section accordingly. ~ R.T.G 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept your alteration and your reasoning. --HighKing (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Recurring edit themes noted on talkpages

You/we have a dominating theme on this project at the moment. In that spirit I would like to draw attention to editors that it is useful to note recurring debates on articles talk pages (in template at top of page). Such a notice will have to be stuck at the top of the Ireland, ROI, talkpages after the vote, for example. There are often recurring debates of less concern but if they have a recurring outcome it is helpful to note them on the top of the talkpage with the most relevant debate/outcome (as possible). There is often an edit on Voyager (Star Trek) about Seven of Nine. Her human name in the series is Onica Hansen but on startrek.com it is Annika Hansen so the latter is maintained by a lot of reverts. It probably wont help prevent those edits by noting anything on the talkpage but it would give any debater the thread of any previous discussion. I don't know if anyone finds any point to this section as that is the only example I had but people do note these things sometimes. (Something like "An edit that is often reverted on this article is..." at top of page where it wont be archived or made into a discussion... sensible yes? Relevant to present no?) ~ R.T.G 22:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about "after the vote". The process as it has unwound is clearly not what Arbcom mandated. Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Template or FAQ on the pages would be useful, after the everything has been agreed here following the vote BritishWatcher (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see much evidence that there will be any agreement after this poll. Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

no matter how the poll goes? If F loses will you be feeling the same way? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Then, the problem would be resolved, as none of the remaining options could are British pov. Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

lol i see so the vote is fine aslong as F doesnt win. Thats fair BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

lol - so there's no intention to actually fix this issue. lol I thought that was the whole point - ololol fix the issue, not silence the protesters. lol --HighKing (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As it's a poll relating to Ireland can't we just vote again until we get the "right" result? Valenciano (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We all should wait 'til September 13th. There'll be plenty of disputes then. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If they stop attacking me I'll stop responding. Sarah777 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the Chicken or the egg thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm the chicken and you're the egg! Sarah777 (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am suggesting to write "Annika Hansen (pron. same as Onica)" and if it was like that nobody tried to change it there will be a lot less reverts on that page. What you lot are on about I don't know. First there was a cell (boilogy). One day the most greediest bit ate the rest and broke out/hatched screaming "MORE CELL PLEASE!!?" or "WEEAUGH!!?" So, at first there was a cell, inside the cell became a chicken/life-form. The moment the chicken made its way outside the cell, hatched, the cell was now been the chickens egg all along. But, the egg was there before it was an egg, just that it was a cell with a chicken in it. ~ R.T.G 02:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Another good reason to support option "F", eh? In fact, easily the most convincing reason yet given. Sarah777 (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Suppport suggestion by RTG per Sarah777 and norm. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just made the "Weeaugh!!" bit up myself really ~ R.T.G 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Desire for compromise - a straw poll

(Note: I moved this from the ballot talk page to here as this has little to do with the ballot or poll, but what can be done after the poll specifically regarding the IECOLL Project. Also a warning: Watch the personal attacks and uncivil behavior. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

At least two people have said that since the poll started there is an increased desire on all sides for some sort of compromise solution. At least one editor has said that there already was agreement on a compromise before the poll started. Someone said that the people who voted F were really voting against titles with parenthesis, another that it was natural conservatism rather than an attachment to the title, or that deep down they'd really prefer E. I propose a straw poll to measure the strength of feeling on both sides for a compromise. The straw poll does not presuppose the outcome of the poll - there is still nearly a month to go and the current situation could be reversed. "Compromise" by my definition would involve overturning whatever the poll result was in favour of an alternative. Theoretically this could involve a victory for change being overturned by a compromise that keeps the status quo while making concessions to satisfy the "change" side. Answering yes to the first question precludes anwering yes to the second and third, but the second and third questions are not mutually exclusive. The fourth relates to what has already happened and is not dependent on the answer to the other three questions. Scolaire (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A straw poll like this is bunkum. We agreed to conduct a vote and to be bound by it. Now that the tallies are coming in, and it is becoming clearer which option will likely "win", of course those who do not support that option are back-pedaling. Suddenly they are saying that "compromise" is possible - even those that cried most loudly that it was impossible before the votes started coming in. *shakes head in disgust* --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If Scolaire wants to 'move' this straw to his Userpage? I won't mind. Afterall, 2 polls simultaneously occuring, can be stressful. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, or WT:IECOLL. Placing it here will be misleading IMHO. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Both would be acceptable locations. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I think we need to see whether people are agreeing to be bound by it, and to know just how many are "back-pedaling". We also need to test whether those who voted F "really meant" to vote F or not. When the poll is over, the evidence will be there for all to see. Scolaire (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We did see that people were agreeing to be bound by it ... then the votes began and suddenly "compromise" is the word of the day, replacing ochón is ochón ó and caoineadh chun Masem. Shifting goal posts.

In any event, holding a poll such as this on the ballot page itself gives mixed messages. The vote is on-going, we can agree to stop it, but let's not wash our lenin in public. This is a "private matter" for the members of WP:IECOLL since we are the ones that are agreeing to be "bound" by the vote. It' belongs on the main WT:IECOLL page not here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with it being moved to IECOLL if all of the above "compromise" sections are moved at the same time. I am not prepared to have people, including Masem, say "it's perfectly fine to f*** with the result because that's what everybody wants", while a poll showing it's not what everybody wants is stuck away where nobody will read it or take part. Scolaire (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree.. cut and paste all this to the collaboration page right away please. This is simply going to confuse people who are coming here to vote in the main poll. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree to be bound by it irrespective of my analysis of the !votes. But I must say if this poll-in-a-poll was my poll Masem above would have driven it out of town. Pronto. Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it all to this page Masem. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Voters favouring the status quo

Voters who believe the outcome of the poll should be implemented, whatever it is

• Scolaire (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• BritishWatcher (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Voters favouring change

Voters who believe the outcome of the poll should be implemented, whatever it is

• GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• With the caveat that a very close result should be looked to see if there is a more acceptable alternative. Rockpocket 17:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Per Rockpocket Pfainuk talk 17:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Given that certain people will be clinically unable to drop this issue regardless of how many hoops we jump through, we may as well reach a binding decision ASAP. ~ mazca ^talk 19:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Voters who believe there was already agreement to change before the poll was opened

• Tfz 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• ClemMcGann (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Voters who believe this straw poll has been designed to cause needless polarisation

• Hans Adler 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• --Snowded ^TALK 19:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC) (although properly not intentionally, Agree with Evertype overall position on need for change to achieve any lasting peace
• Fmph (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Can't believe we are having a poll about a poll. Sarah777 (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Can't believe I'm agreeing with Sarah --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• It's not often Sarah and I agree - when we do, it's worth listening too ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• I believe in miracles, where you been, you sexy.... Ahem, sorry. This poll adds nothing constructive. Jack forbes (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  (Could I get two more votes for agreeing with Bastun and RA?) Jack - down boy, down, sit! Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I do not see what the point of this is. Even the construction of choices makes little sense to me, and having a poll on a poll is just bizarre. john k (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Good gods. -- Evertype·✆ 22:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Users who can see clearly that certain discussions are not permissible such as:- "What if everyone who voted 'A' was imagined to voted 'F' cos they wurz talking funny and we changed it like that, like we knew because 'F' was more like they wanted and becarze that warz whut theys all-ways wanted?" and/or "Who wills be up for burning the buildings as soon as peaceful voting is finished now boys and girls?" and believe that such unpermissible discussion should be reduced to content warnings or, more apropriately, deleted with a suitable explaination in the edit summary field

• Yes! Coos and vote rigging are not open to debate. ~ R.T.G 15:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The word is "coups". -- Evertype·✆ 22:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My Lord RTG! - you can't spell even when writing in gibberish. Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Read it Coup de force (Coo de foe. Expression Francais. Our letters represent sounds.) ~ R.T.G 23:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to administer a Coup de grace but Machiavelli said...y'know. Can't say it here. Masem watchin' Sarah777 (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Voters who believe any issues about overturning the poll are for arbcom

• Anybody even attempting to overturn this poll in favour of something else needs to put their proposal before arbcom, because like it or not, this poll is the result of an arbcom sanctioned resolution process. Me personally, I am relishing the thought of certain defenders of WP:NPOV putting their logic and reasoning infront of the people who get paid to apply NPOV to all sorts of contentious areas day in day out. If it happens, I am confident we will all finally be shown how to properly account for POV in a poll on Wikipedia, learning the difference between a simplistic count and a proper analysis, and learning the difference between showing something exists, and showing it has a net effect. What the community must not tolerate after the poll is incessant site wide insinuation, whiny bullshit or disruption, instead of the objectors taking it to arbcom, per do not feed the trolls. MickMacNee (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No. This poll is clearly not the process sanctioned by Arbcom. Anyone who wishes to force the results of this poll against the wishes of the huge majority of Irish ("RoI") editors on the various articles need to explain that to Arbcom. Note the aggressive threatening language above. That is what a busted flush sounds like. "people who get paid to apply NPOV"??? Who gets paid to apply NPOV? Are folk like MacMick actually paid to promote a pov?? Sarah777 (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Voters who can no longer be bothered voting on a poll about a poll on a poll

• Jack forbes (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Damn! I just voted) :(

Comments

Hans, the way you've set up the last section is a contradiction. "unless a compromise is found before it's over" can only mean that if a compromise is "found", the outcome of the poll should not be implemented. Your vote is therefore "it should be implemented, or it should not", which is meaningless. Scolaire (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume Hans means that if a compromise is generally agreed to, the poll should not be implemented, but that if this is not the case, it should be. john k (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just what I said - it should or it shouldn't. Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Forget it, changed my vote. I realised that the straw poll seems designed to stress disagreements and polarisation. Hans Adler 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Or the lack of it, if it turns out (as I believe) that we actually do want to implement this poll. Scolaire (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant polarisation about what a compromise would look like. Your options are forcing people who would prefer a compromise to a narrow poll result to decide now what this compromise would have to look like. That's not how a compromise is found and leaves out all those who don't really care about the outcome so long as everybody else can live with it. Hans Adler 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The way it is set up to an uninvolved editor the default current position appears to be the least disruptive to Wikipedia, unless you have intimate knowledge. We also have a lot of US editors who see "state" in their own cultural context so are uncomfortable with that option (although it was a near consensus before the poll. Personally I think the result of the poll should be eliminate extremes and then select from the second choices which have a chance of gaining support from all bar the extremes. To those who think that a majority vote for F will end the debates, sorry guys you are deluded, what will happen is proxy battles on multiple pages around this issue, British Isles etc. etc. Oh and thats not a threat as I have no intention of doing anything like that, its just the prediction of an editor with all too much experience of these issues, --Snowded ^TALK 19:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Define 'extremes'? Do you mean the 2 most popular options? If so then I oppose 100%. Fmph (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Several of us have defined them. F is one extreme, although it has moderate support it also causes offence to nationalists and undue celebration for unionists, it was also specifically withdrawn by the British Government as a name in the GFA so its tied up with some very complex political symbolism. At the other extreme using Ireland for the state is an extreme (reverses the above). The second most popular at the moment, is a compromise solution. --Snowded ^TALK 20:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• "[F] causes offence to nationalists and undue celebration for unionists..." Where? As an Irish nationalist I take offense at a British editor telling me what I am or am not offended at! Find me a reference that says that Irish nationalists are offended by it. Find me a reference that says that it is "celebrated" by unionists.

Indeed, Unionists were historically very reluctant to call the state the "Republic of Ireland" and traditionally preferred "Irish Republic," "Eire," or "Southern Ireland." john k (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get that, I don't think you are correct. RoI is the preferred name used by unionists. I have never heard unionists use Eire all that much. Southern Ireland is another popular description with NI unionists. Tfz 21:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See, for example, discussion in that oft-mentioned but clearly little read article, The Irish Free State/Éire/Republic of Ireland/Ireland: “A Country by Any Other Name”? (page 84): "...Sir Basil Brooke, Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, objected to the title 'Republic of Ireland,' because he claimed, it 'was intended to repeat Eire’s claim to jurisdiction over the whole island.'" --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also very obvious if you read the Dáil records concerning the Republic of Ireland Act. And it makes perfect sense: In an English language context, "Eire" can be read as referring only to those parts of Ireland where Gaelic plays a significant role, and I guess that that is how it was read at the time. Hans Adler 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• "...it was also specifically withdrawn by the British Government as a name in the GFA..." Where? Here is the GFA quote me where ROI is "specifically withdrawn" by the British Government.
• "At the other extreme using Ireland for the state is an extreme (reverses the above)." What?? That is the name of the state. Internationally recognised. It is not an "extreme" POV in any sense.
• "The second most popular at the moment, is a compromise solution." It is the solution with the least support among Irish editors and members of WP:IECOLL.

It's a shame there isn't less pontificating about history and politics and more attention paid to facts. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The pro-F pundits have been pontificating and deliberating on this page for days on end, and never heard a whisper from you about it. Your credibility on that score has gone quite flaky. Tfz 21:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Methinks that someone doesn't understand the differance between nationalists and republicans. For the record, in very simplistic terms, republicans tend to have problems with the use of RoI, but nationalists often don't. /hides-in-the-corner-and-awaits-the-flak Fmph (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It was specifically "nationalists" that it was said it was offensive to - I would, however, say that what is offensive to "republicans" is of a more transient and opportunistic nature. /joins-you-in-the-corner-and-awaits-the-flak --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So very true RA. Of course I have pointed that out many times. That's why I like to distinguish Irish (RoI or NI nationalist) from British and Other editors rather than worry about their politics. It's an WP:NPOV thing. Sarah777 (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OMG, what on earth is all this.. Ive not read it all yet but what a mess. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It it apparent you don't know the essential difference between Northern nationalists, Southern nationalists, Republicans and Southern Pseudo Brits. The vast majority of Irish people are Southern or Northern nationalists with periodically triggerable Republicanism. Sarah777 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Voters who believe there should be change, regardless of the outcome of the poll and Voters who believe there was already agreement to change before the poll was opened from the status quo section and Voters who believe the status quo should remain, regardless of the outcome of the poll from the Voters for Change section should be deleted.surely they dont apply? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope these options are supposed to be two variants of "I would prefer a compromise to implementing the result of the poll, and in my opinion the compromise must look like this: ...". That's exactly what I criticised above. But you are right, there is a more sinister meaning which is also what I saw at first. Hans Adler 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the wording on the options, to make them less "sinister". Scolaire (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

lol, thanks for the changes it makes alot more sense now. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is absolute crap. The first paragraph says something about people who vote F but deep down they really mean E. Well I voted F and deep down I really dont want this kind of discussion: "RTG and others meant E deep down really cos we said so." That is nonesense. You are going to have a little vote here to see if my vote for F doesnt count? When everybody votes F = No change you dont run around trying to say "Oh but what if you wanted change really subconciously!?". Nobody is to change that. Compromise may be reaching but coercion is off the cards. This crap ends here. End, Stop, Fini, Irrellevant, Unacceptable, Too little, Too late, Too brittle, Must break. Nobody is changing anybody elses opinion, end. It is not the state that Ireland is in but, it is a state that is within Ireland. No change my vote. No read other peoples views to be more or different than they say themselves. No coercion. No colouring in when folks are writing in black and white. Goodbye and good luck in that order thanks. ~ R.T.G 09:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder when I said "Gerrymandering" above was I just off the mark? ~ R.T.G 09:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As usual. Sarah777 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and suggestions on vote tampering

I want to start threatening editors who come up with enormously long discussions starting with things like "SUSPENSION NOTICE" and "They voted F but deep down they really mean E." I want to provide a real threat that editors starting or making large contributions to these discussions might be temporarily barred from the project for lets say a month or something? Does that make a bit of sense? ~ R.T.G 09:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To qoute yourself This is absolute crap. You say you want to stop editors ...who come up with enormously long discussions... and start a thread that is going to kick off a huge debate IMO. It is up to Masem to take control instead of being reactive he must be proactive if as it seems he can see nothing wrong, as he took no action, then threats of blocking editors by you are a waste of time. BigDunc 10:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not just let readers make up their own mind. When people claim "Someone voted this way, but really meant to vote another" I think most of us draw our own conclusions. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I can't make anything clear out of what Dunc is saying and as for Skinsmoke, there must be a line, putting up false suspension notices and discussing disregard of clear voted intentions or even worse, claiming them to be something else, an option voted against. These are the areas beyond the line ladies and genties. What, if something else, would you say are the lines or are you just saying "There is no lines man!"? They call it rigging an election. It is off the cards. If that is so, rigging type discussion along with invalid suspension notices are immediately for the bin. Yes you guessed it, improper conduct is barred from the site and we remove it by way of concensus. If we do not, the wheel comes around and the note says "Look at the way they were running this vote on collaboration page!! Nagnagnagnagnagnagnagnagnagnag, nag, blah, nag, blah, blah." Some people have evaluated options through a process of exhaustion. It follows that they are exhausted now and need told when to sit down if they are dropping things that can break? If Massem holds the cards I suggest he think about evaluating things that are certainly off the cards such as "SUSPENSION NOTICE!" and "What if some of the F votes were really E votes?" and closing those discussions as and when they appear, just to be fair? At least the lads are giving us a good show of "What not to discuss in voting rooms." and "Election rigging for dummies." ~ R.T.G 13:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, such a Poll as this will inevitably cause national tensions between editors. Thus it's best not to block anyone, while this Poll is in motion. Personally, I think the editors in these discussions have managed to keep their cool. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think RTG can block anyone. Of course I'm being WP:BOLD here. Sarah777 (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tension is one thing. Putting up suspension notices, discussing the best method to doctor opinion polls and taking names for an "overturn" of general views without anyone batting an eyelid; is possible to view as symptomatic of an undesireable course. To say the least, even if nothing truly sinister is plotted here, we don't want any chance it looked like that on the way in or we just aren't concerned that things settle comfortably. Oh look, do what you like I lack restraint myself on these pages. I just think that the main collaborators around here are much more capable of being beyond reproach. The whole problem here is reproach and ye are either surpassing it or sliding back in and each slide is probably deeper. It is certainly looking a bit more provocative with these two undermine sections. I'm sorry for outbursting but if another dodgy notice springs up or another debate based around "How do we translate the views of folks who aren't saying much." there will be attention and maybe someone has to block me unless someone calmer can start saying what is not possible along with what is. Real collaboration is not less than that. ~ R.T.G 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Behaviour reminder

This page has been recently getting more hostile, with no specific editor as the source for the hostility. However, no one has crossed any hard lines that one would normally seek administrative action to correct.

I strongly remind everyone to keep their cool and stay civil. It is possible to argue without dipping towards personal attacks.

As such, unless there is a clear disruption by a single editor, if this page continues to digress towards more hostility, I will consider seeking full protection of this talk page for a few days to let everyone cool their heads. Same goes on the ballot's talk page.

Remember: nothing is going to happen to the page titles come the end of the poll. We still have other matters to resolve, much less the poll results. And remember that nearly everyone involved here has been over these same arguments over and over and over again.

A tip I learned from earlier confrontations: if you're about to post in anger - stop, take a step back, check your watchlist, get a cup of coffee, or anything else besides reading this page, and then come back a few minutes later and see if there's a reasonable reasonable response. Not every comment needs a response, and sometimes it's better to let someone else have the last word. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's me outta here! G'night. Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For myself, I regret that my "straw poll" came across as hostile and that it generated such hostility. In hindsight, it was poorly thought out and had a good deal of unhealthy emotion behind it. I would be quite happy for that entire section to be deleted if there was a consensus for it. Scolaire (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah. It's a good reminder. -- Evertype·✆ 19:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Post-September 13th

The poll ends tomorrow evening, and so it would seem appropriate to look at what happens after. R.A., above, has outlined the main issues:

• Titles (except IRL/ROI/dab):
  • Use of ROI/IRL in article titles
  • Use of ROI/IRL in category titles
  • Redirects between ROI/IRL articles/categories
  • Dabbing of ROI/IRL
• In-article use of ROI/IRL
• Use of ROI/IRL in templates.

Are there any other issues that need to be added to that list? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems to cover it all. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The validity of a poll which goes against the clearly expressed preference of the editors living in what Wiki currently describes as the "Republic of Ireland". The imposition of British POV on the article about this country. Sarah777 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But the Poll isn't the topic. We discussing how the repulic & island articles shall be shown in Wiki articles content. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't discuss the issues above in isolation from the poll? Or maybe we can ignore the poll, is that what you are suggesting? I'd agree with that. Sarah777 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, we don't know the results of the Poll yet. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - which is why Bastun's suggestion is premature. Nor do we have any idea of the legitimacy of the poll or of its implications. Sarah777 (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are any believable claims of an inherent bias coming from people who can actually demonstrate they know how to interpret the poll in terms of NPOV (clue:it's not done by counting your fingers and toes), should go to arbcom. Any tedious moaning, bitching and whining, goes in the bin. MickMacNee (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And you are...who...exactly? Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a guy who knows how to interpret polling statistics properly and neutrally. MickMacNee (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And who knows that issues with arbcom remedies can only be appealed to arbcom. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I aint even getting into the debate on what happens next till the poll closes, 24 hours is a long time!. Although the first thing on the agenda will be dealing with the complaints / validity of the poll as mentioned by Sarah after is closes. She obviously has alot of objections to raise, i think theres quite a few voters of E who are clearly sockpuppets and trying to rig the vote to counter her arguments. But we can start the fun and games in 24 hours when the poll closes. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Those who've committed sockery at this Poll will (hopefully) have their multiple votes deleted. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Who are they? Names please? Sarah777 (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Now, that's a qood question. Hopefully, all votes are legit. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Who cares, the poll was questionable from the start. Null and void was the word used, I think. Welcome to Encyclopedia Britipedia, at least that's where it's headed. Tfz 21:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If one doesn't care, why the frustrations? GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Whois frustrated, not me buddy. Tfz 21:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a little list of votes i am rather uncomfortable with and im sure that others do too. Im not going to be naming names here and now. Only if its needed when the poll is closed, although it should not even be needed if nothing changes in the vote. The community will have spoken. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(After ec, @Tfz): What a shame the facts don't bear out your allegation. A majority of Irish editors, as well as a majority of British editors, as well as a majority of non-Irish/non-British editors, all favour Option F (so far). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. A very substantial majority of Irish editors are against F. Sarah777 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect if, and only if, as you were doing, you use some weird system of "anti-counting"... "x number voted against F, which is more than those who voted for F, therefore a majority of Irish editors are against F". The truth, inpalatable as it may be to you, is that under the PR:STV / IRV system - which this poll uses - the winner, counting only Irish editors, is (likely to be) F. Your method of counting, when applied to the other options, also shows that F is the least unpopular among Irish editors (or at least it did the last time I checked using your "anti-counting" method. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sooo... back on topic, post-September 13th... I don't know what the best way of dealing with this issues is. A subsection for each one? Or a unified proposal? In the absence of inspiration, I'm going to kick off with one that I think won't be controversial (but by all means feel free to propose alternative methods of dealing with the outstanding issues):

In-article use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland

• Proposal: Within articles, where the context is clear, links to Ireland the island and Ireland the state remain the same. The term "Republic of Ireland" only needs to be used when there is ambiguity that cannot be resolved from the context; such as, for example, in the title of the Wikipedia article.

Please indicate your support/opposition below by signing your name (without adding comments). Comments can be added in the discussion area below.

Support:

• Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Valenciano (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Fmph (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Scolaire (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

• BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• ~ R.T.G 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Only because I don't think we should "freeze frame" at this moment, we should work to arrive at guidelines for when to use the terms, if that means changing articles that currently go against the guidelines we arrive at then so be it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• For now, unless/until we can clarify where the ambiguity lies. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion:

Whilst i agree that for the most part things should remain the same, that proposal is far too open to ones own interpretations and will not solve the problems. We need detailed guidelines stating exactly when ROI should be used and when it should not be used. So without doubt we can look at a specific case, check the guidelines and without doubt come away knowing how it should be worded. The current methods and the wording in that proposal do not resolve all the problems on when we should and should not use. I will go into some more detail in the coming days, whilst we are here we should try and reach the strongest agrement possible, otherwise we will have wasted this oppurtunity and disputes will go on else where. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

By opposing the sensible proposal above you waste many an opportunity, will confirm many a person's suspicion as to your real agenda and delay any settlement. I suggest you reconsider. --Snowded ^TALK 19:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what is said but i cant support something unless it goes into more detail, i wanted clear guidelines of when we can and cant use the terms, otherwise we will always face the same battles like we do over the British Isles in articles. If the above proposal is passed, is this matter considered resolved? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

An issue that was raised over at British Isles recently is one area where clarification would be useful.. the paragraph currently reads :

"The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands.[7] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland."

Ive been ok with that wording as its clear its talking about an island and then the state. But there was a recent edit war changing it to Republic of Ireland and on the talk page the concern raised is that we are using the same term in the same paragraph but with two different meanings. In this case i dont think its too much of a problem, but what would happen if a two different Irelands were used in a single sentence, would that not cause some confusion? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you think of an example where there could be some ambiguity in the sentence? Guest9999 (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that i can think of, but id like to know if we are all ok with having two different Irelands used in the same sentence or if in such cases one should be piped, rather than two identical words going to different places which could be confusing to some. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetical example: "County Cork is the largest county in Ireland and also on Ireland." reads very poorly. Editing for the reader, that can become "County Cork is the largest county in both Ireland and the island of Ireland as a whole." Or even remove the second 'Ireland' entirely, so its "... and the island as a whole." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be ok with that, so in such cases we are saying its better to put "is the largest county in both Ireland and the island of Ireland" rather than saying is "the largest county in both the Republic of Ireland and Ireland" or "largest county in both the Republic of Ireland and the island of Ireland.

This is why ive opposed the proposal for the time being, there are examples like that which the proposal doesnt clearly define. Are we basically saying where possible say "island of Ireland" rather than use Republic of Ireland? Considering how much debate there has been in the past on all this, it just seems like the solution proposed is too simple and doesnt cover everything, unless its going to be expanded after? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have voted 'support' because I believe in principle that usage should "remain the same" i.e. that there should be no reversion to Republic of Ireland based on the poll result. However I agree with BritishWatcher that more specific guidelines need to be worked out, now rather than later, for usage in the future. In particular, there is an urgent need to update IMOS with an agreed wording so that any editor, whether previously involved or not, has access to a simple and clear set of rules to determine which term should be used and when. I seem to recall that a good deal of progress was already made towards an agreed set of rules on this page some months ago. As an exception to the "remain the same" principle, I feel very strongly, on encyclopaedic grounds, that the words Republic of Ireland have to appear, in bold, in the first sentence of the Republic of Ireland article. Again, the exact wording is a matter for collaboration and consensus. Scolaire (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no grounds at all for ROI to be bold on that article, it is about a country which is called Ireland. The need for disambiguation may mean that we have to use ROI for disambiguation purposes, but it does not justify in any circumstances imposing that language where it is unnecessary. To do so would be sectarian in effect (I make no comment on intention) not encyclopaedic. --Snowded ^TALK 11:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

By "encyclopaedic" I mean that the title of an article appears in bold in the first sentence of the article. There have to be very goods reasons for not doing that. Surely we can put the "imposing" and "sectarian" arguments to bed at this stage of the game? "Ireland, also referred to as the Republic of Ireland..." How is that sectarian? How is it an imposition? How is it even controversial? Scolaire (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the earlier discussion on the IMOS guidelines that I referred to in my earlier post. Scolaire (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The name of the country is Ireland, and ROI is a disambiguation name only. If you are on the article about the country then the proper name should be used and emphasised (possible with a hat note). Happy to put the issue to bed if you stop raising it. --Snowded ^TALK 13:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with BritishWatcher that by not clarifying what cases are ambiguous we might as well not bother with this section because it proves and changes nothing. I scream to differ that in the place where both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are shown, there is space only to declare them both as such they are. One blew east and one blew west. No more this one blew east and one crap I really have short patience for it because it is, of course, the spawning point for this whole nonsense. There is no one. Neither of the two after that has a right be one through self declaration or imposition of the other. End of story, we do not entertain it, apologies. Nothing short of that is fair or we would be changing the titles as requested. Anything else is politically sympathetic one way or another and we do not condone ourselves to be either hypocrites or subverts do we? We are asympathetic to politics. What is equally important and most pressing confusion is when stating a statistic, population of Ireland, how do we provide it? If we can sort this one out a lot less of these debates will be held by our children as we might all be hoping. A spade a spade. "Don't forget your shovel if you want to go to work or you'll end up where you came from like the rest of us... (and out the ******* door)." ~ R.T.G 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see now the concerns here. There needs to be clarity when the country & the island are mentioned together. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be clarity in that which pertains only to the republic. Just as we should not say that the North is Ireland we should not say that the south is Ireland. There is provision for this and who are we to say we may ignore it? Just because you know how to catch someone off guard "Is that Ireland?", "Yeah!". It means nothing better than a bad joke if you can say "The north is Ireland too but we are ignoring that." Ha. Ha. Ask Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness if Ireland is the state in the south. Ask Ian Paisley if Ireland is not an island. Ask Wikipedia if it is right to place the island at Ireland and the state at Republic. Then go ahead and argue about the whole thing again, we weren't really clear on that some of us, right? We all in again? ~ R.T.G 16:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my position to 'oppose', as I acknowledge to problems pointed out. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The things which are verifiable are fairly simple. There is a state called IRELAND and and island called IRELAND which was once a state, or a loose union of four kingdoms at various stages in its history. Because two things have the same name we have the long running issue about disambiguation, but throughout that no one has challenged that the legitimate name of the state is IRELAND. This means that talking about the Lisbon referendum (to take a case) should use IRELAND as the context is the state of that name. Geographical features in general reference Ireland as an island, History prior to around a hundred years can use IRELAND as meaning both political and geographical entities. HTe fact that the default disambiguation phrase is "Republic of Ireland", does not mean that the state has had its name changed. In the vast bulk of cases Ireland remains the correct, and citable form --Snowded ^TALK 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You can avoid all of the confusion some of the time, some of the confusion all of the time, or you can avoid all of the confusion all of the time by using Republic of Ireland which is or should be equally and more so recognisable as the desription of the independant Irish state and agreed upon continuously, emphatically and unendingly by all those for whom avoiding confusion was the most important deciding factor. Fact. Fact. Fact. Fact. Fact. ~ R.T.G 16:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I regret that I have to oppose this proposal. I really liked the look of it at first (and still think it's right in principle), but I think that there is far too big a gap in understandings of where ambiguity arises for it to be useable in its present form. That gap means that this wording of guideline won't actually provide a clear enough framework for settling disputes, and if it doesn't do that then it's no use. :(

I hope that this gap is bridgeable, because I suspect that editors on difft sides have difft circumstances in mind. So I suggest that we start examining some specific examples and see where we get with them. I know it'll be a little laborious, but it looks to me like the only way clarify what we mean by "ambiguity that cannot be resolved from the context". To avoid overwhelming this page, I suggest that we create a subpage for those examples. Is anyone up for that exercise? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Ireland articles

I've not really got involved in this discussion before but would like to throw in my two cents.

Regarding sentences linking to the two Ireland articles, in my view you should never have two links that look identical but go to different pages, as in

"Cork is the largest county in Ireland and also on Ireland."

It's inelegant and potentially highly confusing for readers. A casual reader won't be familiar with the 'pipe trick' and might reasonably imagine both go to the same page.

I think it should be a rule that wherever both articles are linked in an article the links should look different. This can be done in various ways. E.g.:

1. Cork is the largest county in Ireland and also on the island of Ireland.
2. Cork is the largest county in the Republic of Ireland and also on the island of Ireland.
3. Cork is the largest county in the Republic of Ireland and also on the island of Ireland.

Any of these three avoids the identical links issue. But personally I think (1) will be a bit baffling for those unfamiliar with Ireland. For those who want clearer language without using "Republic of Ireland" another (less eloquent) option is something like

• Cork is the largest county in the sovereign state called Ireland and also on the island of Ireland.
• Cork is the largest county in the sovereign state called Ireland and also on the island of Ireland.

Any thoughts? Iota (talk)

All of the options is acceptable to me, the main thing is distinguishing the country from the island. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

For me the best option is option 2, and i think thats far better than having to add lots of text just to work around the issue of not using Republic of Ireland. These are exactly the sorts of issues i wanted agreement on here, just so we all know where we stand on the issues and in a months time a dispute doesnt pop up which is simply open to anyones own opinion.. im sure others wont agree with my view that option 2 is the best, there for we need agreement on which is. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My personal preference is also (2), or maybe (3). But I think I should stress that avoiding confusing identical links, which I would hope to get agreement on, doesn't need to be a pro-ROI vs. anti-ROI issue. Iota (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a particularly egregious example from the Wexford article as it stands at the moment

Wexford ... is the county town of County Wexford in Ireland. It is situated near the southeastern tip of Ireland.

Iota (talk)

I could except 'Republic of Ireland' in that context or 'island of Ireland' in that context. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

wow that example is a really good one of the current problems, there is no way at all of knowing that one is talking about the island and one the country currently. Clearly that does need changing, id say it should be to Republic of Ireland and island of Ireland. (option two in your previous post) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on the context. Any of Iota's examples at the top are fine IMHO e.g.:

1. "Cork is the largest county in Ireland and also on the island of Ireland." If the context of this statement is in a discussion of local government specifically in the Irish state then what "Ireland" alone is would be clear.
2. "Cork is the largest county in the Republic of Ireland and also on the island of Ireland." If the statement appeared in a discussion of the traditional counties of Ireland, and distinctions between the Republic and Northern Ireland were being made e.g. if immediately afterwards Co. Tyrone was said to be the largest county in Northern Ireland.
3. "Cork is the largest county in the Republic of Ireland and also on the island of Ireland." I think this form of linking is better as it is clearer what is being linked to.

I think the Wexford example is very good as it demonstrates the potential to play on ambiguity of the word Ireland. We cannot assume or reply on readers hovering over a link or clicking on it to get the meaning of a word, but the plain-text phrase "Ireland" is perfectly correct in either meaning for the sentence "Wexford ... is the county town of County Wexford in Ireland". It is better I think to use the phrase "island of Ireland" in the following sentence, if for no better reason than it reads better - avoiding repetition of the word "Ireland" is isoloation and since islands have souther tips, whereas state generally do not thus some form of dabbing is needed.

I think we do need guidelines of when and where to dab between the various phrases, but we need to step away from the idea that one or other phrase implies POV (which I think we have?). Where possible, I think, we should use the correct name for the state (viz. "Ireland") and avoid verbose turns of phrase (e.g. "island of Ireland") where the are not needed but we shouldn't be afraid to be a clear as possible about what we mean. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Britishwatcher writes:

For me the best option is option 2, and i think thats far better than having to add lots of text just to work around the issue of not using Republic of Ireland.

One thought as an aside is that we may need an unambiguous way to refer to the state from 1937-1949 (i.e. when it was no longer the 'Irish Free State' but not yet called a republic). Iota (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go round the mulberry bush. It was first and fore most a republic pre-1937-1949. The word republic has a meaning. It means "Under political control of the public people." They called it the War of Independance (Irish War of Independence). It was more like a massacre of atrocities against the Irish. Afterwards the Brits wanted to pull out of Ireland. Would you walk into Wembley and shoot a load of people [1] or raise Cardiff city to the ground in flames[2]? Well this was the kind of carry on at the time of the birth of the Irish state. It was as dirty and ugly as any atrocities the Brits may have heard of in rumours from Africa or India and sensibly they began pulling out of the whole thing holding only that which insisted it remain such as Northerm Ireland. That state was a republic. That republic is the state. It is no less accurate a title for the Irish Republic than it is appropriate. On a scale of ten. Ten. The debate here is "Can we exclude the north from the word Ireland today?" the answer is "Any day you please so long as you exclude them from the term Irish." ~ R.T.G 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

@Iota: Why might we "need an unambiguous way to refer to the state from 1937-1949"? As Rannpháirtí has said, how you refer to the state at any time will depend on the context. Thus "Ireland" may be appropriate in one context, "the Irish state" in another, and something else in another. Flexibility is the key. It may be worth pointing out that there is no article dealing with Ireland 1937-49, so how you refer to it may depend in part on what you're linking to. Scolaire (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Context, context, context. Cities are normally, or almost always spoken about with regard to their state. Never heard "Paris is the second largest city in Europe", (that is by way of example, don't know what place it actually is), and most readers don't care about that. Those statistics would be on another page called List of European cities, or something similar. The danger is that maybe we are making up hypothetical scenarios when it is not necessary to do so. Agree with Scolaire on this, "context" is everything. Tfz 00:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is somewhat unique in that it can refer to either a contemporary state and a traditional country of Europe. Thus it is valid to say that both Belfast and Cork are the second largest cities in Ireland. For the sake of our readers we could say that Belfast is the second largest city on the island of Ireland and that Cork is the second largest city in the Republic of Ireland. And lo and behold that is what we do: Belfast, Cork.

We are covering old ground here though. And I wholly agree that specific (or made up) examples is likely to lead us down contrived paths. Did we not have general agreement on broad principles before? I think we should move back up the that level again. If we got agreement on broad principles maybe we could then try to apply them in real-life scenarios, but let's leave Cork and Belfast alone for now? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Following two paragraphs moved from unrelated topic ~ R.T.G 13:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowded of the options listed which would you say is the best solution. I would say option 2, but if others disagree (which i think some would) then its not as simple as is being suggested, or hoped for with the current proposal unless its expanded. As i said before, i agree with the princple, there should be no mass changing of the current use, i just oppose it because there are unclear areas which need agreement. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Any reference to a city should be in the context of the state of which it is a member, so Cork is the second largest city in Ireland. Two states share the same land mass, they were once (any maybe in future) part of the same state; the same is true for many other areas of the world but we move on. Republic (as we have clearly established before) is a description of the state, not the name of the sate (a few errors below in this respect). For geographical areas the debate tends to be Ireland (the island) v British Isles with many of the same editors who insisted on using RoI there arguing for BI (there is a political agenda here) but we have a reasonable compromise worked out over several articles there. Basically I think the rule is very simple: Ireland should be the norm unless there is clear (and I mean clear) ambiguity and danger of misunderstanding. If that is the case then RoI should be avoided as a NAME with alternative wordings being found. Ireland or Northern Ireland" for example is valid and removes ambiguity. Otherwise I am now convinced, given the lack of any compromise and the wider disputes over the use of "British Isles" that the only lasting solution is for Ireland the state to be called Ireland. We can go back to that in two years time unless people listen to our moderator on the nature of the poll. --Snowded ^TALK 06:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Who do you think you are Snowded? "In the future"? Here, go read soemthing about WP:CRYSTAL BALLS. And beside that, if you haven't yet found a quote you"clear (and I mean clear) ambiguity and danger of misunderstanding", you are either purposely ignorant of what the main debate goes on here is or you just dont sink in. i.e. in one ear, out the other, keep singing the song which is, unless you are incapable of language, purposely ignorant. There is obviously evidence of mass confusion and disagreement about that particular title you ignoramus. ~ R.T.G 13:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Come on Snowded, what does your reference "the nature of the poll" suggest? ~ R.T.G 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

RTG, what are you talking about? I don't understand your immediate input. And I very much agree with Snowded. Tfz 14:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If an editor with as much input as Snowded fails to acknowledge the oceans of disagreement and expressions of confusion toward every idea related here is unnacceptable and we would do well to set some barriers. Anyone with hopeful dreams of a united Ireland is in touch with neither Ireland or Europe. To late buddy there will be a Europe long before Ireland and with tits who don't know their state from their elbow it was never possible, right bro? How dare anyone agree with "Any reference to a city should be in the context of the state of which it is a member" which is imperialist rubbish, besides being irrelevant to anything on this project because we will be refering to cities in any and every context appropriate including state, world, sport even fiction (which people just made up for the sake of it). Let's just quote Snowded one last time, "Otherwise I am now convinced, given the lack of any compromise and the wider disputes over the use of "British Isles" that the only lasting solution is for Ireland the state to be called Ireland." WTF has calling the state got to do with calling the British Isles? Appologies Snowded, there is no republic in Ireland? Meaninglessness. The state of insufficient value. Yes, there is. ~ R.T.G 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't know what you are 'talking' about, appears to be an attempt at political soapboxing. I'm glad you use the word 'context' because that's quite important to this issue. Tfz 20:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Me? What are you talking about? What exactly do you need to know? Do you always speak when you don't understand without requesting explainations? He talked meaningless shite that is drowning this project and you siad "I agree with that guy!" Would you like to understand more? ~ R.T.G 10:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Drowning, I said, with no signifigant change to the mainspace content in months and hundreds and hundreds of pages of the same "we didn't hear you, that must be British Republic?". Polls, discussions, edit wars, blah blah. Snowded has been adding to that for years and here he writes about finding the case where find people to disagree. Well that is more than we can accept because if he hasn't found that disagreement and confusion yet what has he been writing about all this time? ~ R.T.G 10:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A man is not blissfully happy in the repetitive state. You can continue on your own from here. ~ R.T.G 10:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Another option is direct linking: Avoid using Republican of Ireland|Ireland & Ireland|island of Ireland all together. Merely use the direct approach: Republic of Ireland & Ireland, it certainly would be alot easier to impliment. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I would rather in such cases we say "[{Republic of Ireland]] and the island of Ireland" or and the Island of Ireland BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

RTG I really can't be bothered to answer this sort of nonsenical and abusive comment. I'm sort of sorry you didn't understand the point I was making, but not suprised. When you are ready to stop soapboxing and assume good faith, let me know and I will be happy to engage. --Snowded ^TALK 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to see you write one more time, "unless there is clear (and I mean clear) ambiguity and danger of misunderstanding" because there is clear (and I mean clearly something has cropped up) ambiguity and danger of misunderstanding and if you must act like you have been ignoring it all along you shouldn't join in any more because you will require turning out at this stage in debating the which and ways of referring to the proudly independant state of the south of Ireland. Soapbox? I am trying to slap you not preach to you, thanks though I will consider the calling. I will accept you in good faith from the moment you accept that being in Ireland without being in that state has had pitifully poor consideration in these debates although in concern it should be no less than equal. Rest assured, my negativity is only a stem of all reasoning here being "If we didn't call it Ireland, we wouldn't agree wholeheartedly with the independant Irish state." and get this, we can disagree and even say "It was wrong!" and so long as we stick to the facts, they wont even bat their eyelids. That is, worth much more, than following them like blind mice. ~ R.T.G 23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Don't be fooled. The proposed wording change is shown at the RFC linked in my post above. The removal of the "exceptions" phrase is a very significant change. The policy never stated that it consisted of "rules" before, and it still doesn't. However it remains policy. Simply stating a personal view that titling a section "principles" changes the status of the policy page, is one not even accepted by many editors on Hesperians side. There is already an attempt to use the principle of no exceptions to the "use common name" policy to radically change the Naming conflict page, and one of the proposers of this change has indicated that the guidance on flora is also targetted. The change is in my view an attempt to impose a rigid, top-down policy on naming which ignores what wikipedia editors on the ground find most useful. Xandar 03:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Theres alot of text on that page, im not exactly sure what is being proposed and what the previous change was. Could you explain the basic implications for the Republic of Ireland article name if the change being suggested is made? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Long standing contributors inciting the naming debate

Please, I am calling on the leaders of the project in relation to the unrelenting naming debate. If any editors appear to make long standing contributions to the naming debate and are found to periodically state words to the effect of supposingthat the naming issue in all its aspect is not in contention, can we not prevent them from adding anything? i.e. If I just come along and say "Nobody is arguing about how to title the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles" can I, and hopefully some others, be banned from the project for at least a month? Having read a lot of the debate I am convinced it would run 20 - 25% smoother as this pointless exercise is a large part. Perhaps it is not pointless I really have to sit back and wonder at times hence this request. (very angry, raging) ~ R.T.G 13:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's kinda difficult to put such restrictions on 'talk-pages'. The best solution is for editors to pratice 'self-control'. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty is only relevant when it nears the impossible, would you say? ~ R.T.G 20:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You've already said it, ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Where to now

Maybe its just me, but I feel this project has now come to a natural end-of-life. For me, much of this ongoing discussion on usage would be much better positioned at WP:IMOS. This project has become a venue for strife and argument rather than the bringing together of diverse groups. Should we put it into abeyance now, and move the discussions to more appropriate locations? Fmph (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've no concerns as to where the discussion-in-question is held, as long as I no where it's being held. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, this project still has alot of work todo, despite the result of the poll being solved the poll page does state that other things must be solved by the collaboration project before everything is official. To move the debates to different locations would set us back not forward. I think we can wrap this up in a few weeks, but we shouldnt just stop now progress is being made. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There will be strife and argument wherever the discussion takes place. That is precisely why we need to keep all discussion on the Collaboration (sic) page. Having squabbles and edit-wars breaking out at IMOS, Ireland, Republic of Ireland and a couple of dozen "x in Ireland" articles would be a nightmare. What's needed is (1) all the parties who are still flogging a dead horse on the poll talk page to get stuck into the proper work here and (2) somebody, possibly Masem, to produce some sort of a "road map". Scolaire (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was held in innumerable places and now it seems to all settle here, is that not correct? Why don't you go to some other active project you aren't interested in and ask "Are you dead yet"? Then you can start to gather and survey the responses? You can list the ones that say "Yes we are all dead thanks" and do stuff about it! List them on WP:AN with a complaint etc.. Dead huh. ~ R.T.G 11:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Eventually, hopefully, it will end up at WP:IMOS but for now let's keep discussion here - at least until we arrive at something concrete to propose over there. I think much of the wind will have left this project now that the two articles titles is resolved (for the time being). I suspect many editors were only interested in that (narrow) matter. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 02:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with keeping discussion here for now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that the poll has finished is there a more specific goal for this collaboration page? Perhaps having it more directly pointed to how the result of the poll will be implemented (or not) on the relevant articles? Jack forbes (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the main issues identified as still needing resolution have to be tackled - they're listed in the "Post-September 13th" section above. There aren't that many, and now that the poll is out of the way, I don't think they'll be too controversial. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming ballot

Has there been an effort to conclude the opinion poll? ~ R.T.G 17:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If theres no consensus to ignore the vote which looks very likely then it will be concluded in a couple of weeks according to masem BritishWatcher (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The poll is concluded. "We end up with Option F as the "50%" winner (both in total number of all non-empty votes, and in total number of remaining ballots) by Round 4, with 50% of all votes, empty or not, by Round 5.[3] The "outcome" is a bit more nebulous, and depends on all concerned engaging positively, on this page, over the next few weeks. Scolaire (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Substantive issues (redux)

OK, a bit of redux here, but below are proposals to resolve the substantive issues as I see them. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of terms in articles...

Below again are Blue-Haired Lawyer's proposal, which were pretty well received last time around.

In general the state should be referred to as Ireland. There are situations however when, for clarity and/or disambiguation, distinctions will need to be made a) between Ireland-the-state and Ireland-the-island and b) to avoid confusion with regard to Northern Ireland. In these situation the preferred means to do so is to call the island Ireland and the state the Republic of Ireland (this can be emphasised where necessary by use the phrase island of Ireland).

While the final decision to use one set of terms or the other should be determined by the unique contexts of each situation, the following rules of thumb will generally hold true:

• In lists of sovereign states, when discussing economies, governments or other qualities of states, the state should be referred to as Ireland e.g. Economy of Europe, NATO
• When describing the area served by an organisation that is primarily all-island, use the phrase island of Ireland in the first instance and either Ireland or island of Ireland thereafter e.g. Supermacs
• Always use the official titles of state offices (e.g. the President of Ireland, never the President of the Republic of Ireland)
• When writing about the state and Northern Ireland in the same context, use the Republic of Ireland (or the Republic thereafter) e.g. the border should be described as being between "the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" never as being between "Ireland and Northern Ireland".
• For articles where historical correctness is important (e.g. The Emergency (Ireland)) the state should be called the Irish Free State for the period between 6 December 1922 to 29 December 1937. In the same kind of articles, for the period thereafter until the coming into force of the Republic of Ireland Act (18 April 1949), the state not be referred to as the Republic of Ireland (another means to distinguish Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island should be used as necessary).

The following was not listed before but I would add it now as a firmer rule of thumb: The reader should never have to click or hover over a link to find out which Ireland is being referred to.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(For the sake of accuracy, this isn't actually my proposal, which you can still see here. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I took the liberty of rewriting it, but I think the essence is the same? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I reject the (invalid) poll (still hasn't been even corrected!), and an imposition of British POV on the name of our state, I find it ridiculous that editors would agree to always use the official titles of state offices, but won't use the official title of the actual state. The double standards here are astounding! This isn't progress. It's not even consistent of reasonable. Seeing as digging in the heels and unreasonableness appears to be the tactic that works here, rather than collaboration, consensus, policies, etc, I for one will not be agreeing with these proposals. The only policy should be to use the correct term, always, everywhere. Nowhere should the state be referred to as Republic of Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

More anti British POV pushing. Im not sure that the above guidelines proposed go into enough detail, matters raised above on how to handle two Irelands in a single sentence has not been dealt with fully as far as im concerned. Ill make further points on this later, but if certain parties like Highking do not agree to the terms, i fail to see why others should unless these guidelines will be inforced and those violating the rules because they simply disagree or refuse to collaborate should be punished. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You are too quick off the mark talking of punishment. Which guidelines should be enforced? The above is only put forward as a proposal. There should be less talk of, if they do that or not do this then punishment should ensue, and more talk of how you can all come up with a reasonable solution that relates to the poll result. Jack forbes (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Im not saying the above guidelines should be accepted and anyone breaking them be punished. All im saying is with people saying they refuse to accept any guidelines on this matter, then theres no point in the rest of us signing up to them unless those who go against the guidelines in the future despite not accepting them here will be punished (or their edits just undone). I agree we need reasonable policy here first, i still have many concerns ill come onto in the coming days. This is far from over BritishWatcher (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgive if me I happen to misunderstand the procedure. I thought that since nobody was prepared to compromise(?) on naming the article on the state by the actual real correct name as used by all of the international community, that the correct procedure was to ... well, refuse to discuss anything reasonably and merely dig the heels in over something that I and others feel very strongly about. British POV pushing and invalid polls to show that a British majority favours a particular outcome wasn't the *process* that most of us Irish editors signed up for. Although I could always offer to compromise - what about I'll agree if you accept that the current title is down to a British majority on Wikipedia and there'll be no more mention of anything to the contrary otherwise the deal is off? --HighKing (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with HighKing on this. There is only one state in the world called Ireland, and there is no ambiguity. Endeavouring to construct ambiguous scenarios is faux, and not "real world", will fail, and should be avoided. Context and word-smithing are much more effective ways of writing articles. Tfz 10:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

tell that to the people who those in the Republic of Ireland elect to govern them, evidence has shown its used 1000s of times in the parliament there. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You have an obvious POV that is not "real world". Examine the quality those links, and then do your thesis. Tfz 11:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Irish government is "not real world"??. That is something the Irish people must decide, although their willingness to impose the lisbon treaty on the Irish people would back up your point of view on that matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅Can we not go back there please guys and lay of punishment as a theme please. As far as I can see the above guidelines use IRELAND as the name of the state in the bulk of instances. I would incline the "Northern Ireland and the Republic" or similar in other cases which conforms with common use. --Snowded ^TALK 11:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Northern Ireland and the Republic" in other cases? that sounds to me as though Republic of Ireland should be removed from everywhere. if thats the case i strongly oppose. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should we pander to the ill-informed British editors who insist on their own terminology to reinforce their own view of the world? We should use "Ireland" everywhere the state is being referred to. --HighKing (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I rather stick with 'straight linkage' for the country & the island article, personally. It should would avoid alot of headaches. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

...I'm getting ready to start ag caoineamh, now (and that's not a pretty sight)... @HighKing (and, to an extent, Tfz): There was a Wiki-wide poll. It was valid. And despite what you say above, you know that most Irish editors favoured option F. Reiterating the "only name of the state" argument from over 9 months ago is circular and pointless. Reiterating the "British POV" argument is pointless, counter-productive and disruptive. @BritishWatcher: You're really not helping. Your behaviour is just as disruptive. Stop baiting people, please. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bastun, when something is being repeated several times, it does need a rebuttal. Agree with you that it is circular, but if it's ignored all of the time, then that message fills the page. Tfz 17:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

@Bastun, yup there was a wiki-wide poll. Invalid. Valid votes were removed, editors were run off, but more importantly, the scope of the poll was not agreed and appears to have been rushed and pushed through. We've also had the slow breakdown of the process as editors withdraw - largely becuase the slow realisation that British POV is pushing and driving the status quo. All the talk of compromise is just a sham. So now, as we enter this phase of ratification of British POV, take a look around. Compare the active editors today with the editors that were active before the poll started. Nearly all the Irish contributers have withdrawn. And any attempt by me and Tfz to point out why the process is invalid, why votes shouldn't be removed, etc, are met with derision and name calling. And Masem has consistently ignored questions posed by me on several issues - so for me the lunatics are definitely running the asylum. This process is dead. --HighKing (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. BW appears to be reasonable some of the time but he has a bad habit of asking for blocks, or as he has done here, asking for a punishment if this or that isn't done. BW, collaboration doesn't start with a warning to those you want to collaborate with. @Bastun. What exactly is ag caoineamh? I'm getting a little worried here! Jack forbes (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you are Jack [4], and something similar it Scottish Gaelic I guess. The Banshee sometimes does that too, yeah we should be worried in the event of her arrival.) Tfz 16:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

All im saying Jack is if most of us are to accept certain guidelines (we aint at that stage yet) then one or two who simply refuse to agree must not simply be allowed to make changes in the future going completly against those guidelines. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tfz - the "only name of the state" argument is completely beside the point. Most articles on states aren't at their official name. But then you already know this. Arguing about it is even more pointless given that the poll has already been held and is done and dusted for two years. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So, after all that, it does look like the proposals above have a broad consensus? --Snowded ^TALK 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with RA's version of BHL's proposal. Dunno whether there's consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If by "broad consensus" you mean you'll just ignore any editors that don't agree, then sure. On the other hand, there's at least two editors that broadly disagree... --HighKing (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well as much as id hate to agree with highking on this, i dont think theres broad consensus on this matter yet. I have concerns about this not going into enough detail. Some of the things mentioned on this talk page about use of 2 Irelands in one sentence dont appear to have been addressed. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I tentatively support the proposal, on condition that RA's addition is added - "The reader should never have to click or hover over a link to find out which Ireland is being referred to"; where there is a risk of confusion or ambiguity, Republic of Ireland should be used (e.g. the opening paragraphs of Scouting Ireland and Olympic Council of Ireland should clarify that these bodies are Republic-of-Ireland bodies); and that Republic of Ireland should be used in articles covering the British Isles (as well as those covering all of Ireland) so as to avoid confusion with Ireland-the-island. Mooretwin (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

...in articles, categories, etc....

Where a topic is has a substantial real-world organisational form, the "Ireland" of the topic should refer to the territory most commonly used by organizations in that field. Example:

• Sport in Ireland should refer to the island of Ireland (on the basis that sporting organisations are commonly organised on an all-island basis e.g. GAA, rugby, cricket, hockey)
• List of companies of Ireland should refer to the island of Ireland Irish state (on the basis that incorporation in "Ireland" means being incorporated in the Irish state)

Where the topic does not have a substantial real-world organisational form, the "Ireland" in the title of an article should refer to the entity that is most substantive for that topic. Example:

• Music of Ireland should refer to the island of Ireland (on the basis that the island of Ireland forms a more substantive topic for discussing music than does the music of the Republic of Ireland)
• Economy of Ireland should refer to the Irish state (on the basis that the economy of the Irish state forms a more substantive focus for discussion than does the all-island economy)

These rules should be followed even where precedence among other articles is to organise articles in a different way e.g. Architecture of Ireland should refer to the island of Ireland even though other Architecture in... articles refer to architecture in a sovereign state.

These rules should also be followed even if following the rule results in a dab page. Example: Religion in Ireland should refer to the the island of Ireland since that is how religions commonly organise themselves in Ireland. However, since there is no article in existance that covers religion on an all-island basis that Religion in Ireland should remain a dab (unless the two currently existing articles are merged that is).

Where it is uncertain which "Ireland" is the more substantive topic, it should be assumed that the island of Ireland is the substantive topic even if this means a duplication of content from a United Kingdom-related article or a distinct Northern Ireland-related article focusing solely on Northern Ireland. (The existance of distinct Northern Ireland articles should not be taken as evidence for a need for distinct Republic of Ireland articles.)

If an article, category, etc. exists for the less substantive topic, it should be titled using the form "... the island of Ireland" or "... the Republic of Ireland".

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• There appears to be an error in the second one - "List of companies of Ireland should refer to the island of Ireland (on the basis that incorporation in "Ireland" means being incorporated in the Irish state)". As companies are incorporated in a state, then List of companies of Ireland should refer to the state. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And, while there is currently a separate company registry for Northern Ireland, so NI companies could be identified for inclusion, this is about to be merged into the one for the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland Company Registry IntegrationCavrdg (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, good information and it does change this specific issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the Architecture in ... example might also include a reference to category hierarchies, i.e. just cause there is a Category:Architecture in ... for each European country does not necessarily mean there should be an Architecture in RoI article.

Yes, I mean the above to refer titles of all kinds of articles, categories, outlines, and so on. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It'd be easier to just use Republic of Ireland (for country) & Ireland (for the island), at least until 2011. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there's nothing wrong with compromise. The poll was only for the names of the three main articles, and there's nothing to stop us using "Ireland" in categories where there's little or no need to disambiguate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but I see a real problem in this proposal wrt categories, because categories are much more structured and consistent than articles.

The status quo is a very thoroughly-organised category hierarachy in which Foo in Ireland refers to the island, and will usually have subcats of Foo in the Republic of Ireland and Foo in Northern Ireland. Counties are subcats of the NI and RoI categories, and there may also be all-Ireland subcats (which may in turn have RoI and NI subcats). It works well, and provides a consistent category navigation structure across a whole range of topics from geography to politics--- and consistency is very highly valued in categories. So far I am not aware of this having been controversial in any way, and I played a big part in standardising the categories -- there some huge exercises at CFR which I advertised as best as I could on the IE project etc.

Starting to use using "Ireland" in categories when we mean the 26 counties would break that consistency, and I can't see that this does anything to assist ether readers or editors -- it just seems to make things harder for all concerned.

I wouldn't object in principle to renaming all "Foo in Ireland" categs to "Foo in the Island of Ireland", but only if all are renamed, to maintain consistency. That would be a huge job, and I'm not sure that it would be worth the effort. It would also be resisted at CFD, where there is a principle that categories should reflect article names, and the article on the island has not been moved to "Island of Ireland".

As to naming of articles, I agree that there doesn't always need to be a separate ROI article -- and I agree that religion is a subject where a merger might be appropriate. However, where there is an article relating to the 26 counties, I think that the title should be unambiguous about its scope. When the main articles are labelled "Ireland" for the 32 and "RoI" for the 26, it seems logical that "Foo in" articles should follow that naming convention because they are effectively breakout articles. It's not as critical an issue as categories, but it seems to me that consistency here helps the reader.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. --HighKing (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you disagree about consistency in category names, or about consistency in article titles, or both? And can you explain why? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with consistency. I disagree with using a made-upey name for the Irish state just to propagate a British POV in an encyclopedia. I vehemently disagree with promoting an incorrect name or title to the state, and using it in this way is wrong and confusing. And I abhor the lack of compromise that this process started out with, which has now degenerated into majority POV pushing. This process is dead. --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Its impossible to attempt to get consensus or compromise when certain editors are making offensive and inaccurate claims about "British POV", this is total nonsense. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BW, several editors think you have a British POV, the Union Jack on your page is kinda like a clue, and a lot of your edits support it. You think you are being neutral, while other editors have a pro-Republican, Anti-British POV (and their user pages and edits support that). So why not just accept that, let the comments wash over you and focus on a compromise. No dispute has ever been resolved by asking people to give up their beliefs about the other side before they engage in the process. Let the comments wash over you, respond to the substance. --Snowded ^TALK 16:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with people saying i have a British POV, i could take it as a compliment. What i find offensive is the endless claims that Republic of Ireland is "British POV", which is complete nonsense. Clearly rejected by Irish editors who supported the current article title, and even someone like Evertype who withdrew from this collaboration project and wanted a different result said the claim of "British POV" in relation to Republic of Ireland was wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

and other editors think it is (and its not a complete nonsense) and if you check it out then you were one of the major factors in Evertype withdrawing. Please learn to live with other people's views who disagree with you, please don't refight battles which are no longer relevant, lets just try and move forward. --Snowded ^TALK 16:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The IR-COll page was set up to achieve compromise and consensus over the issue. Strange thing is, we ended up with no compromise, and with no consensus either. Tfz 17:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If they are entitled to make wild claims that the article title is British POV, i dont see why im not allowed to respond to such claims saying they are nonsense, offensive and counter productive because it makes reaching consensus alot harder. Onto the actual issue, i do not feel that strongly on this matter, im having to keep an eye on several different areas right now and its consuming alot of time, so closing one or two areas is something i would like to do.

I want us to move on get agreement here and then lock everything for two years so we can all go onto other things. Whilst i support the principle there should be no major changes to current usage across wikipedia of ROI. I wanted clear guidelines so we do not get into fights like on the issue of BI where people are able to easily view things very differently.

One of these grey areas which was raised above is use of two Irelands in the same sentence. Now i have yet to see agreement on how to handle that example, or seen it covered in any of the proposals here. Which is one of my concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey BW, there is nothing offensive about having a point of view, I assure you, every living being has one. Sure where would you be without it? Tfz 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont find anything offensive about having a POV or people having a POV or people saying i have a POV. What i find offensive is the claim Republic of Ireland is somehow British POV. Theres plenty of things British people should be blamed for, that title aint one of them :) BritishWatcher (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The facts say that the title here on Wikipedia is down to British POV pushing. I don't really care if you find it offensive, although I find it odd that you get so hot under the collar when it's pointed out. But as Snowded says, different "sides" have different points of view on just about any issue you'd care to find on Wikipedia. But when a "majority" is being used to enforce one viewpoint, that's just plain wrong and completely against Wikipedia. And when you shove the so-called victory of the poll down the throats of other editors, and refuse to compromise because a British majority was allowed construct a single-issue vote, it just make you look like a loon. --HighKing (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please can you all just stop this pointless bickering, and get back to the substance? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Sorry BHG, I can't really engage here as I disagreed with the method, and I disagree with the outcome. I'll mainly come back here if it gets a bit off topic, otherwise nothing to add at the moment. Tfz 20:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with this. Any category or article that is about the 26 and not the 32 should use Republic of Ireland. Support BHG on this one. Mooretwin (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

...in lists

In lists - whether actual lists, articles organized into list-like subsections, a links in templates etc. - the "Ireland" referred to should refer to the entity most appropriate for the topic being listed e.g. if states are being listed "Ireland" refers to the state, if geographic or cultural entities are being referred to then "Ireland" is the island.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• In general I think that is a positive contribution, I would be tempted to allow more use of "the Republic" rather than "Republic of Ireland" as that confirms with a lot of common use. --Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So long as the it's clear what's being talked about, "the Republic" is fine IMHO. (Adds: so far it it fits with an encylcopediac tone.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Snowded - pretty much everything there is reasonable. And natural English, aye. There's no need to write "the Republic of Ireland" (unlinked) where it's previously been linked; common usage would suggest to use just "...the Republic." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We should just use for the country & island - Republic of Ireland & Ireland, at least 'til 2011. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• One thing that puzzles me slightly is that everyone seems to capitalize republic. Should we not, strictly speaking, write the island of Ireland and the republic of Ireland. Even the Republic of Ireland Act specifies that the "description" is Republic of Ireland, but by capitalizing Republic they are seem to be making it a proper name (de facto an alternative official name). This does seem to be relevant when referring to the state (though it was less relevant to the discussion of the article name).--Boson (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just figured a direct link to the country page would be better then the 'change method'. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the bit about lists. If its a list of sovereign states, im ok with "Ireland" just as if its a list of geographical locations "Ireland" should be used, aslong as its clear from the topic which is being mentioned.

However the response by snowded in this section about use of "the Republic", does concern me. If there is a need for ambiguity then i am fine with Republic of Ireland being said once, then "the Republic" in further text IF it fits into the sentence well and sounds ok which wont always be the case, but also only when there can be no confusion about what its talking about. So in just an Ireland article, it would be ok, but if it was about the ROI and another country that might be a republic, saying the republic would be problematic. Either way to maintain stability there shouldnt be some mass change of wording used.

One thing i do oppose if its being suggested is that the Republic/Republic be used as a pipelink for Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Referring to Ireland in other articles

Having come to the poll from an announcement on a European project (where we previouly had to cope with the Macedonia dispute) I was wondering when the discussion on references to Ireland (mainly the republic) in other articles will start, and where it will be held. Perhaps one could get some tips from the Macedonian project, where the discussion was also spread around in unlikely places. At least the result seems to have been reasonably well documented (though it is not always easy to find), at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/consensus. Perhaps both projects could arrange for the respective decisions (and discussion?) to be better linked (e.g. from WP:MOS).--Boson (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

They were to take place after the poll on the main article names. It was agreed above to keep discussion on in-article use etc. here. One attempt at discussion took please earlier here. I have opened another discussion with specific proposals directly above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't seen your contribution when I started writing. I am obviously a slow typist!--Boson (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Republic. Made up? British state?

All too often, if you are not a professor of history or some other buff to whom no sliver of knowledge has not been available to with directions, something you thought you knew is first questioned and then shown to you to be incorrect in favour of something completely different. There are various claims on here that the word "republic" is imposed on the Irish state by the British. Now, by definition in the dictionary, the state would seem at first glance to be a republic, a state controlled unquestionably by the public. To my knowledge the title Republic in relation to Ireland was conceived and set out, most likely, in the days and documents of the Proclaimation and Eater Rising, around 1916 to put our best date on it. But, and yet, here are claims recurring that the title Republic not only is questionable when to use it or not, but is an invention and brand by British counterparts of one sort or another, not even correct to describe the state in definition. Now, I have assumed all along that these claims were intended to suggest that the title Republic was something not heard of until the run up to the mid-forties, that the British government was always on the states back to be the Republic and they conceded to much consternation, something to that effect. But, editors whose general knowledge would convince me that they know at very least some factual general knowledge on the topic come back repeatedly saying Republic is an invalid title created and imposed by the British, not even wanted let alone accepted by the wider Irish public, even broadly offensive. I want to discuss it clearly if anyone wishes to. Is there some history of the title, even in broadly acknowledged rumour, preceding Irish self-determination of the title Republic? Is there some verifiable, even in broadly acknowledged rumour, feature to the state which would prevent it from being truly defined in language as a republic? ~ R.T.G 00:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question, and I very much look forward to seeing the responses.

Since one of the central issues in this dispute is the assertion by some editors that RoI is offensive to them, an examination of the nature and history of that offensiveness is something which should have been addressed very early on in the IECOLL process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we go around in circles again. Here's a simple response broken up into small statements:

• This dispute is not about who "invented" the term
• This dispute is not about using the term when disambiguation is required
• The Republic of Ireland is a valid term. But. It is not the official name or title.
• This dispute has never been that using the term "Republic of Ireland" is 100% wrong in all cases - it is useful to sometimes use a description where a name is confusing. A bit like "John Smith" or "John Smith the doctor".
• This dispute centers on using the correct name when referring to the state when the state is being referred to, specifically the main article on the state which is currently sitting at "Republic of Ireland".
• Also understand that for years, the British government refused to use the correct name for the state (Ireland), and instead used their own name, enshrined in British law, which is the "Republic of Ireland". This completely confused the matter between name and description. (Although this has changed since 1998 (although not in law)) This is the source for the original British POV pushing claim. If the British government now uses the correct term, why is Wikipedia so out of step? It appears on the surface to the British POV pushing.
• Since British media still used the term, many British readers are not aware that the name of the state is "Ireland". Many incorrectly use the term as a title or name (when no dab is required, etc). In fact, many consumers of British media appear to make this mistake.

So it comes down to, why is Wikipedia insisting that the article reside at the official British name for the state? In practice, it appears to be British POV pushing, especially as here at least, the arguments have been made clear.

But it's not as simple as that either. For example, many Irish people don't want to use "Ireland" as the article name as it could be interpreted by an unknowledgable reader as referring to the entire island. it could cause confusion to understanding where Northern Ireland fits in. It's a matter of respect although it appears that there's more respect from the Republic for Northern Ireland sensibilities on this, than there is the other way around...

The answer on WP was to go to Arbcom for a ruling on the article title and usage within articles. We discussed solutions looking at a whole. And discussed. And discussed. Never did we agree that we'd deal with the title separately from the content (what would be the point if the same British POV majority would simple vote to retain the status quo - as just happened). But compromise *was* being discussed - even Masem's very last attempt to avoid going to a majority vote was a package deal. So during a period when most Irish people were away on holidays, a single issue majority vote was pushed through by editors who all ended up voting for the status quo. What a farce.

And now, while the gloating about "winning" is still ringing, they're similarly attempting to push through the other issues as single-issue items also. What a farce.

So in a nutshell, while the current title has no consensus, many editors are attempting to use British force of numbers to keep the title in place. --HighKing (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"So during a period when most Irish people were away on holidays, a single issue majority vote was pushed through by editors who all ended up voting for the status quo." Yeah it's the done thing for Irish people to go for SIX week holidays while British people sit in front of their computers scheming up new ways to shaft the Irish innit? What a complete and utter load of bull. Valenciano (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur with the analysis made by HighKing. BigDunc 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur with the analysis made by Valenciano. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. The old disagree-with-one-statement ploy and ignore the other points and the general point being made. That gets old fast. On the other hand, why not check the archive between Masem's last attempt at a compromise poll, and the list of editors who somehow, against the Arbcom directive and with Masem's apparent approval, pushed for and turned the process of compromise and agreement it into a single-issue majority vote.... --HighKing (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with HighKing's assessment. Also very importantly, may I add that the the Irish government spends untold capital investing in the name "Ireland" it's proper name, yes my tax. The dividends of this investment are shared by all, both North and South. It's not for Wikipedia to countermand those efforts to keep the island up to economic speed, by calling the state by a different name. All the EU partners know the the state by "Ireland". Tfz 16:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If HighKings assessment were right, then it means that there were about 25 Irish editors who all intended to vote the same way. These editors then went on holiday at exactly the same time. They went for two month long holidays all to parts of the world where internet access is not available. I've heard some weird conspiracy theories round here but that one reaches new heights of absurdity. Using the highly unscientific "Sarah777" method of profiling editors according to their nationality, F won among Irish editors. We can now move on to more productive stuff i.e. disambiguating the articles where necessary. Valenciano (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I broadly endorse HighKings bullet points (but not the subsequent rant). I would only have small issues with the second-last bullet point. In particular the statements:

• "[British government refusal to use the correct name for the state] completely confused the matter between name and description." I disagree because, regardless of British government use of the term, I believe that confusion would still exists in Ireland too about the term. The simple existence of a constitutional "name" (which looks like an informal name for a state) and a statutory "description" (which looks like a formal name of a state) would confuse most people regardless of what the British government opinion 1949-98 (which frankly should be of no concern to us, anyway).
• "It appears on the surface to the British POV pushing." While undoubtedly some do see it like this (HighKing's faith, for example, is not something I would ever draw into question), I don't believe that there is much merit to it. It might help if we expand the "it" in that sentence, as an example, in which case the sentence becomes: "[Wikipedia being out of step with the British government] appears on the surface to the British POV pushing." It simply doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry, while I do believe that there are genuine editors who perceive use of ROI for the title of the article on the state to be "British POV", I don't agree that that perception stands up to much scrutiny. A more plausible (and defensible) explanation, I believe, is a sort of hurt sense of national pride. A feeling that Ireland is being treated differently. Well, it is. Because it is different. There are two "Irelands". There are not two "United Kingdoms", or two "Japans", or two many-other-places.

I'm reminded of something I heard from a Northern unionist: every time you see an empty flag pole, that's the flag of Ireland. It's a pride bruiser, but it's a fact. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• It has nothing to do with national pride, and everything to do with the proper name of the state. Also the British POV part is interesting. I don't give a rat's ass about British pov, or what name the general British population use for Ireland. What I do object to is that the poll was rigged to get that British pov onstream in order to get RoI as the name of the state here at Wikipedia. There are many sources where the Irish Government seeks to avoid the political description, just as Wales would avoid using the word principality. RoI is incorrect, amd not WP:COMMON WP:COMMONNAME. Tfz 19:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggested 'Ireland (state)' as the country article name. Mind ya, it's not the first suggestion of mine, that was rejected. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tfz, I think you mean to link to WP:COMMONNAME. Instead you linked to the following: "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." I hope the irony is not lost on you. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RA, thanks for pointing that out and it's now amended, obviously you got my drift to notice that. Excellent quotation, let's junk the poll to where it belongs. Tfz 19:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked the questions. No more ignoring me. Discuss other questions in other places, thank you.

1. Is there a history of the term and definition (title and type) relating to the Irish state which precedes Irish deterimination (was it the Irish who conceived an Irish republic using that word)?
2. Is there and element to the state that would prevent it being defined as a republic (is it a republic or not)?
   

These questions are clear. If you wish to discuss what "this dispute is about", go elswhere. I understand what the dispute is about. This is not a place to discuss the dispute. Talk of the dispute will prevent answering this question. To discuss the dispute in relation to my questions, please refer to the section below, thank you. ~ R.T.G 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know & I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies - my intention was to answer your questions. I believe there are some better qualified historians and history buffs here that would be better placed to answer your question (e.g. Scolaire?). But here's a stab:

1. In 1916, a rebellion announced the formation of the "Irish Republic". While the Irish may have flirted with the idea previously, and were insprired by the French republic, AFAIK the main date most people would think about is 1916.
2. Nope - the state is a republic.

--HighKing (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss the implications of RTGs questions above on the ireland naming dispute

Hi, I would like to know what folk have to say, if anything, about the Ireland naming dispute in relation to the 2 questions I posted above this section, thank you, thank you, thank you. ~ R.T.G 19:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcomed, you're welcomed, you're welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So we've finally exposed the breath-taking ignorance of editors who don't understand that nearly all genuinely Irish people feck off for a few months in the summer and early autumn to their communications-free private islands in the South Pacific. All well and good, though of course those editors should have at least tried to keep up with this well-publicised shift in holiday patterns.

I'll add a question of my own. Did the British govt's use of the phrase "Republic of Ireland" to refer to the 26-county state precede or follow the enactment by the Oireachtas of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

F did not win amongst Irish Editors

In fact Irish editors utterly rejected F. Time to put that canard to bed. Sarah777 (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

After 200 votes (in total) Irish editors had rejected F by 18 - 7; at that stage British editors had favoured F by 29 - 18. Thus proving the fact that RoI is a British imposition. I gave up tallying at 200 as the vote had already been invalidated by the biased Administration at that point with a quarter of the Irish editors withdrawing in protest at the farce. Sarah777 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I presume that's just a count of first preferences? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. F v not-F (the key question). All my assumptions are explicit and I've explained them many times. Sarah777 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is some encouragement for you Sarah. Take every name on the polling list. Go to their talkpages. Conduct a poll survey. Be very clear that you do not wish to pressurise anyone, in fact invite them very clearly to ignore the poll. Add a few choices relating to being Irish. Invite them to pick one. Make a template out of it, me or somebody with better template skills will surely help you do that, and place it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Template:Survey of voters(Ireland naming August 2009). Make a space where they have a chance to explain their connection or knowledge of Ireland. Again make this last step clearly voluntary. Set a time limit of a week or so (two even? leave it open and ongoing, you decide). Open the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Survey of voters (Ireland naming poll August 2009). List all the results you receive in that week add them together in any ways you or others can think of. Then restart this section and tell people that you know something. I for one would be pleased one way or another to find this information gathered and actually discuss it. Surely you can improve on my idea but the princliple is good, do you say so? ~ R.T.G 20:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is as reliable as "pouncing" on the results as they came in. We have a lot of NI Unionists etc claiming to be from "Ireland"; without being prepared to state what part. I think there is a better sampling in vino veritas by simply looking at their userpage declarations as they were before the vote started. I may complete the analysis I've done for the remaining votes but I regard the all votes after the censorship started as invalid. Sarah777 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Single...transferable...vote. Valenciano (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Meaningless in the absence of a Free Press. Sarah777 (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

18 + 18 = 36. 29 + 7 = 36. Therefore your numbers prove that the sum of the British and Irish voters that favor F is exactly equal to the sum that reject it. If the selection of F is an "imposition", it is not at the behest of "the British" alone. Presumably it is those from the rest of the international community that done that deed. As an interesting aside, is there any option that would not have been an "imposition" (i.e. was there any single option that the majority of Irish editors favored? In other words, did more than 12 of those that did not favor F all agree on another single option) If not, then every outcome would be an "imposition"! Rockpocket 20:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What do those numbers represent, they are meaningless in isolation of an explanation of the methodology you used. If you can prove it, well and good, but I doubt that will happen. I'm prepared to take an impartial look. I would also like to see Sarah's methodology. Tfz 21:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at the top of this thread, it should be clear what the numbers represent. Rockpocket 23:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Did any one option get a majority of "Irish editors" to support it? If not, then, by Sarah's logic, Irish editors rejected every option. Mooretwin (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Using RA's calculations, every single option would result in an "imposition" on Ireland, since the Irish editors themselves were unable to form a first preference majority among any of the options. This entire line of argument is utterly pointless, since there is no outcome that could satisfy it. Rockpocket 23:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And that's why some of us, from the start, rejected the poll process. Tfz 00:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Tz, he's just being Jesuitical; I suspect he actually understands the issue behind it all. It is clear that the vast majority of Irish editors preferred most options to the politically loaded "RoI"; it is equally clear that the preponderance of British votes supported this travesty of WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONAME. If we saw such engagement on other extremely cut and dried cases of British pov (look at the M50) then we might be able to take some of the things we read here seriously. This is but part of a pattern of imposition. But as in the case of "incivility" the establishment police only show up without being called when the Irish side utter a bad word. Sarah777 (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Putting F as a second, third, fourth or fifth preference would indicate that whilst F was not a voter's favourite option, there were non-F options that they favoured less than F - i.e. "F v not-F" was not considered to be the "key question" by the voter. The same arguments could be made for A v not-A, B v not-B, etc. Guest9999 (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This section is just one of Sarah's tedious bi-weekly reposting of the same unsubstantiated claim, and then doing a Houdini. If anybody is in any doubt that she has neither the will or the capability to show she even understands NPOV, let alone prove that this alleged systemic bias had any effect on this poll to an impartial audience, then they can look in the archives for the many re-runs of this behaviour. If you run the polling figures properly with a mind for compensating for systemic bias, (which involves doing something a bit more nuanced than playing with an abacus, and making crude assumptions about the synchronocity of Wikipedia to the real world), and it becomes perfectly clear that there was no deal changing net effect of the rather obvious fact that Irish people have their view and British people have their view. Ensuring NPOV is more than just proclaiming that as an astounding revelation as if people are thick as mince, then standing back and saying 'See!!!'. It requires scientific method and an open mind. Done, end of story, take your ball and go home if you don't like it, or even simply cannot understand it, because there comes a point when ignorance of the facts becomes willfull, and not just endearingly controversial. MickMacNee (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why you find facts tedious; up to vote 200 Irish Editors rejected F by a margin of 18 - 7 and British voters supported the imposition of F by 29 - 18. Sarah777 (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And I can fully understand why any detailed explanation to you of how using that little bit of simple counting to try and prove that there was a net bias effect on the poll in violation of NPOV is utter cloud cuckoo junk science, and when done properly shows no effect, is just going to go over your head, because your conclusion just 'looks' right. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

F won amongst Irish editors (which, in any case, is irrelevant)

F was a) the most popular option among Irish editors, and b) the least unpopular option among Irish editors. A discussion of topic b) is, of course, pointless, without also looking at how unpopular options A, B, C, D, and E were among Irish editors.

I know I have a list of Irish editors who voted. My list doesn't include any unionists, in fact, from what I can remember, it includes only one person from Northern Ireland who identifies as Irish. I know others kept there own lists. R.A. has tabulated his list of Irish voters' results. F wins. Saying it doesn't is - well, like some of the claims being made by Declan Ganley and UKIP about Lisbon II.

And - all of that is irrelevant, because it wasn't a poll of Irish people, or British people, or people from Britain and Ireland. It was a poll open to any Wikipedian who'd registered pre-June 1st. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Many British editors rejected F as a choice, and more did not put it first, and fair dues to them, as they know the proper name of the country. I think that the substantive point is that there was enough of bias there to put F in the first position. All that was needed is a small bias of about 20% to do that. Tfz 23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? Perhaps you could back that up with a real calculation, because it appears to me that removing all so-called British editors votes would still leave F the winner. If that is the case, then your argument is entirely lacking in merit. Rockpocket 23:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about your mathematics, are they fuzzy? Based on Sarah's figures

"Irish editors had rejected F by 18 - 7; at that stage British editors had favoured F by 29 - 18"

I get

25 Irish editors voted, 7 voted for F => 28% of Irish voters for F

47 British editors voted, 29 voted for F => 62% of British voters for F

Tfz 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Tfz, you're simply repeating Sarah's fallacy of counting only first preferences, as if this was a first-past-the-post ballot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought I was being generous as I didn't include the "Copycat effect"[5]. This too would skew editors' choices. Tfz 15:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point Tz; as nearly all the Irish had voted very early on it is clear that the later arrivals were in many cases merely hammering home the British pov out of irritation at folk such as myself and others who refuse to stop pointing at the naked British Emperor. Sarah777 (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to say up front. This sort of exercise, using completely unverifiable data, is automatically wrong. That said, from various sources, I make out the following:

82 British voters in total, 51 voted for F, which is 62%. E got 10 votes or about 12%, followed by C with 8 votes or about 10%. So the overwhelmingly popular choice for British voters was F. The second choice was behind by a whole 50% or 41 votes.

41 Irish voters, 14 voted for F, which is 33%. Nearly half in terms of popularity with British voters. C got 10 votes or 24% and B got 9 votes or 21%.

83 other nationalities voted. 32 voted for F, which is 38%. E got 19 votes - 23%, and B and C got 13 each or 16%.

There were 28 voters unclassified. 11 voted for F which is 39%, E got 6 votes which is 21%.

What can be read into these results? Anything you want, but it's all tosh if it's not based on verifiable info. But in that vein...

Some observations. It seems that if the British and Irish votes are excluded, the baseline for option F is about 38%. It shows that the Irish voters are voting pretty typically against this baseline (-6%) but the British vote is out by 30%. I'd be very interested in hearing reasons for the British vote being so massively skewed and out of step with the general trend.... --HighKing (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

All the above refers only to first preferences. So what it seems to be saying is that if we had a FPTP ballot, F would have won. And if we had an STV ballot, F would have won. I'm just not sure that means anything other than F was the most popular opgtion whatever way you look at it. Fmph (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Corrections from some more up-to-date info...

British. Total 84 votes. A:1 B:5 C:8 D:7 E:13 F:50 (1.19% 5.95% 9.52% 8.33% 15.48% 59.52%)

Irish. Total 42 votes. A:3 B:9 C:10 D:4 E:3 F:13 (7.14% 21.43% 23.81% 9.52% 7.14% 30.95%)

Other. Total 83 votes. A:2 B:13 C:14 D:4 E:19 F:31 (2.41% 15.66% 16.87% 4.82% 22.89% 37.35%)

Unknown. Total 26 votes. A:2 B:3 C:4 D:2 E:5 F:10 (7.69% 11.54% 15.38% 7.69% 19.23% 38.46%)

For those that are interested.... --HighKing (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So? How does your response help explain the massive skew in British votes for option F as first preference? I think that would go a long way towards understanding what's going on here. --HighKing (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So British editors prefer F over all other options, and by a far greater margin than Irish editors do. And that is a problem, is it? Any option other than the one preferred by British editors would be better, would it? I'm sorry, but my brain cannot handle logic like that. Fmph (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, it might be necessary to bar British & Irish editors from the 2011 Poll (if that's held). GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It will definitely be held unless the "RoI" problem is put to bed before then. Sarah777 (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, give users plenty of time to register non-British/Irish looking socks .... Fmph (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Socks must not be permitted, they tend to stink. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks HighKing - analysing the votes like that does indeed once again show that under STV (which this poll was run under) - amongst Irish voters only, F wins. And if it had been run under first-past-the-post, amongst Irish voters only, F would have won. Which is nice to be able to quote when you or Sarah or Tfz go on about imposition of a British POV name on to the article about our state and that its an insult that its not at its official name despite most articles on states not being at their official name - but in an STV poll among all voters who wanted to vote and were registered pre-June, it is still, ultimately, irrelevant. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, this very clear demonstration of the "Britishness" of your "RoI" imposition will be very relevent. Sarah777 (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually Bastun, analysing the votes under STV amongst Irish voters results in C being the winner. Analysing identifable Other voters (non-British and non-Irish) shows E to be the winner. Excluding the British vote results in E being the winner. --HighKing (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What it shows me is that there is a huge British skew towards F, completely out of line with non-British. It shows that most voters indicated by their first votes that they prefer a change away from the status quo (anyone non-British I mean). It proves that a British majority keeps an unwanted status quo in place. It shows that meaningless stats like these can be made to show anything you like.... --HighKing (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant as to who voted for the F-option, weither he/she is British, Irish, Canadian, American, Icelandic, Chinese, Indian, Iranian, Sudanese etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Your first sentence does not automatically prove your second. There is a basic methodology you need to follow if you ever hope to show these accusations are anything more than POV junk science. Sarah is utterly unwilling to do it, are you? Your starting point is not the voting figures, but the real world populations of Britain and Ireland. Input your assumptions, the actual poll figures, the options, and from there its easy to employ a simple bit of maths (not simple counting) to prove or disprove your second sentence follows from your first, showing conclusively that NPOV was not upheld in the poll and it should be set aside. Not doing so won't change a thing. MickMacNee (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Look - this whole analysis by nationality is "junk science" and I'd emphasise that absolutely no argument will be proven or disproven by using this unverified data. But from this unverified data, 62% of British voters selected F as their first choice compared with lower figures from Irish and others - what exactly is junk science about that and what do real world populations have to do with those figures? I've detailed the numbers above. And I'm not calling for the poll to be set aside because of those reasons. --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not "junk science", but it is important to get the correct empirical data, and use the correct methodology. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that the vote may have been skewed is plainly living in Cloud Cuckoo Land, and it's difficult to take them seriously on this issue. A little honesty, and a little respect for opponents' arguments is rarely wasted. Tfz 16:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant that this particular analysis can't be taken seriously since the underlying data is unverified. --HighKing (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with that HK is that we can't, without hazard (as I discovered) probe into undisclosed nationality because, knowing the endemic problem of nationalist British (and American) pov "the community" (aka the same British and American editors) don't want this extent of nationalism at work. Thus we get British (or American) nationalism defined as "consensus" while those opposing it get labeled "nationalist" in a beautiful ironic twist. So they kinow damn well, for example, that there is rampant British nationalist pov at work in Ireland-related articles and they either aren't interested (it doesn't affect them) or they support it (being of the imposing nationalities). And MacNamee; I am perfectly willing to admit there are 60 million Britons and only 5 million Irish - so what's your point. A proportion is relative. Sarah777 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but if bias is absent from the data selection process, then the result might prove to be broadly correct, as errors on one side of the data are likely broadly cancel errors on the other side. Standard deviation play a role too. Tfz 17:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So in summary: British editors appear to disproportionately favor F. I think everyone who understands how to analyze the data properly can agree on that. That only has a practical implication for us if that disproportionate sample changes the outcome. HighKing's own analysis suggests it didn't (in that F was also the most favored among the Irish and International voters, albeit by a smaller margin), so when you removed that skew, the result does not differ. Those who are doing data analysis based on STV come to the same conclusion. Based on these analyses, we should all be able to agree that the skew in British opinion is perhaps interesting, but entirely academic. Certain people are claiming this poll should be set aside because the result is biased by "British imposition". This claim is based on a incomplete data set (using just an early sample of the British and Irish votes, and ignoring all the International votes), using a metric that has no input into the actual result (F vs Not F). In other words, using the wrong empirical data and the wrong methodology. Can we put this "British imposition" to bed now and focus at the real issues? Rockpocket 17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rock, you've misinterpreted my analysis. Analysing the votes under STV amongst Irish voters results in C being the winner. Analysing identifable Other voters (non-British and non-Irish) shows E to be the winner. Excluding the British vote results in E being the winner. And the claim is based on the complete data set - albeit with unverified data. --HighKing (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

My view; the only way to check the hypothesis is to re-run the count 1) Without British votes 2) Without Irish votes 3) Without British and Irish votes 4) British votes only. Anyone got the software? Now that is the best way for editors to view/understand what is going on, or what the trend is. Trying to tell your opponents to more or less bugger off will not put this issue to bed. If you are correct, then what have you to fear? Tfz 17:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Using OpenSTV and the ScottishSTV method I get

• All - Winner F, (2nd E) (5th count)
• British only - Winner F (1st count :-)
• Irish only - Winner C (5th count)
• Exclude Irish Votes - Winner F (3rd count)
• Exclude British Votes - Winner E (5th count)
• Exclude British and Irish votes - Winner E (5th count)

For what it's worth.... --HighKing (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• E is the real winner here, hands down. No British POV, no Irish POV in the that scenario. Good work HighKing, QED! Tfz 17:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What a pal, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Let's not use unverified data to jump to *any* conclusions or to be used as evidence. They may be useful as unreliable indicators to perhaps understand different facets of editor voting. That's it. --HighKing (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Before we continue; What's the purpose of this discussion? The Ireland articles naming thing is settled 'til 2011. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh .. another fantasy. There's no mandate from Arbcom to settle matters one at a time. They specifically instructed us to agree on everything. It's annoying that editors here keep insisting the the Ireland article naming has been settled. It hasn't. Nothing has been settled until everything has been settled. And based on the lack of compromise going around, it looks like nothing will be settled either, so we're back to where we've started, which means that ArbCom will most likely come up with their own solution.... --HighKing (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought the analysis had been done (by RA) and F came out the winner all ways, but HighKing's analysis seems to differ from that. My apologies. I'm not sure what the difference between them is (perhaps different datasets, perhaps different interpretations of what passes for Irish and British). But therein lies the problem: the anonymous nature of Wikipedia leaves this type of analysis horribly flawed. For example, I have voted, and presumably I have been assigned to one of the groups of editors, yet my nationality is not publicly known. I'm sure the same can be said for many other editors. Furthermore there is going to be a self selection bias: the editors who are prone to announcing their nationality on their userpage with flags and proclamations of nationalism are also more likely to vote along certain lines. Therefore we are more likely to count extremes and more likely to find differences between national groups. The more moderate editors who don't see themselves along nationalist lines, and who would drive both groups towards the mean if their votes were counted, are more likely to be left out. So the real question is, what exactly is going to be gained by this type of flawed analysis?

Secondly, even if we somehow did come to some agreement that British editors involvement changed the result. What are we supposed to do about it? We can't just exclude an editor's vote post hoc based on our guess at their nationality. Coming into this vote, everyone knew that British editors were going to vote, therefore its not like this came out of left field. So why is it only a problem when the result, which is unfavorable to some, became clear? I'm at a loss to see what the complaining we are seeing here is supposed to achieve.

My preference (E) did not succeed, either. That sucks for me, but I think we all need to summon a bit of good grace, stop trying to manipulate the result to suit ourselves, and move on. Rockpocket 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I too prefered (E). However (F) is the top preference among all editors, this must be respected for the next 2 yrs. Also, those who've 'erased' their vote during the Poll, made their choice & shouldn't be protesting now. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)For the record RockPocket, you've been classified as "Unknown" nationality. I agree that this type of analysis is horribly flawed and I am opposed to it. But I was also getting a little tired of RA's incomplete analysis being trotted out (which was based on a subset of the early votes) as the basis for "nothing makes any difference). Finally, you state that Coming into this vote, everyone knew that British editors were going to vote - but that isn't the point. The question I keep asking is, how did the Arbcom process to discuss and agree a "complete package" get turned into a single-issue majority vote? Cos when I look back at the archives, Masem's last attempt before the vote was about a complete package, not a single issue. So who decided to change the scope and terms of references? Who agreed to it? As I've said before, it seems that many editors, like me, believed that the principal of compromise was copperfastened and agreed. It's why I've objected to this vote, and why I and others withdrew. What option did we have? By registering a vote, it could be seen as an endorsement of how the process was being abused. Then when you look at the bullying during the vote, the ballot tampering, and the gloating afterwards, this vote has done a lot of damage to the open and compromise-friendly discussions we were having previously. Some editors open declared that they were afraid to vote for a compromise on this issue for fear that the compromise-vote wouldn't be reciprocated on the next vote. --HighKing (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I opted for the Poll, with the understanding that it would put a 2yr pause on the Ireland naming dispute. My understanding was that reaching a compromise wasn't possible, the Poll helped break a stalemate. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't necessarily agree with you, but that is a valid opinion. Normally I would agree that ongoing discussion should not be superseded by a vote, but in this case I could see no evidence that the ongoing discussion was constructive. Its not like we hastily jumped into this vote, literally years had passed and the same people were making the same arguments without giving an inch (and that includes editors on both extremes). Ultimately, this outcome will have to be signed off by ArbCom. I suggest you make this appeal to them and ask whether a vote with all its limitations is an acceptable solution. Its my feeling that they will accept on Masem's endorsement of the process, but you may be able to convince them (or him) that we should go back to the table. This type of discussion I'm happy to get involved in, but the persistent attempts to misrepresent the outcome of the vote by flawed analyses and counter-analyses are pointless and tiresome. Its also counterproductive in that it poisons the well and makes further discussions towards a compromise solution less likely. It would be much better if we could put the flawed whole data analysis thing to bed once and for all and instead focus on the more substantive issue. Rockpocket 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't defined the voters sufficiently. Any talk like you have is just a bag of...! smarties working over time. Find some real information and conclude from there. Conclude from speculation? Only if thereis no way to gather evidence. I said, they dont all say they are Irish or not on their pages including me so you are all talking poopie woosies if you didn't go and ask anyone. Nobody asked me thanks very much. Once again we will not be having my vote interpreted in any way except that which I can tell you straight out what it is. Ask me. ~ R.T.G 18:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry lads. I cannot be solid with you if the north cannot be in Ireland even if they are the most blackest protestants in all the world or even if Ireland is nothing but a bunch of lunatics. I am telling you they are both that and more. Ireland is only around about one thing even if there are things in it, things on it, things out of it, this thing, that thing and even other things. Let me tell you something, if you want to count the Irish votes and the British votes you better count the Irish and the British, including those who dont say "I AM A THIS IS ME" on their page or you are just telling a load of lies, which is probably true but let's sort it out. Ask me on my talk page "Are you Irish Mr Voter?" I will say... Blank or Blanks ~ R.T.G 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarify & simplify, please. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

All the analsys offered up so far claiming to have shown systemic bias is utter junk science, because it attempts to support that assertion based on polling figures that suggests that Ireland has a real world population of 35 million compared to Britain!. It doesn't get simpler than this for explaining why all of this is utter bollocks if people don't do anything more complicated to even out the alleged bias than basic counting, before they start flinging around the accusations of a British imposition. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I happen to think that your argument is utter bollox cos what your suggestion wouldn't do is explain why the apparent skew in the "British" votes which is the only comment I made, based on percentages. And weighting each vote against relative populations for each country (which I think is what you're suggesting) wouldn't change that. In fact, it would probably result in F *not* winning on anything except the British voters count. --HighKing (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's good because its not meant to explain the skew (that falls under the rather obiovus starting assumptions that nobody is disputing). However, if you do do the maths, rather than just postulate, you will see that there was no net effect of the British and Irish bias on the actual outcome of the poll, because they pretty much cancelled each other out. What you are suggesting is, when we exclude the bias you don't like, but keep the bias you do like, then rather unsurprisingly, the preferred Irish option wins. That I am afraid is not excluding systemic nationalistic bias to ensure the NPOV is met. MickMacNee (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's just more bollox I'm afraid. When we exclude both British and Irish votes, then E wins. I've posted various combo's in the section below. Not that I think it's worth the ether the bytes are taking up....but I just got a little tired of everyone quoting RA's analysis to justify all sorts of nonsense and that nothing made any difference to the outcome. --HighKing (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Er no, because simply excluding both Irish and British votes is not how you ensure NPOV either, because you are simply removing votes, not bias. Ensuring NPOV is about properly weighting opinions, not censoring them. MickMacNee (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to show NPOV, that's the point. Your statement that "there was no net effect of the British and Irish bias on the actual outcome of the poll" is incorrect, since clearly there was, as can be demonstrated by looking at the other votes. --HighKing (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the 'net' refers to bias, not raw unadjusted votes. There is a difference. As of right now, all you have shown is how the net effect of bias would manifest itself in the vote if Ireland was theoretically half the size of Britain. Which is a nice thought experiment, but it does nothing for ensuring the NPOV has been shown on Wikipedia. Which is after all what is being claimed has been ignored in this poll. I would also point out here since you mention other votes, given the existence of the Irish diaspora, and the actual proven systemic bias of Wikipedia editors (go to ITN/C any day of the week), the 'other nationalities' totals very likely also carry a systemic bias, and probably would not represent the neutral middle ground between the British and Irish viewpoint either without proper adjustment. But by then we really would be into unverifiable data territory. MickMacNee (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It took me a while to understand your point but I think I get it. You're making the point that there were only twice as many British voters as Irish voters, even though in population terms there are many times more British than Irish. You're also making the point that we tend to only get "interested" people voting anyway, in which case all the voting blocs are likely manifesting some bias in any case. I'm not disagreeing with you. That's how voting works, and a "bias" leads to the vote declaring a winner. Wouldn't be much point otherwise. And we both agree that analysis of this data based on nationality is inherently flawed. What I'd accept is for editors here to desist trotting out RA's analysis to justify everything from vote tampering to snowball result to struck votes not making any difference anyway. If we simply accept that the analysis is flawed (but not so much that it can't be used as a trend indicator) and see that some of the things that are being said *might* actually be rooted in some truth, maybe we can get this process back on track. Maybe. If things haven't been damaged beyond repair. Personally, I think they have..... --HighKing (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying this poll cannot be analysed to see if NPOV has been met. What I am saying is the flawed way in which it is being done at the moment, in order to show that the British bias is forcing an imposition of a result, is frankly bullcrap junk science. If it is actualy done properly, then the figures presented as proof actually show there was no net effect of bias on the poll. That is not saying bias does not exist, because the two concepts are totally different. The reason we cannot get this far in the discussion and instead have this tedious reposting by Sarah, is because the 'conclusion' of the flawed analysis just so happens to look right to the people making the claims, because they have absolutely zero objectivity in the matter. MickMacNee (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I could not accept that anyone has a clear perspective of each voters disposition. The number of voters who say clearly on their userpage "I am from XXX", for instance, are few and far between let alone counting those with fair ties to the island north or south. There is a lot of flags and a lot of "I live here" but there is next to nothing about background and reasons for interest in naming the Ireland articles. How can you have a serious debate about what the Irish said and what the British said, what voters are relevant and how, when you don't know enough. Don't forget some folk from Timbuctoo could carry an irish pasport and we just don't know why they are voting until we get a response from them. ~ R.T.G 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll only contribute to this discussion to clarify some points about my "subsets". Like HighKing, Rockpocket and other point out, calculations of "British" or "Irish" subsets are unreliable - we don't know who's Irish or who's British. I did an early tally of Irish and then British votes in response to Sarah's hogwash tallies. Neither of those should be taken seriously - they are a best a gauge of British and Irish opinion, at worst completely off target.

After the poll closed, I ran a another subset: members of WP:IECOLL. That is the only subset that I would stand over since that is the only one that is reliable - membership of WP:IECOLL is a defined thing: if your name is on the list, your a member, if it's not, your not.

It doesn't matter who does the counting, subset of Irish or British voters are unreliable - don't read much into them. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It is quite an easy task to determine the nationality/domicile of many editors here at Wikipedia. Some errors could creep into the identification process, but as explained earlier once there is no bias in the identification process, errors on either side would tend to cancel each other, and would be consistent with statistical theory + 'the laws of chance'. Tfz 13:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to point out here that while it may be interesting to understand how the Irish and British votes broke down, as soon as the intent was there to take this to a poll for anyone (within certain bounds) to participate in, the results show what Wikipedia editors as a whole want to see for the naming issues, ignoring the bounds of Irish/British/other designations. I'm sure there's a good psychological/ethnicity study here but for the purposes of what this collaboration is supposed to be doing, this is now a red herring. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. So Masem, please could you do us all a favour and just close this talk page to further discussion of the shoal of red herrings? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

F did not win amongst Irish editors (which is the most relevant point to emerge here)

Absolutely disagree with Masem. Your censorship of the exposure of the British nationalist basis of the support for "RoI" skewed the subsequent vote so we have learned nothing except that the vast majority of Irish Editors don't want the article at "RoI" and that for the vast majority of British Editors that is the preferred location. Sarah777 (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Under any regime this poll would be null and void. The poll was rigged from the outset to deliver a particular result. That aspect becomes more certain with every lame excuse lodged. Tfz 15:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, this is just tedious reposting of the same flawed claims by Sarah, who cannot and will not understand why she has no case, and will simply dissappear again while it is explained again in great detail for her, only to reappear and come out with the same again. And on and on and on. MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me to that explanation that I "have no case". I certainly don't intend hanging around responding to the same old dross over and over. "the vast majority of Irish Editors don't want the article at "RoI" and that for the vast majority of British Editors that is the preferred location". This is true; and when I see any rational counter to that I'll reply. But I'm not interesting in dealing with waffling, obfuscation and endless peddling of British pov. Sarah777 (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You tell me how NPOV = Irish editors get to choose the name of their state article, and I'll point you to the kilobytes of discussion you keep ignoring (clue: it's all right above this repost) that shows why your astounding revelation the British and Irish people have different views, had absolutely no effect on the poll (that is, if the goal is to determine the actual NPOV view, not your odd interpretation of what NPOV means.) MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah's claims that "the vast majority of Irish Editors don't want the article at "RoI", but the closest she can get to proving that is to demonstrate that in a set of votes by editors claiming to be Irish, RoI did not command a majority of first-preference votes. That's a very different thing to what she claims. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This British vote (British only - Winner F (1st count :-)) swung everything, like a ginormous planet entering our solar system, pulling literally everything else from its orbit. Now study that piece of data a little deeper. Notice how F wins on the first count, now that's an example of 200% proof undiluted POV at its very best. Also I notice much obfuscation by some of those defending the poll outcome. Tfz 16:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So the fact that a choice you don't like won more votes than the other options is evidence of a huge bias? That's a novel way of looking at any sort of ballot.

I presume you are campaigning to overturn the results of the 2007 general election in Dublin Central, where Bertie Ahern won 1.84 quotas? By logic of planet Tfz, that indicates a horribly skewed poll where the result should be annulled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice red herring [6]. You know I objected to the poll, and strongly objected to UK being the only other country project being directly notified. I wanted all EU country projects notified, and it would have been so simple to grant that request, but that was not done, why? Tfz 17:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a red herring at all. You cite the existence of a result you don't like as evidence of a flawed poll, so the comparison is valid.

As to which country projects should be notified, the two chosen were those which had been in dispute over the name. If the notification was to be more widespread, why select only the EU states rather the rest of the globe? Ireland has much closer ties to the USA than, for example, to Bulgaria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I wanted the rest of the globe and got very strong objections from the F camp. I compromised for EU, and imo was mislead into thinking that would be done. On discovery that it was not done, I then cancelled my vote. Also I wanted USA, added it to the list, and my edit was reverted. I can supply diffs for all these. On another note I see the edit warring has been already started by a disruptive editor here [7]. Tfz 18:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In 2011, all the Projects-in-question shall be notified. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No. We need to look into the conduct of this poll first. That could take until 2011. Sarah777 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

'Till 2011? That's believable. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

the Irelands within Wikipedia

(Sheepishly admitting), I've forgotten where we last discussed this, so I'm continuing here. I see no problem with re-direct linking to Republic of Ireland throughout Wikipedia. Example: Republic of Ireland|Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally, yes, but there are times when ROI is better. I support this. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with any of the proposals, whichever is selected is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to address the main problem before we address collateral effects of British pov being imposed. Cart before horse etc. Just look at the farce unfolding at the "roads" articles. They now want to stop us calling Irish national roads...well....Irish national roads! Makes them sound too important it would seem. Even the most important road in Ireland (North or South) must share a dab with a rustic English motorway while any old cart-track in Britain is reckoned to be the "primary" usage. Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, that's an outrageous untruth, and I have no idea why you write such nonsense when you know perfectly well that it's a bare-faced lie.

It wasn't a British editor who objected to that, it was an Irish editor (me), and I set out the reasons for my concern at Talk:National primary road#Nx_road_or_Nx_national_road.3F -- it's a question of which is the common usage. I quite agree with you about the problems on motorways, and if you paid attention you'd notice that we are on the same side there ... so I have no idea what brings you to falsely accuse me of thinking that "national road" sounds too important. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Particularly when 'all roads lead to Rome'. Seriously though, I've no quarrel with 'Irish national roads'. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Q; Why did the Roman chicken cross the road?

A; She was afraid someone would caesar! ---- ha! Tfz 20:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Groan. Jack forbes (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I give up, why? GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the dispute over the legitimacy of the primary naming poll, is there a central discussion over the application of this to the naming of other articles and also usage in articles? If not, perhaps here would be the place to start it; it would seem prudent to try and reach a consensus over this issue. Rockpocket 21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the place, Rock. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. The here is an opening gambit, then. I would propose the following guidelines for usage within article text:

• In reference to the island of Ireland, we should primarily use the term Ireland piped to Ireland: e.g. Ireland
• In reference to the state of Ireland, we should primarily use the term Ireland piped to Republic of Ireland: e.g. Ireland
• In articles that refer to both the island and the state in the text, or where there is reasonable potential for confusion for the naive reader, disambiguation is required. In those cases, editors should use their judgment as to which form of disambiguation should be used to describe each entity. Examples include the following (though these should not be considered exhaustive).
• For the state (in no particular order):
  • The Republic of Ireland
  • The Ireland, the state,
  • The state of Ireland
• For the entire island (in no particular order):
  • The island of Ireland
  • Ireland, the island,
  • Ireland, including both the state of the same name and Northern Ireland,
• There does not need to be consistency of usage between or even within articles. Good grammar, context, and ease of understanding should guide usages rather than any ideological adherence to one descriptive term over another.

Thoughts? Rockpocket 21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm alright with those proposals. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Great in principle, Rock ... but as ever it will come down whether editors can agree on what amounts to "reasonable potential for confusion for the naive reader". My experience of all related discussions over the last few years is that range of interpretations is so great that on any given article you'll have some editors arguing that the potential for confusion is zero, and other who'll argue that it's 100%. That's why I suggested above that we try to work on some examples of how to handle these issues, but there were no takers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing new here, it looks like Status Quo. Nevertheless I cannot participate is this exercise because it's based on the lie that the poll was 'fair and proper', I'm out. Tfz 22:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)