Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Statements For and Against each option

The issues involved on the Pro and Con Statements are:

  1. should they be sourced,
  2. were should they be placed on the ballot paper,
  3. should the Pro and Con statements for each option be kept separate.

Masem outlines a process for fact checking the statements here an advance in my opinion which I think editors could support. If editors wish to challenge a source or the application of policy, they must first offer alternative sources. If on policy and its challenged on nothing other than "interpretation" the reader who may not be familiar with the subject will however understand policy and they can make an informed decision for themselves.

The most logical place for the Statements are beside each option. Readers can look at the option and then click on the statements without having to go and look for them.

It is again logical that we don't lump all the statements both Pro / Con together for each option. The reader needs to be able to read each statement and then make a balanced and informed decision, so lumping them all together makes this cumbersome and distracting. As to which editors statements goes first, a simple solution is to put them together that is all the Pro statements together and all the Con Statements go together. So for example on the Pro statements while editors my all put forward the same particular rational there is only a need for one of them to be presented.--Domer48'fenian' 09:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are these statements? Mooretwin (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There aren't any. We tried to write some, but Domer and some others rejected them. They have offered no replacement text. I doubt that if they do they will fail to be rejected. -- Evertype·✆ 11:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to address the points above first, then editors can be invited to provide them. On the Editors personal "POV/Soapbox Statements" which don't have to be sourced at all it is agreed (see above discussion) editors can write them up now and some already have. Were they go however still has to be decided, were they will not be going is on the ballot paper that is as far as I know also agreed. --Domer48'fenian' 11:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is my opinion. I disagree with what Domer48 considers to be "logical". In the first place, he's shown us nothing in terms of actually crafting either a Position Statement or helping to draft Pro/Con statements. In the three weeks since the close of the (xxx) poll, he's argued and argued, but offered no text. Well text is what this is about, not more blather about what's "most logical". Here is my response to Domer's points above:
  1. Pro and Con statements are no different from any other individual editor's Position Statement. All statements must be Position Statements; we have no hope in writing a set of "neutral" Pro/Con statements (we have tried it before and failed). An editor may choose to support his Position Statement with sources. An editor may choose not to support his Position Statement with sources. (My Position Statement does not argue for any one solution, so it is a Pro/Con statement; nevertheless, it does not cite sources.)
  2. No argument, whether a Pro/Con Position Statement or any other kind of Position Statement, should be placed on the ballot paper.
  3. Any editor may write his or her Pro/Con Poosition Statement (or any other kind of Position Statement) as he or she wishes.
I oppose very strongly any attempt to put arguments of any kind on the actual ballot paper itself, and I oppose very strongly any attempt to put any editor's names even as links to their statements on the actual ballot paper itself.
That, in my opinion, is the only way we can move forward here. NOTE PLEASE that Masem outlined a possible process for fact checking the statements here. I don't believe that process in workable, and I call on Masem to put us out of this misery and make some rulings so that we can get this ballot launched. Three weeks, six weeks, I don't care. This has become a colossal waste of many editors' valuable time at this stage. Nothing will be served by delaying the ballot any longer. We are spinning our wheels. -- Evertype·✆ 11:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how many people will dispute the facts. Rather than another editor directly disputing the facts could it be possible to dispute them through Maseem? This would at least avoid the worst of the arguments which could descend into another debate. Coll Mac (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
We've already been there, Coll Mac. We wrote these collectively and in good faith. I don't believe there are any "facts" that warrant serious dispute in that presentation. But they rejected it. Masem is not a hands-on moderator here. I don't believe we should try to "ghettoize" some Position Statements by entering (again) into a process to try to define Pro/Con arguments. We've done that and failed, and the text that failed isn't even obnoxious. We don't NEED another debate. We need to agree to have Position Statement, sourced or unsourced, Pro/Con or otherwise, and to set a deadline and stick to it. Hasn't this gone on long enough? How many months more? -- Evertype·✆ 11:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I've only been involved for a few days and feel a little frustrated. Goodness knows how the rest of you feel. Ok, forgetting the challenges to the statements, why not start the process now. Unless I'm mistaken and there are different rules on wikipedia, there seems to be a consensus for it. Coll Mac (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting that "We wrote these collectively and in good faith" is very misleading. Who were they "we" because I thought that was just "your" statement. --Domer48'fenian' 12:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The main and obvious difference between the Pro / Con Statements and the "POV/Soapbox Statements" also know as “Position Statements” is the issue of sources. Masem has suggested a solution here which I think editors could support.
We have not “tried it before and failed” on the Pro / Con Statements because it has never been tried. Some Editors have simply argued against the need for sources.
Again, this is not about the "POV/Soapbox Statements" also know as “Position Statements” that has been agreed. Editors do not have to support their statements, hence the name the "POV/Soapbox Statements".
I’m glad there is no argument about placing the Pro / Con Statements beside the options.
I offered a suggestion why the Pro statements should be kept together and separate from the Con Statements, so as to simplify it for the reader, by making it clear and concise. No reason has been offered as to why this solution will not work.
If the Pro / Con Statements are sourced and referenced there is no need to put editors names beside them. Like I said above, if editors are putting forward the same rational on options there is not need to repeat them all, just use one.
The Pro / Con Statements are less problematic than all the other discussions because of the use of sources. There is not need for discussion or debate because it is all fact based. If I provide a reference/source or cite a policy and an editor wishes to challenge them, they simply put forward an alternative reference/source or offer their “interpretation” of any cited policy. Should any disagreement persist, both will be presented either for or against and the reader can make their own determination based on the weight of evidence. This process of challenging has been outlined above by Masem here
Because the Pro / Con Statements are being directed towards the reader to inform them they must be fact based. Coll Mac illustrated this very well above by using a deliberately bogus statement to illustrated why sources are necessary.
  1. Editors who object to this should really be asked why they don’t what to provide fact/policy based rationales for the options they are offering to readers in this poll?
  2. I’d like to ask them now, what are the objections to offering fact/policy based rationales both for and against each option to readers?
  3. What is their reasons/motivation for not wishing to provide readers with the information that will help them in coming to a balanced and informed decision? --Domer48'fenian' 12:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's totally disingenuous, Domer. You know perfectly well that the text which is now in my personal Position Statement was worked on for several weeks by a number of editors. -- Evertype·✆ 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I hate to have to agree with Domer, but i agree. We MUST have pro / con statements, i honestly dont see how we can put this to a vote without informing people about the different options, the implications are too great. I dont have a problem with the pros / cons meeting a certain standard, like basic sourcing and common sense. I just dont want us to go crazy about needing a source to say the obvious.. like "Ireland is ambiguous". That does not need a source, its obvious. Masem must decide if the statement is reasonable, and like with an example mentioned above it cant just be a lie or misleading.
This whole process has changed my mind about how i will be voting. Its clear to me now that there is overwhelming evidence to justify the current setup of the articles. The only reason we have got here is because some people have mislead others about Republic of Ireland being a "British POV term" which is clearly not the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Fine, you can vote the way you want. However, we have consensus to have a vote. -- Evertype·✆ 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A process for ensuring factual accuracy, due weight, no orginal research, etc.

OK, how about this:

  • Users write their position statements (both general position statements and pro/con statements), whether they reference them or not is up to them
  • No distinction be made between "pro/con" statements and "position statements"
  • Both kinds be placed on the position statements page
  • Links to the position statements page will appear:
  • A deadline will be set for the preparation of statements
  • Following the deadline, one week will be given for users to petition Masem to on factual accuracy of other editors' statements (both general statements and specific pro/con statements)
    • These petitions must be specific and make reference to relevant normal policy/guidelines, they must be back up by sources where required
    • Masem will act as mediator between the parties
    • Editors are expected to respond promptly to Masem's mediation and make relevant changes to their statements as may be required
      • All responses must be framed in terms of normal policy/guidelines re: verifiability, original research, weight, etc.
    • After one week, Masem will have the authority to remove/modify statements or sections of statements should he feel that the statements is unfactual, misleading or untrue (only in so far as those parts of the statements that were raised as a concern to him, and changes that were later made to them, not according to his own cognizance)
      • Normal Wikipedia policy/guidelines on verifiability, sources, weight, original research and so forth will be the deciding factor in Masem's mediation
  • No further substantial changes should be made to the statements (beyond spelling corrections, minor copy edits that do not change the meaning, etc.)

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but i dont like the idea that "No distinction be made between "pro/con" statements and "position statements"" . There must be pros and cons in the introduction, or linked on the ballot paper next to the correct option. I dont see how we can treat them the same way as peoples own position statements. People must be given the basic implications of certain changes, which is why we need the cons section and there must be basic points to justify the options. that should be kept separate from peoples own long written views.
i agree with the other points about allowing people to petition against certain points and demanding they meet wiki guidelines. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. I am adamantly opposed to any canvassing of any kind on the ballot paper, and all arguments are a form of canvassing. I object to your proposal "A link to the relevant specific section of the page beneath each of the options on the ballot paper will be placed (e.g. "See arguments for and against Option B")" -- I think no good can come of this. I'm sorry, but I have been opposed to this from the beginning. It was already rejected to put Pros/Cons on the ballot, and I think it is extraordinary bad faith to try to do so again now. The process you have outlined here is a guarantee of three more weeks of this "process" (I almost wrote "charade") -- Coll Mac has pointed out that we see 7 editors above approving my call to move forward, and only two opposing, neither of whom are lifing the pen to propose anything substantive toward the collaboration. I oppose very strongly any attempt to divide "Position Statements" from "Arguments For and Against". This is duplication of effort. As far as I am concerned it is a deal-breaker. It is not moving forward, and it is putting some editors' statements at a different level from others'. -- Evertype·✆ 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I want us to move forward Evertype, but not at any cost. The implications of this vote are HUGE. People need clear pros / cons on the ballot paper or linked next to the options. Without clear pros / cons which are seen as accurate (rather than statements where people can rant away all they like), people may choose an option not knowing all the facts. If this was just going to be an internal vote with the people here then i wouldnt care about pro/con statements, id say just go straight to the vote because we all know the facts. But if this is going to be open to people from all over wikipedia who have never been involved in the dispute or dont know anything about it, they need information. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
BritishWatcher, in the real world ballots do not have arguments on them. Arguments belong somewhere else. It's canvassing. We don't need that. We are UNABLE to come up with a set of Pro/Con arguments that satisfy everyone. We have proved this already. Hence my request below. -- Evertype·✆ 13:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
BritishWatcher, there is no substantive difference between ranting away on a specific "pro/con statements", or ranting away on a general "position statement" What I am proposing is a system whereby people won't be able to "rant away all the like". Both general and specific statements would be subject to verification, etc. and be available for voters to read. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The implications of this are not HUGE, BritishWatcher. The implications of stem-cell research, or of going to Mars, are HUGE. This is about naming some encyclopaedia articles. -- Evertype·✆ 13:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


(edit conflict)Wow.
  • BritishWatcher doesn't like it because '[n]o distinction [would] be made between 'pro/con' statements and 'position statements'"
  • Evertype doesn't like it because he opposes "very strongly any attempt to divide 'Position Statements' from 'Arguments For and Against'" (bold text removed).
We are through the looking glass, people. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Your proposal splits Position Statements and Pro/Con arguments into two separate areas. I oppose that. -- Evertype·✆ 13:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
His proposal puts them on equal footing "No distinction be made between "pro/con" statements and "position statements"".. in the same area. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is a positive move forward and I hope it continues. I agree with the point made by BritishWatcher about linking the “Pro/Con Statements” and the “Position Statements” together as being a bad idea. Readers are only interested in the reasons for and against the options the basic facts, not editors thoughts/views/opinions on the them. However we seem to be moving to the position of having the Pro/Con Statements attached to the options, and that some form of fact checking is needed. This is all very welcome. Providing fact/policy based arguments for and against the options is not canvassing, putting editor’s views and opinions forward is. Suggesting that the “Pro/Con Statements” have been rejected even though they are still being discussed and a number of editors agreeing with having them is disruptive and displays some very bad faith. It was agreed that editors can draw up their “Position Statements” so editors should really stop trying to confuse the two completely different things. Editors know full well they are different things. --Domer48'fenian' 13:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good gods. Domer, here is a set of Pro/Con arguments.

Arguments for and against the various options on the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration poll

  • Name of the article on the political entity
  • Ireland
  • Ireland (state)
  • Republic of Ireland
  • In favour: "Republic of Ireland" is a valid alternative name for the article on the political entity, per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.".
  • Against: The intent of the Republic of Ireland Act was specifically to give a description, not a name; the only name of the political entity is specified in the Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland".
  • Name of the article on the island
  • Ireland
  • Ireland (island)
  • In favour: The article title needs a disambiguator because "Ireland" is ambiguous. "Ireland (island)" works as a disambiguation term because it is neutral and factual.
  • Against: The term is not unambiguous. See Ireland Island, Bermuda and New Ireland (island).
  • A single article for both island and political entity
  • In favour: Historically, the island and the political entity are the same. Currently the six counties of Northern Ireland are outside its jurisdiction but this may change in the future. Encyclopedia Britannica has only a single article for the two.
  • Against: Historically, the whole island was part of the United Kingdom. Only the 26-county state became independent and this is unlikely to change in the future.
  • A third article separate from the 'island' and 'political entity' articles
  • In favour: The term "Ireland" does not have a primary meaning. An article is needed that covers all meanings of the term. The existing articles should deal only with their specific subjects.
  • Against: A disambiguation page is adequate where a term has more than one meaning.
Didn't you reject these? For no specific reason? I'm fairly sure you did. -- Evertype·✆
Well i never rejected those, thats the sort of thing i want although in MORE detail. There are many important reasons against certain options and they should all be listed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
A ballot can't be an encyclopaedic essay. These were meant to be summaries, as short as possible. And dammit, it's no good saying "there are many important reasons". You have to offer text if you are putting together a document. And that is what we were trying to do. -- Evertype·✆ 14:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Caoineadh chun Masem

Ochón is ochón ó. Well, Masem, it's now become a slagging match between two editors who don't want to move forward and the rest of us. I'm disgusted. Are you going to help this move forward OR NOT? I am sick and tired of working on text, getting some consensus, getting more consensus, only to see it torpedoed by two or three editors, not ONE of whom has contributed text to help put something forward to the wider Wikipedia community. We are not serving our POVs and egos here (although this page does little but), we are trying to put some text out for ballot. You are NOT being effective, going away for days at a time and letting us fester and stew. You're a good moderator, but the Collaboration Project is falling apart right now. I propose:

  1. The ballot as at my sandbox, using the top infobox which more people supported than opposed. (We have at least 7 supporting editors for this above).
  2. Any Position Statements (±POV, ±sources at each editor's discretion) and/or Pro/Con arguments to appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements and at no other place and NOT on the ballot paper itself.
  3. ONE WEEK AND ONE WEEK ONLY for any edits to write their statements. Statements to appear unedited. Let civility and kookery speak for themselves.
  4. Ballot to run for 35 days (five weeks) or 42 days (six weeks).

I implore you to give guidance here, Masem. We are obviously not able to do it for ourselves. It's all bitching and bickering down here in the trenches. -- Evertype·✆ 13:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Who are the "two editors"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Please only use English. What is Caoineadh chun / Ochón is ochón ó ? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, now. Heartfelt thanks to both of you for not looking at the substantive proposal just above. That's very helpful. -- Evertype·✆ 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's my advice, for what it's worth. Hang back until Maseem makes an appearance. In my opinion there doesn't appear to be any constructive discussion going on at the moment. I believe when he/she returns there can be a little more clarification on how to proceed. Coll Mac (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


"Caoineadh chun Masem" = Crying out for Masem Lament offered to Masem
"Ochón is ochón ó." = Alas and alack!/Woe is me!
And who are these "two editors"?
"Heartfelt thanks to both of you for not looking at the substantive proposal just above." No problem. Only returning the favour. I strongly oppose because it contained one thing I didn't like. Ochón is ochón ó! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for translations. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
One is entitled to sustained fundamental opposition to thinks one thinks are serious mistakes. -- Evertype·✆ 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
And one wonder then why one cannot get agreement? "Your gainsaying everything gets us nowhere." Is that what one said? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have given clear reasons for why I think (1) having two sets of arguments (Pro/Con summary vs Position Statements) is a bad idea and (2) why individual editor's names and specific arguments should not be on the ballot paper itself. At one time I hoped for, and wasted weeks working on, a list of Pro/Con summaries for the ballot itself. This was rejected, for no better reason than "I don't like it because it makes it look as though there are arguments against my POV". What I see you doing these days, Rannṗáirtí, is making the Position Statements page more and more confusing. I called that "overticking the plumbing". -- Evertype·✆ 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Rather than having a go at rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, BW, Masem and Me, why not go to the end of this section and address the questions down there. --Domer48'fenian' 16:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Of the issues, the two biggest problems I see are this:

  • Whether or not statements are to be sourced/supported by policy/guideline or not.
    On this point, I only can fairly say that sourcing and supporting arguments will give you an essay that is much more likely to convince readers than one that makes wild claims, simply because no where else on WP where we use such position statements do we require the same. We have to assume the readers are smart enough that if they see a claim and don't see a source next to it, they need to think to themselves "[citation needed]". We cannot baby-step the voters through the decision process - only the actual voting part.
  • Whether to specifically link each one to a section in options (whether split between pro/con or not is another issue) or just one link.
    I'm tending to think what would be better as to not bog down the ballot page is to first make clear there's a position page elsewhere (in the header or just below it) and direct voters to read through that to learn the issues. But impatient voters may jump to the options, in which case I recommend we link to a section of statements on that page for that option. That is, instead of linking via editor name, just one general link. It's doing the same job without what could be see as a bog-down of the page. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
" But impatient voters may jump to the options" this is the thing i am concerned the most about as this is a poll open to everyone rather than the just those involved in this process who already know the details. People need the key facts for and against in their faces, clear for all to see rather than a dozen long winded position statements which many sadly will not bother to read. I agree about not linking via editors names. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
First, there will always be voters that will ignore these - whether placed in their face or not - and vote based on a logical choice (maybe keeping the status quo, maybe going for the "obvious" "ireland as disambig page" solution, or whatever). Most of the rest that will want to be informed just need to know where that info is. If it's right on the page, hey great, but as we've determined from trying to do that before (first pro/con statements alone, then when I tried to provide a header) we have to go deep into explaining the entire issue and that's going to bog down the page. But those same voters, if they see a link for information, can go and read through that and then come back and make their informed choice. As long as we don't hide where those statements are, those voters that need more information will know where to find it. Thus, in weighing the challenge of trying to add as-neutral-as-possible pro/con statements verses the reasonable intelligence of the voters, I'd be working on assuming voters are not stupid and will be able to find this information as long as we link to the statements. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Masem, do I understand correctly your first point: It is up to the author of a Position Statement to give sources or not? -- Evertype·✆ 14:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying. Any other place on WP where there is statements and positions (AFD, ArbCom, etc.), sourcing and supporting is not required, though clearly there are consequences of not doing so in that your argument may be less persuasive or completely ignored compared to one that is sourced. I cannot see any reason for changing that presumption here. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Masem, I do not understand your second point. It is a question of design. (1) If neutral Pro/Con arguments could have been in the Preamble, they would have been. But this was rejected, so now we have the infobox. (2) Having any editor's name on the ballot is in my view a kind of canvassing; I don't want Domer's name there, nor mine, nor Scoláire's, nor Coll Mac's. Nobody's. I feel the same about having actual arguments on the ballot page. I propose that they be on a second page. Please guide us and accept or reject this proposal. -- Evertype·✆ 14:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Masem, what's not working here is that we can't get closure on ANY of the documents. We should have a stable and fixed ballot paper and then arguments can be put together on a separate page. It's not working to just try to edit all these documents at the same time. It is all too much up in the air. Nobody has the baton, so the race gets nowhere. -- Evertype·✆ 14:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Masem, do you believe that (1) it is possible for this Project to come up with a consensual set of Pro/Con arguments? (2) If so, do you believe that they should go on the ballot paper? (3) If not, do you accept my suggestion that Proposal Statements may be an argument for a particular position or alternatively a list of Pro/Con arguments? -- Evertype·✆ 14:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem offered a suggestion on fact checking here and you rejected it.--Domer48'fenian' 14:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Using the problems of the “Preamble” to suggest that we would have the same problems is a red herring. I’ve offered a number of suggestions on how the statements can be handled, as has Masem but they have been ignored. It is not only possible to provide Pro/Con statements its practical. Asking weather we can have consensus is another big Red Herring. The fact that there is both Pro and Con statements allows editors the opportunity to agree to disagree. --Domer48'fenian' 14:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Evertype your comments are bordering on frantic right now and I suggest you relax. You have been throwing around a number of very misleading comments and you’ll have to stop. The “Pro/Con Statements” have not been rejected, in fact quite the opposite. Editors are now supporting the statements and we have moved on to the process of fact checking. You have attempted a number of times now to link both the “Pro/Con Statements” and the “Personal Statements” as if they are one in the same, they are not and you know it. So stop with the pleading to Masem and saying that it is all “bitching and bickering down here in the trenches” because its not. Everyone is moving forward and there is some productive moves being made. The only ones bitching is you and Bastun, pulling me up on my spelling of all things. Stop trying to drag the process down because you disagree with something, and distorting and misleading editors with your opinions. I disagree with the whole notion of a poll but I’m here working with editors I disagree with to make it better. Now Masem is starting to move forward with the rest of us its about time you started. --Domer48'fenian' 14:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Every week, week on week, we make progress and then it gets blocked. How many more weeks (or months) do you want this to go on, Domer? It seems that you enjoy it. I don't see you making "productive moves". I see you writing no Position Statement. I see you offering no list of Pro/Con arguments. Only through improving text does the ballot get better. I've been behind this Process from the beginning. I filed the request with ArbCom, for pity's sake. -- Evertype·✆ 14:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
One is entitled to sustained fundamental opposition to [things] one thinks are serious mistakes. -- Evertype·✆ 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The implications of this are not HUGE, BritishWatcher. The implications of stem-cell research, or of going to Mars, are HUGE. This is about naming some encyclopaedia articles. -- Evertype·✆ 13:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
So stop with the dramatics. ArbCom rejected your request and stated it was a content dispute and sent it back to editors. Now content disputes normally involve sources/references and policy but no you pushed for a poll. Now this is a content dispute and you reject again using sources/references and policy. You have your poll now, but its going to be done right. --Domer48'fenian' 14:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You can't GET to a poll without some kind of document structure. Your gainsaying everything gets us nowhere. Masem has indicated that Position Statements need not be sourced; it is the editor's discretion. That issue is now closed. Kindly do not re-open it. -- Evertype·✆ 14:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
And ArbCom did not reject my request. We are in an Arbitration Process now, because they accepted my request. -- Evertype·✆ 14:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Per Rannpháirtí anaithnid in responce to you here. --Domer48'fenian' 15:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem, the question was asked above:Are editors happy to have the statements written now and arguments presented as things stand? (with among other things, sources as optional). Seven were in favour of proceeding while two had objections. Is there a consensus to proceed? Coll Mac (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Coll Mac editors have already been told that they can go ahead with their "Position Statements" there was no need for a poll. This is about the “Pro/Con Statements” different thing altogether, did you not read my post above. --Domer48'fenian' 14:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The issues involved on the Pro and Con Statements are:

  1. should they be sourced,
  2. were should they be placed on the ballot paper,
  3. should the Pro and Con statements for each option be kept separate.
Because the Pro / Con Statements are being directed towards the reader to inform them they must be fact based. Coll Mac illustrated this very well above by using a deliberately bogus statement to illustrated why sources are necessary.
  1. Editors who object to this should really be asked why they don’t what to provide fact/policy based rationales for the options they are offering to readers in this poll?
  2. I’d like to ask them now, what are the objections to offering fact/policy based rationales both for and against each option to readers?
  3. What is their reasons/motivation for not wishing to provide readers with the information that will help them in coming to a balanced and informed decision?--Domer48'fenian' 14:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Statements For and Against the process

Editors put forward their rational in supporting or rejecting an option. It is then fact checked with sources/references added if requested or required. If both sources seem equally valid, though have contradicted each other they will appear in the applicable section either supporting or rejecting an option.

If it is a policy based rational alternative “interpretations” can be offered. If both “interpretations” seem equally valid like the sources they will appear in the applicable section either supporting or rejecting an option.

This process rules out any long debates and discussions because we are dealing with sources/references and policies. We accept, reject or include both.

If a number of editors provide the same sources/references and policies in support or rejection of an option there is no need to repeat them over again and again they can just be presented once. There is no need to provide editors names on the rationales because editors have all agreed to disagree based on the fact checking process. Therefore no names appear on the statements.

Having condensed the statements and removed repetition they can then be linked to the various options. Readers are then presented with sourced/referenced and policies based reasons for each option. They are not been given editors views, opinions or preferences just the basic facts. They are presented with the rationales for and against in a clear and concise format were they are then able to make an informed decision as to the various options. --Domer48'fenian' 15:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Who decides "[if] both sources seem equally valid" etc.? As a concrete example, yesterday you provided a reference from the EU style guide, both myself and Rockpocket said that it doesn't support that you claim you made. Is the reference "valid"? Who decides? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Masems suggestion or along them lines which would involve editors "pointing out flaws or problems with the arguments, not to point readers to others. These counter-points can be used to address any (as seen by the responder) deficiencies in the essay arguments whether that be lack of sources, incorrect application of policy, misinterpreted facts, or just a general POV statement." Yesterdays example is what you requested, just one example. I did provide a whole article which would of added context which I did also say yesterday. That reference I used yesterday on its own would not be enough it would need additional sources and used in the correct context. However yesterday you offered no alternative reference to challenge it and only offered your opinion. Opinions are one thing, but in an Encyclopaedia sources/references are the basis of a challenge. While I would like to have a good Wikipedia content editor help with the fact checking, Masem seems to be the one we are going to have to decide. If the issue is beyond the editors and Masem, rather than bog things down, the statements will contain possibly the same policy argued from different points likewise the sources it will then be the reader who makes the final decision. On the statements though, we would not be using them too challenge each other, we would be presenting them without making reference to any other statement. It is the reader who makes an informed discussion based on the facts presented. If they are presented in a way that they are used both for and against an option, they are the final arbitrator. --Domer48'fenian' 15:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"However yesterday you offered no alternative reference to challenge it..." My opinion is neither here nor there, the issue was that use of that quote as support for that statement, would be original research: "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source."
I don't see a collective pro/con statement working. We tried it before. It sank. But I would be willing to try again if it could be done quickly. At this stage I think it is behooven to those that want pro/con statements to make the effort to reach a consensus on the matter - and establish one quickly - otherwise, we will have to move on without them. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given an outline of the process above, would you like to comment on it and offer suggestions? --Domer48'fenian' 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Masem's suggestion is good, but I want to sort of the actual details: what happens and when, who does what, how is it decided and why. I think for something so dense as bullet points, a process like that is unworkable (because bullet points are necessarily vague, especially when we should have been long started with the vote by now and time is upon us). See my suggestion below. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
How would people feel if we went along with everyone writting their statements (if they want to) then we attempt to pick the main points (provided they are accurate) from all of the statements for and against each option and put them as bullet points on a separate page which is linked on the ballot next to the options or on the ballot paper itself using that (show/hide) feature as has been shown before for something else.
So for example, the statement by Bastun in favour of the status quo raises good points and goes into good detail, but those points could easily be put in a few bullet points as main arguments for the option aswell which could be easily viewed by everyone, where as many wouldnt be prepared to read through his whole statement and everyone elses because people are lazy. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem with your suggestions. The bullets points would definitly work as would the (show/hide) feature linked to the options. --Domer48'fenian' 16:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@BW, I think that sounds good, but rather than wasting more time trying to agree on a summary how about each editor completes a series of 20-word precis. These precis should be drawn from arguments for/against each options that is stated in their position statements. We should then combine or remove duplicate/redundant precis (rather brutally, I think). The remaining precis should then be arranged either on the page itself (how to be decided later) or the position statements subpage. Links to the positions statements that fed into each individual precis should be linked to from beneath/beside each precis.
I would also favour a kind of validity checking process, like I outlined above. The precise would not be subject to validity checking, but rather the position statement (an argument from which was merely summarised in the precis). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good points. However I don't see how there could be any reasonable rational to combine what will in effect be sourced/referenced and policy based rationales with general comments i.e editors personal statements. We achive balance by removing our own personal opinions and just presenting facts. They may possibly be conflicting facts but its the reader who has the last word. We all seem to agree on the fact checking with the Pro/Con Statements and that is a big plus. --Domer48'fenian' 17:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You are presuming that the position statements are "personal opinions". I say we start of with "sourced/referenced" positions statements (though the process of the sort Masem described - the exact details of which I want spelt out, my suggestion is above). Then, after we are happy with those, we extract arguments as precis from those (which will by "sourced/referenced" since the original position statement that they were drawn from was). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
See i would like to have seen something where these sort of bullet points appear on the ballot paper, with the show / hide feature as was previously shown above to try and make the ballot paper shorter or a clear link to the page showing the points right next to the option in question.
  • It meets Wikipedia:Naming conventions
  • Island of Ireland has no alternative English name, unlike the State which has Republic of Ireland
  • Republic of Ireland is official description as designated by the state
  • Republic of Ireland is commonly used by the Irish government and Irish media
  • Many country articles on Wikipedia are not at their official names
  • Polls over the past few years have continued to show a majority against changing the current article locations
All of these points were basically in Bastuns statement, but the average person coming along to vote is far more likely to read these bullet points than read his whole statement which goes into more detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup. What I am suggesting is a three-phase process. 1) We make position statements ahead of a deadline. 2) We fact-check them through a finite process (like the one I said above) ahead of some deadline. 3) We extract max 20-word precis from the argument contained in the statements ahead of some deadline.
I'd like this whole process finished in three weeks (i.e. one week given to each step) after which we run the vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I would support most of that, give people a week to make statements (if they want), then spend some time "fast-checking" it. Then extract word limited points to list as the pros and cons and again pause for a few days allowing for any problems with the points to be raised. I wouldnt want there to be a limit on the numnber of points allowed though, aslong as its not repeating itself. If theres 10 clear pros for one option and 10 negatives for another, they should all be listed. We cant say for example, Option 4 only has two good points there for only two points can be listed for all other options.
These points would then either be on the ballot paper with the hide/show feature as we saw before, or a clear link to the page with the points. Im not sure about setting an external deadline, the implications of this vote will result in the articles spending 2 years at the chosen locations, we CAN NOT rush this process. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid double jobbing is basically what your saying. The hold up on the "Position Statements" which was then agreed was because some editors did not want to have to be "sourced/referenced" and that's why they have been called "POV Statements." Your suggesting now that the "Position Statements" should be fact checked am I right? I'm not presuming that the position statements are "personal opinions" they were and always have been? Now if you want to suggest that they be now fact checked I'll support it but I'd suggest you'll meet opposition. After we are happy with the "sourced/referenced" positions statements and we extract arguments will they then become the "Pro/Con Statements" and be linked to each of the options? If that's the case we are calling for the same thing, because you will still be left with the origional "Position Statements" and what do we do with them? --Domer48'fenian' 18:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the substantive issue was how to "fact-check". I think a process for Masem's suggestion like I gave above would be satisfactory to most because it is a finite process that will end (i.e. it will not go on forever, with editors arguing over nothing). Would you agree to that process for "fact checking"?
What do we do with the original statements after precis have been extracted? They can be linked to from the statements page (which will be mentioned in the intro box) and people can read it. It can also be linked to from precis that have been drawn from it. (Since the precis won't contain references or nuances of arguments, it would be helpful IMHO if people could see the argument in "full".)
Example, my position statement gives a pro/con for the "merge" option. After it has been fact checked though some process, at least two 20-word precis could be extracted it:
  • There is enormous overlap between the two articles. History, culture, geography, etc. make it difficult to discuss the two separately.
  • The Republic of Ireland article was spun out from a single, original Ireland article. The same would likely happen again.
Assuming that the original position statement was fact checked, we could infer that these two precis are at least basically sound. So they don't require anymore sourcing. The limit of 20 words keeps the precis focused. For the argument in full a reader can go to the relevant position statement(s) (which at this time have been "fact checked").
I think we should brutal in combining duplicate/redundant precis from different editors and precis that deal with essentially the same argument on the principle that "less is more". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting insane. Unless someone has good reason against the following for statements, this is my suggestion:

  • Ballot will only have a short, neutral header.
  • Ballot will link to a page that assembles the links to user-provided position statements; link will appear in header and next to each option. No other links on ballot page.
  • On position statement page, statements will be organized by a "general" statement (if needed) and pro/con for each option. The statements will just be linked by name from this page, in no particular order.
  • Position statements will be tagged with the previously made header to make sure to acknowledge they are a mix of fact and POV.
  • Position statements do not need to provide sources, but editors writing these need to be fully aware that a voter that reads a statement without sourcing or policy backing is likely going to ignore that statement. I will vet for completely uncalled for statements but otherwise will not edit these. (again, as I've pointed out, evidence is always highly recommended but never required in any other process in WP, that can't be the precedent here).
  • Position statements can be added any time during the vote, but obviously earlier the better if you wish to have more influence.

Any objections? --MASEM (t) 12:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No. That works. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool by me. So we can go ahead with the proposal below so? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Absolutly not, per my comment below. My personal rationale will be linked next to my signature on the ballot, and will be in a location of my choosing and under my control, and will not be plastered with pointless templates. I suggest if this is unnacceptable, we consider the validity of the 'Position statments' issue officially disputed, and settle it formally as an Arbitration Ammenment, clarifying the merits of these conditions to the polling process. MickMacNee (talk)
Normally, I'd agree with you - most of our !voting processes are based on the added text of the voter's rationale. This situation is radically different. The discussion has been going on forever, and people are camped to their specific choices. Attempts in the past few years (not days, or weeks) have been fruitless to change more than a handful of people's minds. Any discussion towards any single solution tends to devolve into circular arguments, and it's like beating a dead horse, over and over and over again. The last thing that is needed here is more discussion. That's not to say that it's important for people to speak their peace on the subject and try to convince the voters to select the options they want or avoid those they don't. But to include voting rationales on this ballot is going to invite further, and likely unwarrented, discussion that could weigh down the ballot page. You can make a position sttement, you can comment on the ballot's talk page, but for sake of just getting this done without creating even more drama, cutting down on what ends up appearing on the ballot is going to go a long way. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You are ignoring a few crucial points. First, I am merely adding a link next to my sig alongside my ABCD vote, I am not adding a long discussion on the ballot page, and any rebuttal will be removed under the 'no comment' rule. Second, this vote is nothing like any previous votes, the options have never been laid out like this before. It doesn't make any sense to bar a rationale link like this based on the fact it will invite discussion, when the poll goes live it will invite kilobytes of irrelevance, that is a fact of life that just has to be handled in the normal way. But anybody who understands why the vote is occuring, is entitled to use the simple and accepted method of explaining to any watcher who also understands why the vote is happening, why they voted ABDC and not CDBA or even ABCDEFGH or X only. MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I would support a simple linked rationale to the ballot talk page from votes. I thought you were implying of including the text of the rationale on the ballot page itself, but a link by no means pollutes the issue and encourages the discussion in a better venue. Maybe there'll be a standard "Statement by X" approach there, so linking would be simple. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"On position statement page, statements will be organized by a "general" statement (if needed) and pro/con for each option. The statements will just be linked by name from this page, in no particular order." - Can i get clarification on how the pros / cons will be chosen, how they will be displayed and where the link to the pros / cons will be placed on the ballot paper. Masem how did you feel about the Bullet point pro / cons of 20 words like above? Im fine with all the points you make about statements, but its the pros/cons that i consider vital to be sorted before the vote start. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Pros/cons are by whoever wants to write them (you write an essay, and say "this is a pro for Option Q", it will be added there.)
  • The link will be on the statement page. The only link on the ballot page will be a link to the statement page (or specific section of it) that says "Prepared statements on this option can be found here" (or something like that).
  • I'll have to relook at the 20 words thing - I can't see it easily through the rest on this page. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The Pros / cons comments about bullet points / 20 word limits are in this section. If the Pros / cons are just going to be in peoples own statements, then we are basically not having pros / cons at all as people can choose their own layout of their statements. I must oppose this, the only reason i accepted not going into basic pros / cons in the opening statement was if there were separate and clear pro / cons shown easily found on or linked on the ballot paper next to the options.
Please have a read of the comments from the top of this section, i give an example of easily presented bullet points which are all just extracted from Bastuns statement. The trouble is most wont read detailed statements, thats why i support the basic facts (pros / cons) being shown for everyone.. its more likely to help people decide how to vote than just very long statements by a dozen users. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
What can't hurt the process is to attempt the 20 word thing, after giving editors time to get their essays written. However, I would think it best me (or the other mod) to actually write up those 20 word things and then do a really quick thumbs-up/down to see if they could be used. If they are, great, if they aren't, fine, but we've wasted minimal time in deciding that. So I would tentatively say, lets add this step in but if it still ends up disagreeable, then we'll just abandon it for sake of going forward. (If this approach cannot produce accepted statements on the ballot page, then no other approach, short of someone pulling rank, will do so) --MASEM (t) 18:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes i think its a good idea that you or the other mod attempt to pick out the main valid points for and against each of the options, from everyones statements. Most statements will just be repeating the same basic arguments, so its not going to be a huge list, although as i mentioned above, if there are clearly alot of valid pros or cons to a certain argument they should all be included, we cant be politically correct and for example say (option two only has 2 positive points, there for thats the limit for all options). Fully support the process, where do u think they should be presented? on the ballot paper using the hide/show feature or linked to another page? i think the show/hide feature would lead to alot more people viewing the facts than if they have to click a link to another location. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

An angry layman

If & when things are settled here, would somebody contact me? PS: I've a mega headache. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"If you can wait, and not be tired by waiting." Tfz 20:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Vote begins on 24th27th of July1st of August, 2009 at 21:00 UTC...

...Oookkkaaaayyyy ... I know that this is bold ... but ... given that there has been a whole lot of discussion around pro/con statements, etc. for weeks since (and given the direction that they are going) ... if we go down this road then it may take a long time before the vote begins - if ever. ...

So ... can we have a show of hands for:

  • Deadline for submission of position statements is 29 July 2009 at 21:00 UTC.
  • 30-31 July and part of 1 August to be used as "preparation days" for formatting etc;
  • Begin the vote on 1 August 2009 at 21:00 UTC.
  • Notices to be posted at places agreed before.
  • Poll to run for 42 days (extended to account for summer holidays) => ends: 12 September 2009 at 21:00 UTC.
  • "Rules" as agreed before.
  • Ballot paper to be as seen here.
    • Position statements' page as seen here.
    • Individual position statements to take a format similar to as seen here (i.e. health warning, nut shell, endorse/alternative statements).
      • Statements need not be sourced but are encouraged to be sourced.
      • Masem has the right to edit/remove any statement or part of for civility, unverifiable claims, etc..
  • Result to be calculated by straight instant-runoff voting.

Can we have a show of hands? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer Let's just get going. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - We can not rush this matter if we are opening this vote up to anyone and everyone from all across wikipedia who have no clue about this matter, theres no way the vote can begin in 3 days! lol. Although i would be interested to see a show of hands of people here who just want the current article names to remain the way they have been since the birth of wikipedia and for us all to go home. Arbcom never said we had to put this to a community wide vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, as I've been whining about it for weeks. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Anything to finally get on with it and shut up the most tendentious editors. — ras52 (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral People cand do what they want on the issue of pro/cons, I am not wasting my time wading through the stuff above. But if we ever get this sodding poll off the ground, I am linking my personal rational from right next to my vote signature, in a wording of my choice, in a location of my choice, to support my reasons for my personal vote. Anybody who wants to discuss its wording can do so on my talk page. Nobody is going to tell me what can and cannot be in my rational beyond behavioural policies, or template it with crap because they think I am an evil POV pusher. If people want to take issue with that stance (including Masem), we can discuss it as a formal Arbitration Ammendment, because there is some bizarre and unprecedented stuff going on right now, and none of it being discussed by more than what? 4? editors. MickMacNee (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Gee, that's collaborative. If the rules are "no personal rational[e]s to be placed next to the ballot, will you complain when yours is moved? Or will you be nice about it and let it be moved? (I agree about the disclaimer header, but it's harmless.) -- Evertype·✆
  • I'll simply argue my case that this bizarre 'rule' is not standard on Wikiepdia, has been decided by a paucity of editors, and serves no purpose but to aggravate good faith people who have endured this process for far too long, who simply want to register a vote on a poll on the agreed options. MickMacNee (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose.. Support. I realise you're getting frustrated with the tendentious editors (to which I'd repear my advice - apply the adminitrators' advice and simply ignore them). Three days notice is too short, though. There are only three position statements published. Give it a week instead, and I'd support. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Edit to add - 27th is better, 29th would be better yet, but changing to support. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bastun and BirdWatcher (in part), I would also plead with you and Evertype to allow the moderator to lead the process. Its important that the process is completed properly and the result is sustainable, it can't be driven with people with a position on the subject (even if that position is not extreme) --Snowded TALK 23:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Plead? I don't see anyone else drawing up ballot papers and trying to get this moved on. Do try it. You'll enjoy all the senseless roadblocks people will throw up no matter what you do. If the moderator would lead the process I would be delighted, but he does not seem to be interested in that, else he would have made some rulings and set some dates some time ago. Right now... this process has no shape, no deadline, no focus. -- Evertype·✆ 06:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • respond - I have no intention of trying it. I see a moderator who is giving guidance but allowing time, and a couple of editors who are on one side the debate forcing the pace. --Snowded TALK 07:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This is something that should not be rushed, we have set deadlines several times in the past and all that happens is theres a panic and we miss the deadline. Id rather we just get it right before trying to rush to the polls. lol @ BirdWatcher =) BritishWatcher (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral, (edit conflict), I have to be neutral as my input into this page has been almost zero of late. Masem should review the situation, and make a lead from there. Tfz 23:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that if we were able to agree on the pros and the cons by discussion, then we would most likely have been able to resolve this entire issue by discussion? Get real people! The pro/con statements will never reach consensus, a good effort was made and it was nixed. Since then, no-one has provided anything substantive and there is little sign anyone will - instead editors editors appear more interested in arguing about them, than actually providing them. So lets ditch them and let everyone have their say whatever the hell they want to say in their own user space. If you want to write utter garbage in support of your vote (and providing questionable sources to support utter garbage doesn't stop it being utter garbage), go right ahead. The chances are 99% of the people are not going to read it anyway, and of those that do most will see it for what it is. The pro/con issue is a solution looking for a problem. Rockpocket 23:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Rockpocket. It's not about pros and cons. We drew up a lost of those previously, but naysayers said their nay. Not ONE of those naysayers has drawn up a list of pros and cons, either. They just TALK about it. At this stage I don't see much positive coming from people who oppose starting this poll. Snowded wants the process "to be completed 'properly'" which means little. The result of the poll -- which will be decided by community-wide ballot -- will be "sustained" for two years. BritishWatcher wants to have two weeks to write his Position Statement. What's he been doing for the last two weeks? If you've got till the 27th to write your Position Statements, there's no reason to cry foul. -- Evertype·✆ 06:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not even intend writing my own position statement, i think less than 1/5th of the people who take part in the poll will bother to read any of them anyway. This is why i strongly support pros and cons which appear on the ballot or which are clearly linked next to the option which are likely to get seen by more people and in simple bullet point form are more likely to be taken in than long user statements. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Lets have the substantive vote asap. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redking7 (talk • contribs)
  • Support - The bias in the ballot paper statement has been largely removed. (If BW is struggling with his position I'm prepared to write it for him:) Sarah777 (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Comment: Coming as it does during what has been a product and positive discussion its not Bold its disruptive. It is also another sign of the panic here today as we move closer to putting together the Pro/Con Statements. --Domer48'fenian' 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
A better discriptive would be 'exasperation'. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
My reason for asking is because if we are to go ahead with a process for "fact checking" of statements (of which there are only three so far) then it will take some time. We will need a clear run at that business.
The vote was supposed to have started several weeks ago by now, and a number of editors have expressed a desire for it to just go ahead already, so, before we begin work on "fact checking" pro/con statements, let's see a show of hands.
(I've moved this discussion down to a comments area so we can keep a clear eye on the "show of hands".) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
How can the vote start in 3 days time if we are going ahead with having people write their statements and needing to fast check everything then pick points out for the pros/cons.. That cant all be done in 3 days, it will take a couple of weeks. This vote will lead to articles being in a certain place for 2 years, i do not want us to rush into it without making sure the facts are clearly presented for everyone. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
No "fast checking", no pro/cons using this way. Just go ahead with what we have. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Bastun (and BritishWatcher-ish), I've changed the "start time" from Friday 24th to Monday 27th. Particularly to give editors time to prepare their statements. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Rannṗáirtí, you need to back up a teensy bit. You need to set a deadline for people to file their Position Statements, allow time for (for instance) you and me to move any where they need to be or reformat carefully if they are not in the prescribed format, allow time for Masem to read them for content (say, 48 hours for all of that). Then the poll can begin 24 hours later. Stick to the 21:00 deadlines. Give 7 days FROM TODAY for the Statements to be written. That means.... Statements submitted by 2100 UTC on Wednesday 29th, any processing done by 2100 UTC Friday 31st, and Poll starts at or before 2100 UTC Lá Lúnasa, 1 August. -- Evertype·✆ 06:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
the 27th instead of the 24th is far more reasonable, i dont have too much problem with that aslong as the deadline can be set back if there is a delay with "fast checking" or disputes about certain points. A week is certainly long enough for people to submit their own statements, but im not sure how long fixing everything up after those are completed will take. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
27th is better, 29th would be better still. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the dates as suggested. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The wanton display of hypocrisy displayed yesterday has if anything crystallised for me at least the whole nature of this process. In the space of a day we had two polls, both initiated by editors not a wet day in the place but who just happened to come along. One to get support for something that had already been agreed, and the other who having been involved in a discussion which was just about to reach agreement on sources attempted to scupper the whole process. What really struck me reading the support comments was how forceful they all appeared to be to get the poll started. Yet some of the most forceful were by editors who have not done a tap for this process. Not one of them would lend or offer an opinion on the recent discussion. The nature of that discussion was should participants in the poll be given sourced/referenced and policy based facts to support the options or given any old crap in the form of POV/soapbox statements supplied by the editors who created the problem without the need for sourced/referenced and policy based facts. Not one of them offered an opinion. So since the only participation they seem willing to offer is in the form of a vote, I’ll give them another opportunity.

The question is: Should the information given to participants in the poll be sourced/referenced and policy based rationales for each option, as opposed to POV/soapbox statements without the need for references by editors involved in creating the problem. I'll go of now and put together some more sourced/referenced and policy based facts for an article I created yesterday. I could save myself the trouble and not use sourced/referenced and policy based facts at all but hey I'm a Wikipedian and thats how we are supposed to do things here.--Domer48'fenian' 07:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

How does one get 'more involved', when the process has become confusing. Most of the time, I haven't a clue as to what's being disputed over. All I'm interested in, is having Republic of Ireland moved to 'Ireland (state) or Ireland (republic)'; Ireland to 'Ireland (island)' & Ireland (disambiguation) to 'Ireland'. The rest is jus mumbo jumbo (to me). Unfortunately, I don't have the time or intellect to figure out all these mazes. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Well stay out of it and stop with the comments that do nothing to help. I watch the page but couldn't be arsed to get sucked in to the nonsense that is being portrayed as collaboration. BigDunc 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Now there's an idea. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
There is usually only one sensible vein flowing through a page like this, and plenty of cacophony and dross swirling around it. It can be an effort to get back into "the pertinent issues" when one loses touch for a few days. Is it worth the effort to get engaged again? Maybe so. Tfz 18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Support: Per rational above.

I made it pretty clear weeks ago that I did not support any kind of pro/con statements on the page, sourced or not. So I hope you don't include me in the above comment about editors who 'have not done a tap for this process'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to chip in with my sympathy for GoodDay's sentiments - "All I'm interested in, is having Republic of Ireland moved to 'Ireland (state) or Ireland (republic)'; Ireland to 'Ireland (island)' & Ireland (disambiguation) to 'Ireland'. The rest is jus[t] mumbo jumbo (to me)." I have plenty of intellect (as I'm sure the more modest GoodDay has too) to understand the real issues - its as simple as voting on three article moves. Unfortunately, empty cans make the most noise, hence the reams and reams of the above. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
All of us know how we are going to vote, the problem is this vote is open to everyone and anyone, many of whom will not know the facts, there for the arguments for and against certain options must be explained to them. If this was an internal vote just by all people who have signed up for this process, then we would of voted and finished by now. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Yet you have done nothing to provide any text that could go on the ballot. Since that's the case, it seems to me that if you can't be arsed to do that kind of (thankless and frustrating) editing work, it seems rather pointless for you to oppose the timetable proposed above. -- Evertype·✆ 09:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
At the moment points for and against are not allowed on the ballot paper, i supported attempts to try and draft a reasonable intro that was balanced, but that failed as the statement overwhelming was stacked against the current setup which is unfair and unacceptable. I do not see the need to make a statement because all of the major points are ALREADY covered in statements written by others, if none made the case then i would have written one. I have certainly not been the only one to oppose steps that have been taken, in part the reason why we have gone round in circles so much is because certain editors here have rushed to get to the vote, not taking into account other peoples points of view and simplying thinking their way is best, not even allowing the chosen Mods to set the pace and shape this process.
This is a big vote. A bunch of editors who have strong points of view on this matter and in no way could be described as neutral have cried and cried for years which has led to this process. Now because a small minority have cried so hard the future locations of these articles could be any of the options on that ballot paper. If "Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland" was not one of the options, i would not have a problem with the deadlines or rush certain people want to take. But that awful and disgraceful option IS on the ballot paper, there for i have supported efforts that aim to guide people clearly about the implications and reasons for certain options. Without such advice many people who do not know all the previous arguments might make an ill informed vote, something i think should be avoided. All i want is the clear facts .. Pros and Cons for each option available for ALL to see, that isnt much as far as im concerned as this vote is for anyone and will result in article positions staying a certain way for 2 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You know, we worked very hard on the Pro/Con list, and I think it's quite unfair for you to characterize it as "stacked". You know what else? Just as many people think that "Keep Republic of Ireland where it is" is as "awful and disgraceful" as you think that "Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland" is. Until you accept that reality, you can't say that you're collaborating. And it goes the other way too. Both of these "awful and disgraceful" options are on the ballot because they are both valid options. It doesn't matter a fig that you loathe one of them. It's valid. It doesn't matter a fig that Sarah777 loathes the other one. It's valid. And both of them (and some others) are going to the greater community, because that is what we agreed. -- Evertype·✆ 14:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I said the attempt to draft an intro statement was stacked, not the attempt before that with the pros/cons list. The intro statement was overwhelmingly pushing against Republic of Ireland which was unfair, i said it should be balanced. I fully accepted certain editors feel strongly about it being at Republic of Ireland and until recently i was not going to be putting that as my first choice, i wanted the compromise of Ireland (state). At several stages in the past 6 months i have said we should scrap the two options which cause problems (Republic of Ireland and ROI at Ireland, if we got rid of those two then there could of been a friendly sensible debate about the article locations and if that failed we could of just gone to a vote without the need for any position statements. But that didnt happen, so we have those on the ballot paper. Now i dont see the big problem with wanting there to be clear pros / cons to each of the options which is all i have supported but i accept its hard to implement and takes time. Thats why i opposed the rush to hold a vote within 3 days and said i support the 1 week limit for statements then move forward giving some time to sort the layout / links to peoples statements and agree on the pros / con points. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I find that rather patronizing. I think most editors are eminently capable of educating themselves before voting. They don't need to be spoon fed. The real issue here, I suggest, is those who have expressed strong feeling about the subject - one way or the other - are terrified that they are not going to get the outcome they want, and thus want to convince the electorate of the merits of their preference by legitimizing it. Its no coincidence, I think, that those editors who have not expressed a strong preference are the ones that don't feel the need for a pro/con statement. When (if?) someone gets around to actually proposing a pro/con statement, I'll offer my opinion. Until then, I'm content to leave the talking shop to those who like to talk; because no progress is being made. Rockpocket 05:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well said. -- Evertype·✆ 09:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Most editors are capable of looking and finding the facts or making a reasonable judgement on the vote. But the problem is the word "most" in your sentence. At a previous stage when people wrote statements (many months ago) there were two points of view that were very closely divided. That means it is not unreasonable to presume that a small number of editors who vote could tip the balance a certain way and decide the outcome. There for it is not good enough to just say, most are capable so lets just get on with it. People should be given the pros and cons for each option clearly so they can decide for themselves, NOT simply be left to vote with no clear information accept a dozen huge user statements which most people will not be prepared to vote. I would happily of wrote a Pros and cons list to certain points but the process of how we move forward has not been clear. Masem above has said the mods might try to draft the pros/cons points from users statements, that seems like a good neutral way to proceed as far as im concerned. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The main reason for my actions are because i strongly oopose one of the options (Republic of Ireland at Ireland so i want to ensure that people can clearly see the negative points for that option in a fair way with the other options being treated the same way. For me it has not been about pushing for one option, its been against one proposed option which most people here do not support, but when we open up the vote to anyone and everyone, not all will be informed and some will take a simplistic approach without fully considering the options and implications. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
And Sarah777 (for instance) strongly opposes one of the options (State at Republic of Ireland), so you're even. But she's working on her Position Statement. Please do likewise. You've got six more days to write up all the points you want. If you don't, you can't say that you weren't given the chance to make your views known. -- Evertype·✆ 14:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I accept some hate that option as well, which is why all i have asked for is fair pros/cons to be displayed for each option clearly, and before that i just wanted a fair intro statement which presented facts not one that strongly attacks just one option (like the statement attacked ROI which was unfair). It is not like i have been seeking just the cons to be written for Republic of Ireland at Ireland, ive always said the pros / cons for each option should be displayed, my concern has been to ensure people can easily see the basic points for and against options because i can not believe most who vote will bother to read pages and pages of user statements. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

More inane pontificating. Those who have not expressed a strong preference find it difficult to support their preferences with references and sources or find policies to back them up which explains their silence. It laughable to say that they’ll only offer an opinion when editors provide their pro and con statements backed up by sources/references and policies after saying that none of these are necessary. So you have the editors who will not and refuse to support their opinions with sources wanting to pick over the supporting references of the editors who do.--Domer48'fenian' 10:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop insulting everybody, Domer. We're hypocrites, we pontificate inanely, blah-dee-blah. Do you think you come off any different when you lecture everybody else? -- Evertype·✆ 13:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

We were coming up fast on a meg here, so I archived some more discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

POV statements - a reassessment

Sixteen days afer the poll was postponed to allow for it, and with the setting of a new, early date under discussion, there is still a grand total of one POV statement submitted. Sarah has added what looks like a placeholder, which would mean we would have two POV statements, presumably supporting two different options. We cannot have fewer than one statement in favour of each option, otherwise it completely goes against the original intention, which was to provide a balanced argument to voters. I propose that we decide now, in principle, to do away with POV statements altogether, with the proviso that they be reinstated if sufficient numbers are submitted before the agreed date for starting the poll. The pros and cons submitted by Evertype and Rannpháirtí anaithnid can be added to or edited if they are seen to be insufficient. The alternative is to presume that POV statements will be incorporated until the last minute, and then try to remove them, at which point all hell will break loose. Scolaire (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes mine not a POV statement, just because I don't say vote for this or you're evil! doesn't make it any less a statement of my "point of view"? The distinction between pro/con statements and position statements is an artificial one, based more on format than substance.
Also, would we not have more but didn't you remove yours because you didn't want to be at a "party of two"? Maybe others are of the same mind and are merely holding back? I do suspect however that despite all of the loud noises, few have actually given thought to what they are going to write. But so what? If they are not willing to put word to paper then that's their loss, surely - and it should not be allowed to stall the process. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
We have three and two halves one half right now. C'mon Scoláire. Put a statement in. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 14:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
If I were to put back the link I had, it would be two in favour of option F, and a probable in favour of some other option. That wouldn't make it more balanced. Similarly, if there are people "holding back", which I doubt, and they are all going to come in a rush at the end to support the same one or two options, it will only make it even more skewed. Imagine the (quite possible) scenario where there are fifteen POV statements - twelve in favour of p, three in favour of q and zero in favour of r, s, t and u - what kind of message is that going to give to the voter? If all six options are equally valid they have to be seen to be equally valid. Failing that they should be taken off the ballot. All I'm saying here is that we should plan for these eventualities - lack of numbers or lack of balance - now instead of trying to figure out a solution with hours to go and risking another false start. Note that I don't want to stall the process; I'm only suggesting that ditching the POV statements may be the price we have to pay for keeping it on track! BTW I'm not saying that your submissions are not written from your point of view, only that they are not my idea of a 'POV statement' i.e. a statement in favour of or against one specific option. Scolaire (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
While I'll probably add to it and tweak it a bit, I'm in the process of preparing a statement here. It'll need formatted a bit. Valenciano (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice one, Valenciano! Reliable sources and all! I guess you and Bastun have that one covered, then. No need for me to stick my oar in. Scolaire (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
It's wrong of him to say that RoI is a "perfectly acceptable" option. If its acceptability were indeed "perfect" we would not be here. His phrasing just calls anyone who has a (valid, as far as I can see) objection to RoI dunces. -- Evertype·✆ 07:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
No, that's the point of these position statements. I'm not necessarily agreeing with him, but it is important that, once tagged with the template header that indicates this to be a POV-based statement, there's nothing incivil about that. I expect others will be stronger either way, but I have a hard time justifying any harm from that. --MASEM (t) 11:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Infelicitous, but you're right, the template header sorts it. -- Evertype·✆ 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Since all the cool kids are doing it, I decided to put a statement in: What's in a name? I decided to utilize extensive footnotes because, to paraphrase the Domer Dalai Lama, sources are necessities, not luxuries ;) Rockpocket 01:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, everybody, for keeping me posted. That wasn't, however, the purpose of this section. In fact, the more people that post statements, the greater the potential for mayhem if it's discovered on the eve of the poll that the statements in total do the opposite of what they were intended to do - provide balanced information for the voter. Rockpocket, in your case do you see your statement as offering a perspective to a potential voter who is unaware of the history or the details of the issue? If so, what is the necessity of telling them to "calm the fuck down"? We all need to remain focussed on the voter, and to ask ourselves whether the final product will make it easier for them to vote, or make it easier for them to just not bother. Scolaire (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
My general point is that Wikipedia will not implode if the "wrong" choice is made, because there is no wrong choice (or for that matter, no right choice). That said, I would rather only 20 people voted after giving it some serious thought, than 100 people vote after being swayed by some misleading propaganda one way or the other. If my statement puts someone off voting x,y,z only because editor Foo states is the other options are against policy, then its done it job. I don't apologize for that. I think its important the the voter should educate themselves and not rely on others (That is not to say all the other statements are misleading. So far, I would say most are very helpful. But they could be misleading, and the uneducated would not necessarily be able to tell the difference).
My pop culture nod to not acquiescing to "fussing and hollering" to get one's own way is not necessary (and may be too obscure for most to follow), but it was my preferred way of making that point. I don't envision it scaring too many people from voting. Rockpocket 07:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Archive_17&oldid=1136414744"