Talk:Republic of Ireland

Archiving more misplaced discussion

It doesn't go here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why are we having these same article title discussions again and again and again? Redking7, I swear you have cut and pasted that same post numerous times on different pages, including twice on this page in the last few days. [1] [2] [3] It is nothing more than forum shopping, and will have no more of a constructive effect than it did the last time you pasted it. We understand your argument. We don't necessarily agree with it, but simply repeating it will not change that.

Its patently clear that nothing practical can come from discussion on this page (with regards to the title). Nothing. ArbCom have made that so with their move sanction. The only way anything is going to change is through WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. So, I urge you all: if you genuinely have an interest in resolving this dispute, engage there. Ignore any further comments on this page about the article title, since it has turned into a talking shop. POV pushing does not need to be countered here, because any attempts to use the artificial "consensus" to justify a change in the title/content will result in a block (as Domer found out yesterday). Just ignore it, and instead focus on the forum where a practical solution can be found. 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about SarekOfVulcan removal of talk page content

SarekOfVulcan maintains that ArbCom has banned discussion of the naming of the RoI article on the RoI talk page. My question to SarekOfVulcan is this, "show differences and the relevant pages/paragraphs of the ArbCom decision?". Otherwise this will be seen as a unilateral action by an admin. Tfz 22:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

100% agree. BigDunc^Talk 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Could some one please "report" SarekOfVulcan (I don't know how that process operates). The censorship he/she is tryin to impose is not the "Wikipedia way". Regards. Redking7 (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Title

Some one keeps "archiving" the discussion about the title of this article!

Discussion of the name of this (and other) articles

The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. That structure does not involve discussing it on the individual talk pages. If you want to discuss the subject further, follow the link above. I have archived all current discussion in an attempt to get people to comply with the ArbCom's directives. If you don't like it, take it to the Administrators' Incident noticeboard. I'm declaring this an administrative action to comply with an ArbCom directive, which is not reversible, until consensus there determines I'm mistaken.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur.  Sandstein  12:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You "have archived all current discussion in an attempt" to prevent discussion. That Sandstein you concur is not surprising, consulting you would be consulting a butcher about the keeping of Lent. SarekOfVulcan you have been activly involved in this discussion, were unable to support your opinions of defend your position, so you closed it down. You are both setting out to mislead our readers, and preventing them from informing themselves. The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed article namely Ireland. The arguement is based on nothing more than editors opinion, with not one reference to support their POV. The article text you removed illustrated this all to well. SarekOfVulcan I never violated any ArbCom's directives, you mate Sandstein said I did "what amounted to" a violation, and closed down the discussion where I set about defending myself. Why should I take it to Administrators' Incident noticeboard, and get more of the same. A joke! Only thing is, it's the readers who it's on. If you need me to provide Diff's you just have to ask. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I archived the discussion to prevent discussion IN THE WRONG PLACE. Subtle difference, but important.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Readers who read this article and question the misleading information, will not find any discussion here. When editors who have been involved in the discussion can still spout nonsense about this being about the State. You actions breed ignorance, with readers going away thinking RoI is the name of the State. You were activly involved in the discussion, and you closed it. At not time could you support your arguement. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the state and always has been. Therefore it's not "nonsense" to say so. On the contrary, it's nonsense to claim that it is not. Mooretwin (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a really big box at the top of the page that talks about "Ireland article names". If you feel editors might miss that, perhaps we could add something below it explaining the situation? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

They can only go away thinking this is the name of the state if they dont read the first paragraph of the introduction which clearly says.. "The name of the state is Ireland, while the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island". Thats if they miss the banner which i pointed out in the dif you mentioned. I agree the box at the top of the Ireland talk pages needs changing, the statement process is over people just need to be told to go there to see about the naming dispute and not to seek change here. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I pinged the Wikiproject, and the box has been updated.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. Please provide a link? There is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The short bit - If the RoI article is not to be moved to "Ireland", I agree with the compromise proposal that:

• the RoI article to "Ireland (state)";
• the island article to "Ireland (island)"; and
• "Ireland" be a DAB.

For those who wish to read on:

There are a bunch of states that have geographic names that do not fully correspond with their borders – Examples:

• Luxembourg – The state of that name does not include Luxembourg (Belgium);
• Mongolia – The state of that name does not include Inner Mongolia;
• Samoa – The state of that name does not include American Samoa;
• Solomon Islands – The state of that name does not include the North Solomon Islands;
• South Africa – The state of that name does not include lots of places in South Africa such as Swaziland;

....The names of all of the above states have Wikipedia articles that follow their usual names.Why is Ireland being singled out? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question. You should raise it as WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you know the answer to that question RedKing, they don't have a vocal group of pro British editors enforcing a lie with the backing of admins to afraid to stick up for the policies they are meant to enforce. BigDunc^Talk 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "Interesting question. You should raise it as WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration" - That process (of which I have actively participated in!) turned to farce. All of the Moderators even resigned! Note to those who desire a change: Its back to pushing this issue on every relevant article page. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not allowed to do that any longer as discussion has been archived and an editor blocked for asking why see here for more. BigDunc^Talk 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

@Redking7 - (reposting same reply as earlier today) ... And there are states where, like Ireland/Republic of Ireland, the opposite is the case. E.g.:

• China/People's Republic of China/Taiwan/Republic of China
• Congo/Democratic Republic of the Congo/Republic of Congo
• Korea/North Korea/South Korea
• Micronesia/Federated States of Micronesia

As we all know, too, hardly any articles on states on WP are located at their "official" names. This discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Nobody is "singling" Ireland out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "We are not allowed to do that any longer as discussion has been archived and an editor blocked for asking why" - This is Wikipedia - Of course we are allowed discuss matters pertaining to articles on their Talk pages!

Re the China "counter-example" referred to above, Below I recycle some China/Ireland type arguement

In case any genuine non-POV users might get confused and consider China some sort of acceptable example to follow:

• PRC (Peoples Republic of China) is the official name of the most widely recognised China. The large majority of countries recognise the PRC as the only Chinese State;
• ROC (Republic of China) is the official name of the much less recognised China - more commonly know as Taiwan (which is where the non-Communists established themselves after the Chinese Civil War and where the Communists have never ruled). A minority of countries, for example, the Vatican City recognise only the ROC (Taiwan) as the Chinese State;

That is broadly the reason for the way the China, the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of China have the article names they do.

In contrast:

• RoI (Republic of Ireland) is not the official name of the Irish State;
• "Ireland" is the name by which the Irish State is recognised by every country in the world (including even UK of GB and NI!);

In short, there is no comparison between the Chinese and Irish article names! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Congo and Korea - Firstly, none of the 4 states concerned claim to be simply "Congo" or "Korea" as the case may be. More importantly, even if the Congos or Koreas did claim they should be known simply as "Congo" or "Korea" as the case may be - they would be claims of multiple states. In contrast Ireland is the only state in the world that asserts that its name is Ireland and that name is recognised by every state in the world without qualms.

Re Micronesia, that name is more comparable with the America (check where that link brings you - its a DAB, somethin I suppor Ireland becoming). No comparison with Ireland. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So what is your argument? Is it (a) that the state should be at Ireland because that is the official name? (Reply: Most articles on states are not at the official names of the sates.) Or is it (b) that 'states take precedence over identically named geographic regions'? (Reply: Above I have linked to examples where geographic regions take "precedence" over states.) Or is it (c) both? (Reply: So you think that Ireland is a special case?)

"In contrast Ireland is the only state in the world that asserts that its name is Ireland..." This is not an encyclopedia of states. It is a general encyclopedia. The state is not the only thing in the world named "Ireland".

Also, I think you need to look again at the Micronesia page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like those "counter-examples" did not amount to much. My argument is the same as it was above, namely:

There are a bunch of states that have geographic names that do not fully correspond with their borders – Examples:

• Luxembourg – The state of that name does not include Luxembourg (Belgium);
• Mongolia – The state of that name does not include Inner Mongolia;
• Samoa – The state of that name does not include American Samoa;
• Solomon Islands – The state of that name does not include the North Solomon Islands;
• South Africa – The state of that name does not include lots of places in South Africa such as Swaziland;

....The names of all of the above states have Wikipedia articles that follow their usual names.Why is Ireland being singled out?

Re, Micronesia, you might need to clarify for me and the other reders. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So your argument is (b) that 'states take precedence over geographic areas'. I gave you counter counter examples.

(RE: "Micronesia". At Micronesia I see an article. At America I see a dab page. Did you say that you see differently or did you just mean that just America page was a dab? (I might have the wrong end of the stick.)) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Micronesia" contains lots of different states. So does "America". If Ireland was called "Europe", the comparison might work. As its stands, it doesn't. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

Why are we having these same article title discussions again and again and again? Redking7, I swear you have cut and pasted that same post numerous times on different pages, including twice on this page in the last few days. [4] [5] [6] It is nothing more than forum shopping, and will have no more of a constructive effect than it did the last time you pasted it. We understand your argument. We don't necessarily agree with it, but simply repeating it will not change that.

Its patently clear that nothing practical can come from discussion on this page (with regards to the title). Nothing. ArbCom have made that so with their move sanction. The only way anything is going to change is through WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. So, I urge you all: if you genuinely have an interest in resolving this dispute, engage there. Ignore any further comments on this page about the article title, since it has turned into a talking shop. POV pushing does not need to be countered here, because any attempts to use the artificial "consensus" to justify a change in the title/content will result in a block (as Domer found out yesterday). Just ignore it, and instead focus on the forum where a practical solution can be found. 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockpocket (talk • contribs) 23:00, 2 June 2009

Anonymous poster. I do cut and paste arguments where appropriate. There is no compulsion on you to participate in the discussion if you think it will be fruitless. You do not have a right however, to impose censorship. This is wikipedia, a "democratic" type of webiste. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

See the Good Practices section on the Talk page guidelines pertaining to centralised discussion: "Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums. ... Instead, solicit discussion in only one location, either an existing talk page or a new project page, and if needed advertise that in other locations using a link." (Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it not a democracy it won't enforce it's own rules and Admins routinely abuse their power to silence people defending WP:NPOV. Good to see a "new" poster fearlessly on the side of the powerful though. Sarah777 (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you mean me, then I've been around for two years or so, and I'm "fearlessly" on the side of avoiding disruption. I paid attention to what was happing here after Domer tried to effect a page move by stealth, and then argue the toss. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Which he was blocked and unblocked for, yet you still endorse the current bad block. BigDunc^Talk 18:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked and unblocked for the pagemove-by-stealth. It's the disruption that occurred here subsequent to the unblocking that makes me support the current block. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What disruption, he asked for a diff that Sarek said that arbs had prevented discussion on the talk page and this proves here that Sarek hadn't got it bad block I still maintain. BigDunc^Talk 19:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

He asked for a diff - and only that - in all the posts he made here prior to the current block? You'll recall that my criticism of Sarek that the block was overdue; asking for a diff may have been the proverbial straw for Sarek, but for me the disruption was occurring long before that. Domer had been advised where to have the discussion he clearly wanted to have, but he persisted in posting here. I guess having to hold a discussion in a centralised, visible location is "censorship". Incidentally, I did reply to that point earlier - I guess you missed it. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The straw wasn't asking for a diff. As I said here, the straw was when he said :

"The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles."

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

According to MacNee they haven't. Maybe you'd like to supply the diffs to support your apparently false claim? Sarah777 (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So Sarek you admt now that the arbs didn't have it in place that discussion should be centralised yet you arbitrarily archived alol discussion here and block an editor for asking for diff you knew wasn't there, a diff I might add that I also asked you for and you said you provided. BigDunc^Talk 19:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You're misreading Sarek's comment: he was quoting Domer. Domer said ArbCom hadn't put anything in place, whereas ArbCom ruled that "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" and the community established Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration as a venue per ArbCom. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

They haven't and are attempting to do it now so Domer was correct. BigDunc^Talk 19:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't shoot the messenger! I was merely seeing you richt with respect to your "So Sarek you admt now that the arbs didn't have it in place that discussion should be centralised" statement, when in fact Sarek was quoting Domer. However, my reading of the ArbCom decision is that they asked the community to develop a forum, and that that forum has been opened. "attempting to do it now" - they've either done it or they haven't done it. What's your criteria for them not having done it? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarek claimed that it was in place and was asked for the diff by Domer, I asked him/her too and they said it was there it appears now it wasn't as can be seen here. BigDunc^Talk 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an RFC to make it explicit, correct? Well, if it helps avoid incidents like this in the future, great, but it all seemed pretty obvious to me without an RFC. The giveaway was the big box at the top of this page, and the links in it. But I guess it helps to translate ArbCom-ese into English, and that's got to a good thing, even if it seems slightly unnecessary. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not an RFC it is an amendenment to the arb case and as such it wasn't in place when Sarek said it was while they went around archiving this page and blocking editors for something that wasn't in place. BigDunc^Talk 19:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My mistake: RFC -> amendment. So... Sarek blocked Domer because Domer said "The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles". In fact, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration had been established. Now an ArbCom amendment is explicitly stating that dialogue should only occur there - am I correct so far? My problem is, I'm not really connecting the dots between the first two and the latter. Domer said no venue; venue did in fact exist; Sarek blocked Domer for bad faith. Now ArbCom amendment occurs. They seem only tangentially related. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"Domer was blocked for bad faith". Wow! Is there no limit on the arbitrariness of Wiki Admins? Sarah777 (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend This flag once was red be blocked for trolling this page. All the other participants have an historic interest in the related subjects. Tfz 20:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the remedy, I do take the point that this discussion shouldn't be happening here, and to that extent I apologise: it certainly hasn't been my intention to "troll" - my posts in this thread were in response to comments apparently made about me, which then continued in a discussion with BigDunc. I'm more than happy to take this conversation to a user talk page, if anyone has any further comments or questions involving me. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me tfz didn't just say "we need a involved admin because an uninvolved one can't be impartial".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, I thought you had 'something' about talk-pages. Anyway when you go around calling people liars, other editors will question your ability, and indeed your integrity. I'd expect an admin to bring qualities to the table. If that does not happen, what's the the point? Editors who are non-admins would do far far better. There is nothing special about having an admin getting involved, as far as I can understand. Tfz 21:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tfz you have implied an editor was a liar and then block an editor you are in dispute with on spurious reasons which at least 2 possibly 3 admins have said is a bad block and then you bait Domer on his talk page very bad form indeed. BigDunc^Talk 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, I'd still regard Vulcan as a paragon of virtue and judgment compared to those Admins who having made the correct call still sit on their hands. Execrable behaviour. IMHO. Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of Process

Some one keeps archiving the ongoing discussion re the title of this Article. The discussion page of an article is an appropriate forum for discussint the title of an article. "Archiving" (i.e. censorship) like this is, I think, a breach of Wikipedia Rules. Apparently one user - Domer - has already been "silenced". Is this sort of thing allowed? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer has been unblocked from his personal Userpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What happened Domer???Sarah777 (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I don't know who is doing the archiving but I must politely insist that they get consensus before doing so again. Sarah777 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Domer was blocked for one week for asking why they couldn't use the talk page here. It is Sarek that is archiving they maintain that we are not allowed to discuss the naming here per arb com rulling BigDunc^Talk 17:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I see what happened; I've asked Rock to unblock Domer and block Sarek for gross and monstrous abuse of Admin privileges in a personal dispute. Sarah777 (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold my breath Sarah, Sandstein in an admin way admited that the block was bad yet it still stands, you and I both know that admins very rarely overturn blocks no matter how bad, but there are still a few who have the balls too, so lets see what happens. BigDunc^Talk 18:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, any Admin who regards a block as bad and lets it stand is not fit to be an Admin, IMHO. "Wheel wars" pleas are the Neville Chamberlain-in-Munich of Wiki. Those with some passion who are manifestly wrong are morally superior to those who know what is right but are too cowardly to act. (Except against members of the minority when it errs, then they sometimes find their courage!). Sarah777 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a request for amendment to the Ireland arbitration case. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stop with the non-constructive comments again administrators. This doesn't help anything and just seems to be getting people's ire up. Canterbury Tail talk 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you reprimanding your fellow Admins CT. Now just lift the grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented block on Domer. Sarah777 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, because I'm not spending the time going through it to determine what was right and what was wrong. I render no judgement on whether it was correct or not, as I haven't looked into it. And just remember, admins are editors, they do make mistakes. I do believe some people are already looking into to who are even less involved. Canterbury Tail talk 19:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

CT; some things are so obvious they don't need looking into. This is one such. Sarah777 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of date

Much of the information has no date context and some of it is out of date. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Any examples?MITH 13:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Change of Article Title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See notice from Arbcom at the bottom before opening this again

---

Lets have a vote on the title of the article. The Moderation process has not ended in a consensus so a poll seems to be needed

For Moving Article to "Ireland (state)":

1. Redking7 (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
2. My last hurrah, on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
3. ClemMcGann (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC) . I don't like votes, but it could be worse, I had a nightmare: [7]
4. This should have been done years ago. 'Ireland(state)' and 'Ireland(country)' or 'Ireland (island)' are the most reasonable to all concerned. Dunlavin Green (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For Keeping the Article at "Republic of Ireland":

1. - Just to annoy people who hate this title. Everyone knows this is being handled at the wikiproject, get over it. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
2. For now, but without prejudice to other processes or later decisions. DrKiernan (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
3. --Rockybiggs (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Djegan (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For following the directives of the Arbitration Committee instead of Wikilawyering:

1. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

For not wasting everyone's time in a pointless vote that will only escalate into drama

1. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Redking, whether you like it or not, the arbcom injunction against page moves is still in effect. If you want that changed, on the reasonable point that the discussion has crashed and burned, then you need to tell them that. I'm doing you a favour here, if you or anyone else attepmts to re-open the poll against the various people telling you what's what, the next step is the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. Please, no cries of censorship. I didn't make the rules, but that's what they are. They apply to you the same as everyone else MickMacNee (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Some one keeps trying to "close" this poll - This is Wikipedia - Censorship is frowned upon. Please let Users express their views on the talk page. Be respectful. Even if you disagree with others. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re User MickMacNee - The link you give does not say anything about banning polls. It relates to moves. Not polls. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re BritishWatcher - Would you agree that at the wikiproject, all the moderators resigned! Any way, this poll concerns only one move - the wikiproject is concerned with broader issues. Other article titles etc. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a vote holds no merit. Consensus and reliable sources is what matters, not voting. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a democracy, because everyone has a say in its' content. What else is it, a dictatorship?

Anyway it's looking like voting is the only way to resolve this ongoing dispute.--FF3000 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom are currently well on their way to passing a motion that explicitly states that "Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration." I suggest you all do yourselves a big favor cast your votes at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Proposal to move forwards instead. Rockpocket 21:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the article title. The article title "Republic of Ireland" is correct; it's the article content that is the problem. The problem on the current content is where to put it. I don't think there is any disagreement on that? The correct content would be along the lines of this here. As Canterbury Tail points out above, "consensus and reliable sources is what matters, not voting." If consensus fails, that leaves us with reliable sources. So the question is, do we leave the content on this article, knowing it is wrong, or do we address a clearly defined problem. Wikipedia is quite clear on this, and there is no ambiguity on verifiability and neutral point of view. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. Wikipedia:Verifiability is also one of Wikipedia's core content policies. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the 26-county state: always has been, and always will, regardless of the title. It is not correct that there is "no disagreement" with the assertion that the article content, and not the title, is the problem. On the contrary, I should think most editors disagree. Mooretwin (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and remember to comment on content, not on the contributor.. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The title should certainly be the Republic of Ireland or the Irish Republic and not Ireland. Ireland encompasses the separate province of Northern Ireland being an integral part of the United Kingdom so to use this term to signify the 26 Counties of the Republic of Ireland is incorrect.

The opening sentence of the article namely "Ireland (pronounced en-us-Ireland.ogg /ˈaɪɚlənd/ (help·info), locally [ˈaɾlənd] – Irish: Éire, pronounced Eire.ogg [ˈeːɾʲə] (help·info)) is an independent state in north-western Europe." is incorrect. Ireland is an island which contains two distinct territories namely Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. --De Unionist (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. This is not helpful.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It may not be helpful but it is FACTUAL! --De Unionist (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sareks comments that its not helpful are because this isnt where the debate or vote on this matter is meant to be taking place. The dispute is meant to be resolved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration but sadly some people have tried to bypass that process which is backed by ARBCOM. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what, De. Convince the UN that they don't have a member state named "Ireland", and I might grant your point. Until then... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the UN? ...aren't they that discredited bunch who sit around in New York and achieve zit-all?---De Unionist (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

They're the group, which continues to warn North Korea to behave. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom says: Per these motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this Bastun^nutsaB 16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article Title Discussion

Why has the Poll concerning the title of the "RoI" article been archived already? What was the rush in closing the poll? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You were already given the answer to that above. Also, please don't delete comments of people you disagree with. That tends to be blockable if it happens more than once...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The edits concerned were should have followed the normal order...i.e. after the edits of others...but they were put in as "headlines" which was not apt. I moved them. Then, they were moved back. Then I deleted them. I don't know if any of them were yours or not. The question remains Why has the Poll concerning the title of the "RoI" article been archived already? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the last paragraph in the archived discussion above, from Arbcom. Bastun^nutsaB 00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of ArbCom Rules

According to the above, the reason the "title" discusion was archived was because, apparantly Arbcom state:

"Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process."

The above has no baring on the discussion that was archived:

1. it did not concern the naming of "Ireland articles" - it concerned the naming of one article, the "RoI article" - which discussion was raised in the appropriate place, the talk page of the RoI article; and
2. the above discussion in no way "disrupted" any discussion taking place on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Therefore, the above discussion should not have been archived. Can some one "de-archive" it? This appears to be an attempt to impose censorhip. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the Republic of Ireland isn't an Ireland article? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but could Redking7 be saying that the discussion was on article content and not the article title? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, Domer, though somewhat undermined by the title and opening sentence of the discussion... "Lets have a vote on the title of the article" Rockpocket 00:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments below that was in the archived discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be saying that because it involved only one article the Arbcom resolution doesn't apply. I don't think that will wash with Arbcom... Bastun^nutsaB 22:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If thats really how you feel, Redking7, why don't you de-archive it yourself and we can see how the admins at ArbCom Enforcement feel about lawyering over plurals? Its my considered opinion that they will take an extremely dim view. Talk about beating a dead horse. Rockpocket 00:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I did but it has been repeatedly deleted....Check the history of this page....Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline of knowledge coverage

Anyone know what the deal is with the error in the {{Outline of knowledge coverage}} banner at the top of this page? I can't see any problems here, and am not familiar enough with code to determine if there is an issue on the template. Rockpocket 00:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. DrKiernan (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No confidence poll regarding 'Collaboration page'

Under the ArbCom rules is it possible to have a "no confidence" poll regarding the Collaboration page, here on the talk page? Such a poll could not be held at the collaboration page because some editors may not have the confidence to vote on that page, and it is a very hostile place to be, therefore it should be held here. Tfz 03:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this for real? Bastun^nutsaB 10:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I have no confidence in the so called collaboration page. BigDunc^Talk 10:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no confidence in your good faith or willingness to compromise, then. Nach mór an trua é. -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

imo. You were one of the most uncompromising editors on that page. Unfortunately the moderator failed to moderate, and "the squeaky wheel got the grease", alas. Tfz 12:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is a pity because I have no faith in your willingness to compromise either, also maybe it would be better if you spoke in English for other editors who might not understand. BigDunc^Talk 10:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not ask Arbcom, then: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification Bastun^nutsaB 10:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a rat's ass about who is compromising most in this process, I personally am arguing for what I believe is correct under Wikipedia policy, whatever my personal POV. If you whiners have such a problem with the process that has been months in the making, and has been specifically requested by arbcom, then tell it to arbcom. Give everyone a rest from your fucking tedious drama-whoring bullshit. MickMacNee (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion of 'no confidence' in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration page

Add your 'no confidence' vote regarding the above linked page. It is not necessary to state your reasons. Poll will stay open for four months.

1. Tfz 13:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Objections to the 'no confidence' poll

You'd be linking where you got Arbcom permission, then? You'd also be adding a 'confidence' section? And advertising it on all the appropriate pages and projects? Four months for a poll?! Get real. Bastun^nutsaB 13:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If there's a non-confidence motion for the Collaboration Project? shouldn't it be held there? GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, because if one had no confidence in that page, they would want to stay away from it. And they wouldn't have any confidence in any poll held there either. So it has to be held outside of that page. Tfz 14:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)