Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/proposal for Ireland Article: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Protected Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/proposal for Ireland Article: Blocked for edit warring ([edit=sysop] (expires 19:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 19:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)))
→‎Comments against: try that again, Domer and I will go to AN
Line 61: Line 61:
== Comments against ==
== Comments against ==
''Comments must address the [[WP:NPA|content and not the editor]]. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions.''
''Comments must address the [[WP:NPA|content and not the editor]]. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions.''
⚫
# - Nope. Ireland is ambiguous. The way we address ambiguity is to deal with it in a neutral and sensible manner, not ignore it. [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 01:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

⚫
# - Nope. Ireland is ambiguous. {{cn}} [[User:Rockpocket|<font color="green">Rockpock</font>]]<font color="black">e</font>[[User_talk:Rockpocket|<font color="green">t</font>]] 01:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
What happened to my ''comment''? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
What happened to my ''comment''? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Revision as of 20:27, 19 June 2009

Under the title “Findings of fact” in the section titled “Locus and state of dispute” ArbCom outlined the nature of the content dispute between the parties being:

  1. the appropriate titles for the article or articles concerning the country of Ireland and the island of Ireland
  2. the ambiguity that exists because the designation "Ireland" is used in English to refer to both of these
  3. disagreements concerning recent page moves relating to these articles
  4. whether consensus was properly obtained for the moves
  5. the extent to which the current article titles conform with the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view.

Points 3-5 have not been addressed at all during any of the discussion; while points 1-2 have been endlessly discussed with no resolution been achieved. At the moment, we have been unable to locate the discussions which lead to the consensus for points 2 and 4. This proposal will not be directly addressing these issues.

This proposal is not something I came up with but is a compilation of a number of proposals by a number of Editors. MickMacNee got things started with this suggestion here. Suggesting an “Ireland which would cover all conceivable Ireland/Irish topics, such as History, Geography, Politics, Culture etc etc etc, with sensible formatting to fork to both all Ireland sub topics, and other specialist articles (Northern Ireland being the most obvious).” This was followed up by Rannpháirtí anaithnid with a similar suggestion here. They suggested “Ireland is a primary topic (i.e. deals with the history, culture, geography, people of all of Ireland). The article currently at Republic of Ireland is a subtopic of that (in respect of history, culture, geography, people etc.)… Contrast our way of doing things with Britannica which makes no distinction between the state and the island, having only one article that is ostensibly about the state, but which actually covers the whole island (like a merger between our current Ireland and Republic of Ireland). I would be in favour of such a solution too (over the current solution).” This was advanced to suggesting a merger of Ireland into Republic of Ireland then move Republic of Ireland to Ireland. These suggested were summarised then by Tfz in this post here. Having provide a sample Straw poll based on the comments of various Editors, I was prompted to put forward this proposal. This is the genesis of the suggestion so can not be considered mine alone.

My rational

I have stayed within ArbCom’s Final decision, and based my proposal on the Principles laid down. Based on this then, per Naming conventions, use of the term “Ireland” for the State/Country reflects current official usage by the UN, Europe and by the UK Government. The Government of the nation refers to itself as "Ireland." Numerous evidence cited indicates that the most common usage of the term "Ireland" is in reference to the nation, and not the island land mass. In addition, as pointed out by ArbCom in the section titled “Locus and state of dispute”, article titles must conform with the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view, and based on all the available sources it does. This proposal is directed towards the Community and the reader and is not intended to appeal or appease any one group or individual as the suggested polls will possibly do. I have not addressed the issue of the Republic of Ireland article at this time, but suggest we address the initial cause of the dispute as outlined by ArbCom. Having worked out any possible concerns it would be the intension to place a notice on the various notice boards and ask for Community endorsement.--Domer48'fenian' 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Proposal

To create one Ireland article, by merging the current article at Republic of Ireland with the Ireland article. The article would be covered with disambiguation hatnotes such as:

  • For the constituent country of the United Kingdom, see Northern Ireland.
  • For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation).

This Article would cover all conceivable Ireland/Irish topics, such as History, Geography, Politics, Culture in a general way with a summary style format. Each section would have a disambiguation hatnote linking to a more detailed sub-article on that topic. Such as:

This has been called the China solution.

Support

Please do not add any comment besides signing your name here. If you agree or disgree post a comment in the sections below.

  1. --Domer48'fenian' 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BigDuncTalk 22:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tfz 19:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Please do not add any comment besides signing your name here. If you agree or disgree post a comment in the sections below.

  1. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. MickMacNee (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rockpocket 01:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BastunnutsaB 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for

Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Please address one point at a time. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions.

Comments against

Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions.

  1. - Nope. Ireland is ambiguous. The way we address ambiguity is to deal with it in a neutral and sensible manner, not ignore it. Rockpocket 01:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to my comment? GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments neither for, nor against

Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Please address one point at a time. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions.

  1. I would need to see an example of what the merged doc would look like, and be convinced of its WP:NPOV content, before I could support this proposal. But it is not totally out of the question. I think we will just be moving the arguments from the article titles to the article content. Fmph (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia:Naming conventions is a longstanding policy, provides that:

    Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
    This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
    Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
  2. ^ A Country by any other Name, Mary Daly, Journal of British Studies, Jan 2007 volume 46 number 1
  3. ^ The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office referred to Ireland as the "Republic of Ireland" - however since 2000 it has referred to the State as "Ireland." The credentials presented by the British ambassador, Stewart Eldon, in 2003, were addressed to the President of Ireland.A Country by any other Name, Mary Daly, Journal of British Studies, Jan 2007 volume 46 number 1
  4. ^ In 1976 both the British and Irish governments published the United Kingdom / Ireland Double Taxation Convention (SI 1976 No. 2151 and Protocols) [1]. According to JDB Oliver in the British version it originally referred to Ireland as the Republic of Ireland, while the Irish version simply said Ireland. Studies in the History of Tax Law, John Tiley (University of Cambridge. Centre for Tax Law), Hart Publishing, 2004, ISBN 1841134732, Pg. 177, in the 1998 Protocol no such problems existed, with specific reference by name to one country or the other and using the name Ireland. Oliver citing an Inland Revenue Press Release "Inland Revenue Press Release, Double Taxation Agreements: Hong Kong, Ireland and Malaysia. 9 November 1998" which states that “In line with practice following the Belfast Agreement, the term ‘Ireland’ is used in the Protocol whereas the term ‘Republic of Ireland’ was used in the 1976 Convention and previous Protocols.” During a subsequent debate in the House of Commons,on the draft Order, the change in wording was raised, with the Financial Secretary referring the Opposition spokesman to the Inland Revenue press release adding “the treaty thus reflects changing circumstances.” Studies in the History of Tax Law, John Tiley (University of Cambridge. Centre for Tax Law), Hart Publishing, 2004, ISBN 1841134732, Pg. 179
  5. ^ Bunreacht Na hÉireann
  6. ^ European Union Interinstitutional Style Guide.
  7. ^ Constitutional Law of 15 EU Member States (edition 6), L. Prakke, C. A. J. M. Kortmann, Hans van den Brandhof, J. C. E. van den Brandhof, Kluwer, 2004, ISBN 9013012558, Pg.430
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/proposal_for_Ireland_Article&oldid=297422882"