Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

[Domer48's] Statement in support of option A

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements/Domer48 --Domer48'fenian' 10:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: Those are all the same point, just repeated six times. 'A' isn't even my first choice and I came up with more than that. I think you've just demonstrated why the pro/cons (if they are to be included at all) should be left to Masem to write. (Removed the ref list because it this is a talk page, it's not necessary and that template isn't designed to be used in this sort of situation) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Replaced the ref list, the fact that its a talk page makes no difference. In my edit summary I said this is just a start to get the ball rolling. --Domer48'fenian' 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It make a difference because:
  1. It is not necessary.
  2. The template is only designed to handle references on a single topic (e.g. a single article, a single essay, etc.). Discussion on talk pages take a wholly different format. If you put your ref list here, and someone else begins a new topic below you, where will their references go? In your ref list? Will that be above or below their? What happens when we archive the page? Where will the refs go then? The template is not designed to be used on a talk page. Take the refs out of the <ref> tag if you really want them to be seen.
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Domer, this is a position statement. Please move it to the position statements' page, or if its still in development, to your own sandbox. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, everyone. Please be NICE to Domer. You don't have to like what he wrote, but he's doing what everyone has been asked to do. He's free to write what he wants. Domer, I have copied your statement to where it belongs, so please continue to edit it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements/Domer48, and thanks for going to the trouble of preparing a Position Statement. It's important. -- Evertype· 13:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I couldnt help but laugh after i saw "Please be NICE to Domer" by Evertype after previous clashes between the two of them. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I laughed myself, as I was writing it. But in fairness, he's making a contribution and people shouldn't bitch at him for doing so. (I did in fact ask him several times to do so.) -- Evertype· 14:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
What kind of patronising BS are you all going on about. I,m sure Domer doesn't need the likes of Bastun and BW being nice they never have and they never will and would just see it as the charade it would be. BigDunc 14:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Everybody needs other people to be nice to them. :-) -- Evertype· 15:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I was being nice - and absolutely, all contributions welcome! (After ec with BigDunc's rant...) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As Part of the "Pro/Con Statement" process I've put forward some points. They are not part of the POV/Soapboxing Statements which are now being called "Position Statements." Now I asked above that a section be created for Pro and Con Statements and to date this has not happened. If editors, who seem to enjoy creating sub-pages wish they can knock one up and I'll post them on it. As to the patronising BS, I'd just ignore that. The frantic outbursts we witnessed above were indeed pathetic to watch by Evertype so there is no point in provoking more tantrums. BritishWatcher there has been no previous clashes between Evertype and myself. I've always remained reasonable and calm and don't go in for the grand displays we all had to sit through above. The pleading and imploring for Masem to intervene in a discussion in which they had not got a leg left to stand on prompting then the latest poll was just a bit too childish for me so I went off a put together an article. --Domer48'fenian' 15:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

--Domer48'fenian' 10:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


  1. ^ Bunreacht Na hÉireann
  2. ^ European Union Interinstitutional Style Guide.
  3. ^ 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
  4. ^ 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.

  5. ^ A Country by any other Name, Mary Daly, Journal of British Studies, Jan 2007 volume 46 number 1
  6. ^ 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
  7. ^ 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

Conversations continued

For the record, however, I'd like to point out that calling people "hypocrites", and "frantic" and "pathetic" is NOT "reasonable and calm", Domer. It is rude and boorish. -- Evertype· 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I see Domer has deleted his Position Statement because he thinks that a Pro/Con statement is a different thing from a Position Statement. Well, whatever. I tried to be helpful. And even nice. -- Evertype· 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
When calling you "frantic" and "pathetic" I was being very "reasonable and calm." It was and in my opinion is a perfectly accurate description of your wailing and balling because the discussion was moving towards agreement on the Pro/Con Statements and you were reduced to pleading and imploring Masem to step in. For the record though it was you who described yourselves as "hypocrites" above not me. However, the first one of you who challenges any of the sources/references and policies that I have put forward in support of any option will undoubtedly be behaving like "hypocrites" having yourselves said that you should not be asked to supply them with your POV/Soapboxing Statements at all. Your suggestion that the Pro/Con statement is not a different thing from a Position Statement is again in my opinion "pathetic" considering the discussions above. Trying to insult editors intelligence is boorish and I'd suggest you stop before you again make yourself look ridiculous. Now I’ll not be responding to anymore of your inane nonsense, and taking my own advice I’ll just ignore it. --Domer48'fenian' 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
No, Domer, you were engaging in a personal attack. You were not being "reasonable and calm". -- Evertype· 17:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Domer, it's always better to see it written down, and the double taxation reference is a new one to me, I hadn't come across it before. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Domer, I've read your submission through. Can you just clarify for me how it is in support of option A rather than, say, option B? I cannot see any argument, referenced or not, for merging the 'state' and 'island' articles. Scolaire (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Scolaire having read through the other submissions, I find it curious you cannot see any argument, referenced or not with any of them. I find it curious that you did not need any of the editors to clarify for you anything in their submissions. Now mine is a work in progress, so why not in the mean time go off and ask the other editors to provide a rationale for their in some cases contorted logic. --Domer48'fenian' 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, right! The only reason any of us ask civil questions is to undermine your whole position! Don't answer my question, then, because I don't give a s**t! But do not tell me who to ask what to, ever, OK? Scolaire (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I really must point out to you that I never refused to answer your question, I simply told you that it is a work in progress. Now you’re completely over the top invective response does show how the creamy bitterness of vitriol and bias rises to the top with little agitation on my part. Likewise my suggestion to you address your comments to the others in the mean time, has been amplified by you into a command. This was followed I must say by a very chilly response, I feel like I been savaged by a baby goldfish, and will definitely give you a wide berth in the future. I’m really all a quiver and covered in Goosebumps. --Domer48'fenian' 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Do you spend your spare time writing for Mills and Boon, Domer? "the creamy bitterness of vitriol" indeed! Furthermore, I think you mean "aquiver", rather than "a quiver", very different meaning. Anyway. My comments on this proposal are largely based around the misuse of sources to further a position.
  1. The source provided does not support the statement made. The constitution says "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." It does not follow "...and not the "R/r epublic of Ireland." The qualifier is being used to further a position.
  2. This statement misleads by omission. The document provides guidance for terms that "must be used by all the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union." Wikipedia is not a institution, body or agency of the European Union therefore that "must" is being used to further a position.
  3. The source provided does not support the statement made. The source lists the names of member states. The island is not a member state, therefore it is not listed there. This source does not support the statement: "Ireland as the name of the State not the island". The qualifier is being used to further a position.
  4. The sources provided does not support the statement made. They show the the UK Government has used the term Ireland to refer to the Irish State. They do not support the additional "...not the island." The qualifier is being used to further a position.
  5. Yes, but so what? No-one is disputing Ireland is the name of the country. Countries do not have Embassies to islands, so no disambiguation is required on such as list.
  6. Yes, but so what? No-one is disputing Ireland is the name of the country. Countries do not have Embassies to islands, so no disambiguation is required on such a list.
Thus, these are statements that further positions, ergo they are POV statements. Fine if you wish to put them in your userspace, not appropriate for the ballot, in my humble opinion. Rockpocket 03:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I quite agree. These could form a Position Statement, though of course Domer will come back and write a few paragraphs about what a pathetic whiner I am for not understanding that his "arguments" are "sourced" and "NPOV", and he will refuse to place his "arguments" on the Position Statements page. If he thinks this screed will get on the ballot paper he ought to think again. -- Evertype· 07:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"However, the first one of you who challenges any of the sources/references and policies that I have put forward in support of any option will undoubtedly be behaving like "hypocrites" having yourselves said that you should not be asked to supply them with your POV/Soapboxing Statements at all." Yet another one pulls me up on splessing, very sad. Enough Said! --Domer48'fenian' 07:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
What's "splessing"? -- Evertype· 07:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Scolaire penetrated by a bolt from Domer's quiver, possibly laced with creamy vitriol first
I think its a "witty" misspelling of spelling. Normally poor spelling doesn't concern me all that much (I make typos all the time, I'm sure there will be a few in this post). Its just that there is potential for serious confusion if people think you are a collective of spitting cobras rather than shivering with excitement. It was not clear why you blew Scolaire off with a — frankly — homo-erotic response (pictured), but I thought it would be better for all if I clarified your sementics.
Moving swiftly on, I think you should probably read up on the meaning of "hypocrite". The reason I am indifferent about demanding sources in positional statements is nicely illustrated by your examples. Demanding sources is not sufficient to stop POV laden statements, so why bother. The sources also have to be used appropriately and responsibly. You provide plenty of sources, but few if any actually support the position you take. Quite simply, bad sourcing is as bad as no sourcing (and maybe even worse, because it gives an illusion of legitimacy that no sources lack). So rather than call people hypocrites, why don't you edit your statements to reflect what the sources actually say? Rockpocket 03:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Witty, you say? -- Evertype· 06:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I should make it clear that when I posed for that picture I did not expect it to be posted on the internet ;-) Scolaire (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Domer, we've tried drafting pro/con statements before and that lead to edit warring over them, and thus my suggestion of the basis of the current ballot intro box and using position statements just to get the entire process started. Now, I did suggest that after all the position statements are done (or at least a week), myself or the other mod could look over them and pull out very short pro/con statements and ask here for a general thumbs up or down to be included or not; if there's major opposition, then the vote would go with the position statements. --MASEM (t) 11:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Two thumbs up to that idea. But can we get a deadline for the end of the position statements? Are we going with the schedule that nearly every okay'ed above (position statements by Wednesday). Without a deadline there will be no ball rolling - just a group of twenty of so editors gathered around a ball wondering when it's going to start rolling. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, let's keep the deadline for position statements (at least, if you want those to be in at the start of the poll, and considered for use in these pro/con statements I've suggested), for next Weds as outlined. I still suggest that position statements can be completed after that, just that you won't have the same benefit if you had them done by the above deadline. Hopefully to get the poll going by that weekend if not sooner. --MASEM (t) 12:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Masem, you's the shiznit. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem you suggest that “we've tried drafting pro/con statements before” and as usual I’ll point out to you that we have not. We’ve spent the past couple of days discussing it, but of course a diff can always prove me wrong? Your use of “we’ve tried” is to me an acknowledgement that you are just as much a part of this process as everyone else, and should dismiss any pretence that you are moderating it. You are basically here in my opinion to act as a rubber stamp to any process the dawn chorus above puts forward. You have never in my opinion lead this process, but have been lead by it. Should you require diff’s as usual I’m more than happy too. Now you made a bags of the intro box, pandering to gang, and you’ll do the same with the “very short pro/con statements.” This of course is based on the fact that you approved a statement that was deliberately bogus even after you were told it was bogus by the editor. To even consider putting fabrications before the community was in my view a step to far. Now you know full well that the group who are now questioning my sources and policy arguments above don’t want Pro/Con Statements, or at least referenced ones and only want their POV/Soapboxing Statements. So knowing this full well, you say “if there's major opposition,” to the Pro/Con Statements then the vote would go with the POV/Soapboxing “position statements” which is the very thing they want. Now not being one to stomp my feet and throw my rattle out of the cot, I’ll try my best to keep this discussion factual, remaining calm, reasonable and receptive to positive suggestions. Now I’ll post these questions again, because they usually have a positive effect. Editors will continue the discussion above them, which I’m not going to do, or start a new section below them so as to avoid them.

It is my view that readers should be offered sourced/referenced and policy based Pro/Con Statements for the poll options as opposed to the POV/Soapboxing Statements being forced through, and I’d ask again since the questions have been ignored above:

  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?

I'll be doing a bit of reading for an article I'm putting together so I'll be in and out a bit. --Domer48'fenian' 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As usual, Domer, you are ignoring the facts. The pro/con statements which Masem refers to are now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements/Evertype. It is a falsehood for youto say that we did not try to draft such statements before. Those are the statements we tried to draft. Kindly refrain from further falsehood in this regard. It would be nice if you would lay off the "Soapboxing" malarkey as well. We know that you disdain any argument but your own. However, if Masem says that even your statement must be a "Position Statement" (sourced or not) then you will have the option of having your statement be a Position Statement, or having no input into the ballot document at all. That seems quite fair, to me. It puts you at no disadvantage than the rest of us will (gladly) suffer. -- Evertype· 20:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
In response to your questions:
  1. I don't object to neutral, widely agreeable fact/policy based statement decided by consensus. However, we tried that already and it proved unsuccessful. Repeating the exercise serves no constructive purpose.
  2. As above.
  3. Are you still beating your wife?
Rockpocket 22:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Since no one disagreed with me when I pointed out that you can never achieve consensus with POV warriors, who refuses to back up their opinions with fact/policy based statements or can’t, your attempt to mislead editors into believing that you support the view that you don't “object to neutral, widely agreeable fact/policy based statement[s]” is very disingenuous. What you’re trying to do is tell editors that we can’t achieve consensus, therefore as much as you’d like to and don’t “object to neutral, widely agreeable fact/policy based statement[s]” this is just not possible. Therefore you are trying to present your support for not providing “fact/policy based statement[s]” as the "lesser of two evils."

A number of you have now made the assertion that we have attempted to have a fact/policy based discussion on statements both for and against the options, and that “it proved unsuccessful” but not one of you could provide a diff to where this discussion took place. If this were true then your challenge to the sources I provided above is a clear case of repetition on both our parts, but only if you show editors were this previous discussion took place. Masem suggesting that they will vet all the POV/Sandboxing Statements is another indication that this supposed discussion did not take place, because you imply this has already been done?

  • A POV warriors is an editor who refuses to back up their opinions with fact/policy based statements or can’t. All Editors agree that you can never achieve consensus with POV warriors. To look for consensus with them is futile, therefore to say you have tried and failed and can’t achieve consensus is a logical fallacy.
  • All POV warriors rely on edit warring and disruption to make a point. In response to reasoned and rational discussion they rely on incivility, personal attacks including name calling. To avoid questions they use stonewalling, ignoring, deflecting or appearing to not understand the question.
  • All POV warriors need to prosper is strength of numbers, and the ambivalence/ignorance or active/passive support of Admin’s. Isolated POV warriors are easily identified but can with the ambivalence/ignorance or active/passive support of Admin’s continue for some time to disrupt the project or have editors blocked.
  • The only way to deal with POV warriors on an encyclopaedia is to insist on referenced/policy based statements. Providing them the opportunity to provide POV/Sandboxing Statements is never considered the "lesser of two evils."

The replies above are poor attempts to avoid answering the questions. So I’ll make it much more simple: Do editors of an encyclopedia accept the need for referenced support for information presented to readers, yes or no. Is it ever acceptable for an encyclopedia to present information to readers which is not supported by references and based on nothing other that the opinions of an editor, yes or no. --Domer48'fenian' 10:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple answers. Do editors of an encyclopedia accept the need for referenced support for information presented to readers, yes or no? No, not in a ballot, which is an attempt to reach consensus, and does not therefore fall under encyclopaedic content. Is it ever acceptable for an encyclopedia to present information to readers which is not supported by references and based on nothing other that the opinions of an editor, yes or no? Yes, on a talk page, WikiProject page or ballot page, in the context of consensus-building. Scolaire (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Additional comment: Everybody in this discussion has expressed their point of view (POV), which is right and necessary for discussion. All but one have stopped short of open warfare, which makes you the only POV warrior here. Scolaire (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Scoláire; you're not the first to tell Domer that the ballot and the Position Statements are not encyclopaedia articles, but evidently he's selective about what he chooses to hear from other editors. -- Evertype· 14:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yet another large splodge of text from Domer repeating yet again what he's said already, and that no more than two editors occasionally appearing here would possibly agree with. Folks, please - administrators have already said that this sort of action (which I'd judge to be disruptive, but I'm not an admin) should just be ignored. Also - this page is for discussing process, not content or the merits or demerits of any one potential solution. No need to respond to rebut his arguments (which admittedly shouldn't be posted here in the first place, but instead on a Position Statement page). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Bastun, I'm for pressing on as we've obviously agreed. Masem can be assured of the "major opposition" or at least "thumbs down" to an ad-hoc taste-testing of the Position Statements to provide a list of Pro/Con statements. Domer could write his stuff, and can have a Position Statement like everybody else, if he wants. Simple, easy, fair. -- Evertype· 14:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The ballot is not an attempt to reach consensus, the ballot is we are told is because of an inability by editors to reach consensus. Since the result of the Ballot falls under encyclopaedia content participants, i.e. the readers therefore need fact/policy rationales to be in a position to make informed decisions. Consensus never overrides policy, otherwise a load of paedophiles if they got enough support could put forward the view that the abuse of children was harmless fun, and claim consensus.

As for the poor attempts to address comments to me instead of the argument I make, it is almost as ridiculous as the "lesser of two evils" nonsense above. I’m the one arguing for references/policies to be used, and the four comments above are arguing against, so that should simplify it. Getting them to address the questions I raised is proving as usual difficult, with clear signs of stonewalling, ignoring, and deflecting.--Domer48'fenian' 15:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Domer, if any single option was exclusively and easily supported by sources and the like, we would not be here, the answer would have been determined months ago. The problem in this situation is that, as I've tried to explain before, reliable sources give conflicting answers as to both the question as to if the island or country is most common, and the naming issues of the country itself. The six options presented have been vetted by this community before this poll and are presented as all reasonable and possible options that can be inferred from sources. Thus, we're not trying to prove that these options are appropriate - we've already assumed that. Now the point of position statements is to try to establish why a specific option is better or worse than the other options and now that's up to convincing the voters. Sources help - but remember, we've already asserted that these options are already sourced so the lack of sources in the position statements do not invalid that choice. All that can be said is that the lack of sources will be seen as a weaker argument than one that uses them, but that's it. Requiring sources is unwarranted (as its done no where else where discussion rules apply (as opposed to mainspace) and unnecessary (since the options meet our verification rquirements already). --MASEM (t) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets simplify this for you Masem, you say “reliable sources give conflicting answers as to both the question as to if the island or country is most common, and the naming issues of the country itself” all I’m saying is offer readers the opportunity to see the conflicting “reliable sources” and make up their on mind. You and the editors above say no! --Domer48'fenian' 15:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Which are perfectly fine to include sources in the position statements, no one is arguing that. However, to demand that position statements include sources is beyond expectation. Yes, this may mean that when taken all together for certain options, none of the position statements may provide sources for that options, which is a completely reasonable result, particularly if other ones are sourced; it may mean that option is less likely to be as considered a good or a bad option. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Masem. Howabout we go along with what Domer is proposing (PS: I'm not being sarcastic). 'Maybe' he's got a point (concerning 'sourcing'). GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Domer is proposing that anybody with a point of view should be forced to 'source' it or withdraw their statement. Are you proposing we go along with that? How exactly do you suggest we apply that force? Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not certain. But, the impression I'm getting is that 'if' Domer's proposal isn't 'somehow' implimented, he (or others) may call the end results illegitimate. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You may be sure that no matter what we do, if it's not the result he wants he (or others) will call the end results illegitimate. Where does that leave us? Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. Anyways, it was a thought. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, Bastun's statement and Valenciano's work-in-progress are both adequately sourced. Evertype and Rannpháirtí anaithnid have chosen to provide arguments for and against every option, those the agree with and those they disagree with. There is nothing to stop you from finding sources for all of those arguments, GoodDay, if you wanted to move this process along. Scolaire (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm too lazy to dig up & link sources to any statement of mine (PS: I'm not good at connecting external links). Besides, I don't need sources to back up my arguments: The country obviously doesn't cover the entire island. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I actually did laugh out loud! So much for "Howabout we go along with what Domer is proposing"! Scolaire (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, the fate of my Position statement is in the hands of others. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem, you have said that there are conflicting reliable sources given for each option, and all I suggest is that we present them to the readers and let them be the judge. Now you again in my opinion seem to be deliberately trying to be misleading when you say that for me “to demand that position statements include sources is beyond expectation” when you know and everyone else here knows I’ve asked for no such thing. You like the editors above keep trying to give the impression that the “position statements” and the proposed “Pro / Con statements” are the same thing they are not, and you know it. These type of antics have slowed this process, please stop. --Domer48'fenian' 11:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now, we are definitely including position statements, but it remains a question if moderator-written pro/con statements based on the position statements will be used. We can try to include sources in them, but I don't think it will be possible for each case; however, compared to the position statements, these do need to be factual and not twisting sources to meet the end result. The best course for the pro/con side is to see what develops, but since they are out of the hands of the editors here, it should not be as large a concern as the position statements. --MASEM (t) 12:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem, above you say that "the six options presented have been vetted by this community before this poll and are presented as all reasonable and possible options that can be inferred from sources." Now you are saying on the options and the sources that "we can try to include sources in them, but [you] don't think it will be possible for each case." To any reasonable editor this would give the impression that the options and sources were "vetted" that is, they were discussed and found to be "reasonable and possible options that can be inferred from sources." However saying that you "don't think it will be possible for each case" on the options to provide sources contradicts your previous assertion. Could you possibly direct editors to were these conflicting reliable sources given for each option, were vetted by this community, and explain why on the eve of a poll that it will not now be possible to provide sources for each option. I'm very much aware that we are "definitely including" POV/Soapboxing "position statements" and that it has yet to be decided by the editors who are opposed to the pro/con statements, and opposed to referencing/sourcing weather they will allow moderator-written pro/con statements, since you say that they "do need to be factual and not twisting sources." --Domer48'fenian' 13:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: if pro/con statements are going to be included they are going to be short to avoid inflating the ballot page - just enough information (someone suggested a 20 word sentence for each) to highlight the reasoning; adding sources would be too much. There is no single place to point to sources as that would require providing hundreds of links to discussion before and since the ArbCom case. I do expect that a summary of those sources will appear in position statements, and if there is a critical one (which I doubt, otherwise it would have been highlighted to make this naming aspect much easier) maybe it can be referenced in the pro/con but we'll have to see. We need to keep in mind that this whole thing is relatively simple: we're trying to decide where the island info should be covered, and where the country info should be covered - we're not trying to find the cure for cancer or achieve world peace. We are making this too difficult and drawn out a process by losing focus of the goal - to see of the 6 choices what the community thinks is best, and recognizing most will vote without much consideration of the background. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming quite tedious, and to any reasonable editor disruptive. If for what ever reason you are incapable of addressing the issues raised, it would be better not to respond, than responding to questions not even asked. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 15:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You're asking for information that everyone else appears has taken for granted and willing to move forwards from in order to establish consensus. Insisting on that information - especially if you are the only one - is what is disruptive and making this process difficult. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
We have a sensible process and schedule now, Masem. Please help us keep to it. -- Evertype· 15:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok Masem, I’ll take it for granted you know all the Pro/Con rationales for each option! I’ll also take it for granted that you are aware of all the “conflicting reliable sources given for each option” including mine, and that this will be reflected in your “moderator-written pro/con statements.” I look forward to reading them, confident in the knowledge that they "do need to be factual and not twisting sources." Now as any reasonable editor is aware at this stage, that consensus with those who insist on sources, and those represented by yourself who refuse there use, consensus as a precondition rules out pro/con statements therefore this discussion is pointless. I do hope though, that my pointing out any “deficiencies in the essay [arguments] whether that be lack of sources, incorrect application of policy, misinterpreted facts, or just a general POV statement” will not be viewed as disruption, and that if I request a supporting diff for any more of your generalising assertions, you’ll be more than happy to provide it instead of prevaricating. --Domer48'fenian' 15:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, nobody voted you in as Great and Powerful Oz, Domer, so if you're unhappy with what the rest of us end up being happy with you'll just have to live with that. -- Evertype· 20:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In my current review of some book, considered a novelty by some here I found this quote which has a striking relevance to this discussion. That it is from 1899, suggests that some thing never change. I would remind editors to keep in mind the points I made on POV warriors, as their comments also have a striking similarity.--Domer48'fenian' 21:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Touché, nice piece, sums up a lot of goes on at WP. I might copy this to my page, if that's ok. Thanks. Tfz 23:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that describes you very well, Domer. Can we take it then that you're acknowledging your disruptive behaviour and undertaking to stop it? Scolaire (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh isn’t that nice but sad attempt at repartee, and as usual you’re as sharp as a cement block, or a bit of a thick-brick. Still feeling sore about me nipping your talking tough routine above short with my goldfish remark? So you can take that at least as an acknowledgement of my estimation in your ability at wit. --Domer48'fenian' 22:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Really, people - STOP!. (Masem - the above is a direct personal attack - please do something about it). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire comment was not a direct personal attack. They were attempting a bit of repartee and while it may have offended people who do have a good sense of humor I let it go. Now your calling their best attempt in humor trolling is a bit over the top. --Domer48'fenian' 23:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course Scolaire's comment wasn't a direct personal attack. "you’re as sharp as a cement block, or a bit of a thick-brick", on the other hand, is one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I have good regard for Domer, and I have good regard for Scolaire. Will the above editor please stop and reconsider the dreary snide remarks that are becoming a hallmark of his/er editing. Tfz 00:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Claiming you've good regard for Scolaire while asking me to stop trying to get personal attacks against him stopped, and ignoring those attacks by Domer on Scolaire yourself - frankly, your argument rings hollow. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Didn't ignore anything, AGF, thanks! Tfz 14:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
O rly? Point me at a diff, then. To quote Domer. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
With respect, Bastun, I think you're letting yourself get more rattled by Domer than I am. I'm quite enjoying the schoolyard banter. I bet Domer is a big hit with the other boys in Fourth Class. Scolaire (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
If you've a thick enough skin, fair enough, Scolaire. The point I'd make, though, is that the next editor who falls afoul of Domer's creamy vitriol (accompanied or not by fanboi cheerleading), might not have as thick a skin and may well depart the project. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
If you don't have a thick skin, then you shouldn't be on Wikipedia, or maybe go edit daffodils. Innocents get crushed pretty rapidly here, especially on the 'British & Irish' topics. Tfz 19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope your not saying daffodil lovers are pansys! I'll have you charged with, erm, something or other. You have been warned. Jack forbes (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
AGF. LOL! Tfz 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I find it very interesting considering the vilification and character assaination against editors by a certain section (they now who they are), that not a word is said against an editor who came to wikipedia a couple of months ago and who made their first edit to this dispute process. Is it because the editor has the same beliefs as the clan who are trying to run the show. I wonder if the new editor had been anti status qou how many screams of sock would have echoed these pages. BigDunc 17:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're talking about Rannpháirtí anaithnid. Rannpháirtí is not a new editor. He exercised his right to edit as an IP for a long time before he reluctantly accepted that he would not be taken seriously until he registered. Hence the username (anonymous editor). If you're saying he has the same "beliefs" as Evertype, I think you're wide of the mark there, too. I'm thinking that Rannpháirtí is an ROI man and Evertype is an anti-ROI man. FTR, I have had disputes with both of them so I'm not "shoring up" anybody. Scolaire (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
When I posted the above I hadn't seen this. Well, well! Scolaire (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You are duly knocked down. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, holy hand grenades of Antioch.... -- Evertype·
See the entry on Wikipedia:Changing username. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah Sony long time no see, glad I asked the question now cleared that all up. BigDunc 13:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Did nobody even suspect? Good to have SY back. --HighKing (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. And no. It was obvious it wasn't a new user, but I wasn't sure who. My curiousity is piqued now, though... I'm wondering what account Tfz was using between his first three edits in December 2004 and his next edit in October '08... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a place to check this out and not here. I don't owe anyone an itenary of my actions this last five years, suffice to say it involves travel, recession, and my return to live in Ireland, and a new flexable job that gives me access to the internet throughout the day. Tfz 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Schedule question from BW

Can i just check on the deadline for these statements, we said 27th of July. Do we mean in 2 hours time or in 24 hours time (end of 27th). BritishWatcher (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Per this, the deadline for Position Statements is actually the 21:00 UTC on Tuesday 29th, BW, not the 27th. (I've taken the liberty of moving your question to this section, BW, lest it get it lost in Domerhetoric above). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Tuesday, the 29th? GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I would say this is the deadline to make sure they get on the ballot - you may add it afterwards, but that's no guarentee it will be on the ballot when it opens. I've no problem if people add position statements after the fact, but they need to be aware that may mean they won't be there at the very start. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 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.

Sin é. -- Evertype· 23:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, not sure where i got the 27th from then lol :\. Means i can make a short statement tomorrow. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Latecomer: How is the vote going to be advertised? Jack forbes (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This was the list #Proposed locations for advertising of poll. not sure if there have been changes. Although i would like to see that section put in an archive box so it cant be changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
No changes that I'm aware of. So - that list, and all current and past members of this Wikiproject, plus all listed at the original Arbcom case, to be notified. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, BW. That seems to be quite well advertised. Isn't there also a way to advertise something like this by placing the link to the vote on every wikipedians page? I may be wrong but I'm sure I've seen something similar before. Jack forbes (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there was discussion of adding a notice to everyone's watchlist. Did Masem go along with that in the end? Is it happening? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'd requested that a hatnote be placed on user's Watchlist pages (similar to the one you can see now for Trustee elections) but Masem doesn't seem enthusiastic :-( BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
We can try, but there's editors that are resilient to any watchlist notification that is not a community-wide issue. This is not one of them. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps if you mention the seven year debate on this subject (at wikipedia) they might agree. Jack forbes (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Some issues with the above proposal

The above schedule was first proposed by Rannpháitrí annaithnid on 21 July. There were several "supports", nearly all on the basis of "let's get on with it", but I've been rather put out, having followed the links, to discover there have been significant changes in the proposed ballot and discussion pages which I have no recollection of being discussed, or specifically endorsed by participants:

  1. In the draft ballot, two of the options have been inexplicably truncated: from "Option C: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state)" to "Option C: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island)"; and "Option E: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state)" to "Option E: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island)." Both options are expanded in the "Detailed information" section, but that section is for information only. The "Ballot" section must surely contain the full text of the things being ballotted?
  2. The list of position statements has changed from this to this to this. Descriptors which were specifically agreed, such as "Statement in favour of option X", have been replaced by "Enter a brief summary of the position statement here". Are participants to be allowed to enter what they want (e.g. "vote for this or you're evil!" to use Rannpháirtí's example); is it to be allowed to remain blank, obliging voters to click each one just to find out what it contains; or are standard descriptors/summaries to be added by somebody on polling day, and if so by whom? Also, two statements have been added to the old page which haven't found their way onto the new one.

I've had occasion to complain before about subtle changes being made to the ballot by one or two editors without informing the other participants, or seeking their endorsement. I would like to see these two changes (and any others that I have missed) either reversed or agreed by participants before the opening of the poll. Scolaire (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

With regards #1, I'm with you. The island at Ireland (island) - should it require disambiguation - is about the least contentious of all the options on the ballot, while the state at Ireland (state) is contentious. If these have been truncated for brevity, then they have been done so in the worst way. Lets ensure the location of both state and island are mentioned. As for #2, the format of the final position statement list is not of particular concern. Whatever final version is used, could someone please make sure all the statements are listed and linked. Rockpocket 07:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Scoláire, regarding your first point. There are three places the ballot text is at right now. User:Evertype/sandbox, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Ballot_paper and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Ballot_paper_(draft)#Ballot. I have corrected the one at my sandbox and the one on Rannpháirtí's draft page in accordance with your comment here. -- Evertype· 07:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Scoláire, regarding your second point, I don't find the text ""Enter a brief summary of the position statement here" on the page you're concerned about. -- Evertype· 07:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally I would (still) like to see the whole bottom section removed. I did that here, and here I added the "Nutshell Text" to see if it makes sense to do that. Perhaps not. -- Evertype· 08:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying hard not to get cranky now, but when I posted this morning, "Position statements' page as seen here" pointed to this page (I linked it wrong above - my mistake); now it links to this page and I'm being told "Enter a brief summary of the position statement here" is nowhere to be found. Apparently I am also being told that the draft ballot is in three different places which may or may not be in sync! In short, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. Now, I remember clearly when it was agreed that each statement would be labelled "statement in favour of X", "statement opposing Y" or "general statement". I cannot see where it was agreed that every statement would go in a single list headed "general statement" regardless of the POV expressed. So I'm going to ask again: revert to what was agreed or seek a consensus to change. And for God's sake, speedy delete all the redundant pages so that there is only one page to discuss and agree/vote on. Scolaire (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if I acted out of turn, Scolaire - I changed the link from the [[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position_statements (draft)|"(draft)" Position Statement page]] to point instead at the [[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position_statements|"live" one]], precisely because people were getting confused between the two. There were several statements/placeholders on "live" that were absent from "draft". Don't know about the other changes. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so now I know why it changed. No, you didn't do the wrong thing. It just highlights the ad hoc nature of the whole thing that [username deleted] and [username deleted] are trying to get us all to accept as the final, agreed, ideal package. All I'm asking is: why is it wrong to let us make our own decisions based on a single, editable and agreed template? Scolaire (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • On point 1. I don't know how the "Ireland (state)" parts got lost. If it was me, then it was a copy-and-paste error.
  • On point 2: The chronology was this:
  1. Evertype started the position statements' page with a plain list of statements.
  2. I edited it with additional "slots" for the various options. Evertype and some more objected to that, but did not change it.
  3. When I made the bold proposal, I made copies of each of the relevant pages so that if the proposal flopped I would not have disrupted "live" pages. In making the proposal, I changed the layout of the position statements' page to take Evertypes' concerns into account.
  4. Bastun raised concern that there were so many version of the different pages around the place. Evertype amended the "live" version, removing the "slots" for each option.
The "Enter a brief summary of the position statement here" text was intended to be a copy of the nutshell statement of each position paper so that readers could see what they were getting (rather than just blindly clicking on a user's name). It was added boldly as part of the "bold proposal". It has since been deleted by Evertype.
As you can see from this example, [username deleted] and I are not singing from the same hymn sheet and not putting forward one "final, agreed, ideal package". There is no cabal. --[username deleted] 19:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I apologise if what I said came out as "cabal"; that was not what I meant to say. My one and only concern is that we (all of us) are being asked to approve a go-live date of two days time based on a supposedly fixed ballot and a supposedly fixed list of statements, when in fact there are multiple ballots/lists floating around and they are being changed from day to day and hour to hour without prior discussion on this page. Whether you and Evertype are singing from the same hymn sheet is not the issue; whether the rest of us cand find the flippin' sheet, having given our tacit support to what turns out to be a nebulous collection of documents, is what I am interested in. So, can you address my question, please? Will you change everything back to what it was when we all knew (or thought we knew) what it was, or will you and Evertype each try to establish a consensus for whatever format is currently active? Scolaire (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Will you change everything back to what it was when we all knew (or thought we knew) what it was, or will you and Evertype each try to establish a consensus for whatever format is currently active?" Change what back?
  • The ballot paper hasn't changed in any way since everyone started pulling their hair out over it three weeks ago.
  • We may be going with an altered version of the ballot paper, which you participated heavily in writing. That's up to Masem since the ballot paper is locked.
  • The position statements' page has had three major revisions. Which, in your opinion, is the "authoritative" version?
Keeping track of this page since a halt was called to the ballot three weeks ago has been a war of attrition. That war has cost a lot of editors, I know. Just because myself and Evertype have had the mettle to endure it doesn't mean that we are trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. It was the possibility of just that happening that motivated me to stay in and not succumb to attrition. It is precisely because I and Everytpe stuck in here, when you and others couldn't bear it, that what you gave your tacit support to is still what is planned to happen. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Once and for all, please give up the martyr act, and stop accusing others of copping out or not pulling their weight. I'm still here, in case you hadn't noticed. If you want to know what I'm saying, read what I wrote: "I remember clearly when it was agreed that each statement would be labelled "statement in favour of X", "statement opposing Y" or "general statement". I cannot see where it was agreed that every statement would go in a single list headed "general statement" regardless of the POV expressed. So I'm going to ask again: revert to what was agreed or seek a consensus to change." It could hardly be clearer. As far as the ballot paper is concerned, you have already admitted that there were three different versions going around, and that the one that you linked to in your latest proposal had serious errors in it. Am I to blame for pointing out the errors? Scolaire (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Once and for all, please give up the martyr act..." What martyr act? "...and stop accusing others of copping out or not pulling their weight" Where did I do that? I think you are imagining these things.
  • "I remember clearly when it was agreed..." You do? Do you mean this discussion? That didn't seem to end in any consensus. If that's what classes as a clear recollection of consensus to your memory then you have more to worry about than me or [username deleted] hijacking the process (as we all do in a different way). But why don't you edit the statements' page? Is there something stopping you? And why are you berating me about it? I only changed it once - and that has since been reverted!
  • "... you have already admitted..." That was somebody else. On both counts. Your memory seems to be acting up again. (It might help if you relaxed a little and loose the paranoia.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "It is precisely because I and Everytpe stuck in here, when you and others couldn't bear it" - that martyr act, and that accusation.
  • No, this discussion, where Masem spelled out the "in favour of" etc. format and the first three responses agreed (and yours didn't disagree on that point).
  • "On point 1. I don't know how the "Ireland (state)" parts got lost. If it was me, then it was a copy-and-paste error." Is that not an admission of an error?
  • By what logic is a request for clarity called paranoia? Which of us is paranoid? I am not interested in "berating" you. I am staying up late at night to try and make sure the poll is done right (well, not any more, it's gone midnight and I'm going to bed now). Scolaire (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "...that martyr act, and that accusation..." - That's not a martyr act. And that's not an accusation. The tedium (as someone else called it) around here has been murder. I described it as a war of attrition. And I don't blame anyone for either being got the better of or not knowing what's going on anymore. I've been there too.
  • "...this discussion..." That was 18 days ago! And you say you haven't gone away!? Masem has since spelt out half-a-dozen or so different variation on the theme. Deal with the current one.
  • "'If it was me...' Is that not an admission of an error?" Yes, if it was me. Was it me? I don't know. Was it you? Do you know? Who was it? Who cares? It's been fixed.
  • "I am not interested in 'berating' you." Then stop telling me to revert versions of pages that I didn't create.
  • "I am staying up late at night..." I appreciate that. We both are. Good night. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
FTR, I didn't say that you made a mistake, or that you admitted to making a mistake, only that it happened and that you and Evertype both acknowledged that it happened. It's been fixed. Then I'm glad I pointed it out, aren't you? As regards the statement list, I still can't see where the current format was discussed or agreed, but actually that doesn't matter either. I'd like to discuss the current format now. I'll re-open the discussion at the bottom of the page. Then we can resume with clear heads. Scolaire (talk) 06:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It wasn't "discussed" anywhere in particular. Some discussion here, some discussion on it's own talk page. What you see now is version 3. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Go-o-o-o-o-o-od morning. Today I'd like to go over a few things with Rannṗáirtí to make sure there are as few duplicates etc around. If that's all right with you. -- Evertype· 07:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm cool with that, but I'm a littled bit puzzled by the question. You don't need my permission to "go over" anything with anybody. All I ask is that any changes that are made are notified and explained on this page. Scolaire (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
If I don't ask you'll end up grumbling. :-) -- Evertype· 08:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)OK, here's everything that I can think of:
  • The actual ballot paper (and a [[page it transcludes).
    • The actual ballot page (or strictly speaking, the transculded page) has to be updated to look likethis page. (That's a Masem job.)
  • The actual position statements' page.
    • Also see the statements themselves leading off from it, which follow a particular format that evolved in to a consensus (with the exception of MickMacNee - who ain't gonna be told what to do by any rodeo clown in a gimp suit!).
  • I have a version of the ballot template in my sandbox that has an option for "My rationale is here" links. (See it working here.) Is that still wanted?
These can be deleted for clarity's sake:
  • A duplicate of the statements page that can be speedy deleted for clarity. (Created as part of the "bold proposal".)
  • I had an old version of the ballot page in my sandbox. I've just blanked it. Evertype's sandbox was being used as a "authoritative" version for a while. Maybe that should be blanked too?
With regards to "pro/cons" on the ballot paper, I don't really know what's happening. Masem is going to look at the position statements, concoct pro/con for each option out of them and put them somewhere. I don't know where. The deadline for position statements to be considered as a part of that process is tomorrow at nine Irish time. There is no end date for adding position statements (i.e. they can be added at any time during the vote.)
And that's about all that I know. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't blank what's on my sandbox or on the draft duplicate till Masem makes the move, to wit:
  1. I've done a diff between the texts of the ballot itself. No differences but a commented-out comment.
  2. I've done a diff between your preamble info-box and mine. They are nearly identical. They differ in the title of the infobox, and in a link at the bottom (where mine links to the right place and yours to a temp). We should agree on the title, and then ask Masem to move it to the transclusion-source for the ballot. -- Evertype· 09:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What is happening?

For those editors (i.e. the vast majority) who have given up trying to follow this tedious page, could someone explain what is happening. I see mention of "position statements" but nowhere appears to be clearly advertised as a location for making them. Nor is there any obvious guidance as to what is supposed to be written in these "position statements". Mooretwin (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Position statements should be made on a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position statements and linked from that page. The template should be taken from one of the existing statement pages so that it includes the agreed-upon headers/disclaimers, etc. Position statements can argue in favour of or against one, some or all of the options. By consensus, position statements need not be sourced - but obviously ones that are fully cited/sourced/verified will carry more weight than those without. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. How are editors supposed to know about this? Mooretwin (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
By following this tedious page, mainly :-( BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Might be an idea to place messages on project members' talk pages alerting them to the deadline for position pages and the current road map for getting the vote underway. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
People will still be able to add position statements during the vote, the deadline for the statements at the moment is really just for the ones which will try to be used by Masem to form the pros/cons list or sum up the positions.
One thing that does need to be done is placing the new info statement on the ballot paper, at the moment its the old one and not the short neutral one which doesnt mention options.BritishWatcher (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to recommend to Masem that once the poll starts, new Position Statements NOT be allowed to be added. Do we really want six more weeks of wrangling? I suggest that the statements section be locked. There will still be a place for comments though. -- Evertype· 11:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There isnt going to be arguing over the position statements.. we havnt seen any fights over the new statements being added now, so i dont see the big problem with allowing people to submit statements during the vote aslong as they meet the basic standard and are not totally misleading or just attacks on others. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I suppose if there is some oversight. It still strikes me as inappropriate, and just another thing to have to watch. however. I think that statements should be restricted to people who have signed up as part of this Project, and ALSO restricted to people who meet the voting criteria (nobody who joined Wikipedia since 1 June 2009. -- Evertype· 12:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Definetly agree only those who can vote should be able to make statements. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with "late" statements being added. While they'll be on the Position Statement page, they won't be on the ballot page. I don't see that there will be any arguing unless blatantly false/misleading statements are posted. Most "arguing" will no doubt be done on the ballot's talk page? I do agree, though, that they should be limited to those who can vote. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
One other thing i want to check is the section on peoples statement for "Users who endorse this statement" and "Alternative perspectives". Are we meant to just be signing in these places if we agree / disagree with the statements? That seems like a good idea as it ads weight to reliable statements / weakens misleading ones, but i hope debates are not allowed on those position statement pages??? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if just agreeing with a statement adds any weight to it, maybe undue weight if the numbers are high in favour of a statement. Shouldn't the voter be allowed to read all statements and come to their own conclusions without being persuaded by the amount of agrees/disagrees? Jack forbes (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not being pedantic here, but what if I agree with 90% of the statement. Do I say agree and have no opportunity to explain the part I don't agree with, or disagree because not everything jibes with my opinion. A third choice of course would be to do neither. Jack forbes (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there a norm for that sort of think, e.g. add a tag line to the effect of "except for the bit about X". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't know, Rannphairti. I think that's what BW is asking. Jack forbes (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced by the whole "endorsed" thing. We wanted statements; we got statements. Now we want "weight" as well? As I said before in relation to statements in general, what if there's only a few hours left to the poll and a significant number of participants feel that the "endorsements" have had the effect of biassing the whole ballot? Scolaire (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point. On the original "Statements" bit of the project (all those months ago), people could 'Agree' or 'Disagree' with statements. We did have people recording their "disagreement" with absolute, incontrovertible and demonstrable facts. Which I think quite nicely illustrated exactly where they were coming from, and thus served a useful purpose in itself... ;-) But on the whole I'm neutral/undecided on whether there should or shouldn't be endorsements. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
To move my stuck record to a different band: we need to stop thinking in terms of "what we did on the project" and "what happens in a normal poll" and focus on what we are doing here. This is a ballot which numbers alone will decide, not the merits of the arguments. The statements are supposedly to educate the uneducated voter on the issues involved, not to thrash out all the old arguments again. Scolaire (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Choosing agree or disagree doesn't seem to add anything to the statements. Why are they there? For me it doesn't help the voter, who will surely (hopefully?) read it and decide for themselves. I think either an explanation for the agree/disagree should be permitted or it should be left out altogether. I have no preference for either one. Jack forbes (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it would help the voter to see comments by others on position statements. Since we cannot reach agreement on collaborative statements, I think there needs to be some way to point out the community view of the merits or otherwise of individual statements. Comments, endorsements, etc. are the usual way of doing so (e.g. RFC, AFD, RFA, etc.)?
I think the concern about an army of endorsements arriving in at the last minute are a bit of a dud. This is a vote, it is force of numbers that will win in the end no matter how you want to dress it up. And I don't see any reason to "lock down" the endorsements/comments when the vote begins. Surely it would be better to leave it open for the duration of the vote?
We do need to agree on these things in advance though. That doesn't mean discussing them forever. It means that we need to agree on them. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal on position statements list

I propose a format for the position statements list as shown in this edit. It summarises each of the statements in a concise and fairly standard format. It also removes the word "general" from the heading, since the majority of the statements are quite specific at the time of writing. Alternatively, it might be split into two sections: one for general statements and one for specific arguments. I think it is important to inform the voter what the statements contain, rather than just present them with a list of user names they may never have seen before. Scolaire (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I more or less agree with you. It could become a soapbox though, especially if during the ballot period people will be allowed to add more. But let's think about this. Currently the plan is to randomize the user names. That would imply a list set in stone before the beginning of the poll, and evidently a second section for additions later. If that were not acceptable, then something like your scheme here could be appropriate, with editors listed alphabetically and some sort of summary. Then the question is... what should the summary be? The nutshell, or based on the nutshell (if the nutshell is too verbose or un-summary-like)? Had you seen this? -- Evertype· 07:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem with that. Clean and clear. Reader knows what they're getting.
Good point from Evertype re: randomisation and additions during the poll. We could toss them up now and just go with "add your name to the bottom of the list" later. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It is a good question. Do we need to randomise? Should we randomise? The options themselves have already been randomised. The statements list should really catalogue the statements, should it not? I have done the same thing, but slightly differently, so that specific statements are in order of option dealt with, and general statements are separate. All future submissions can be slotted into the appropriate place, either by the submitter or by one of us. Does that not provide the maximum of information, most easily accessible, in the most concise way? Scolaire (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, No, I really don't think that's good. I think it's not wise to try to separate general from specific, since there may be overlap. (Plus general should precede in that event.) In that case alphabetical order would be random enough (no one chose his or her username with this poll in mind. -- Evertype· 08:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I do think that the "nutshell" summaries are too idiosyncratic to use as a description, and your draft really highlights that for me, Evertype. "Read Shakespeare" looks dead cool in the context of the statement, but as a description it looks daft! A standardised description is easy enough apply, and it eliminates any chance of soap-boxing. Scolaire (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Dead cool indeed. -- Evertype· 08:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Here I alphabetized it. Perhaps it would be best to let this stet? -- Evertype· 08:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with first come first served - gives people an incentive to get statements in early? Or proper randomisation? Not that I've any vested interested in opposing alphabetisation you understand ;) Valenciano (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Woo hoo, that would put me at the top of the list. And keep me away from Domer... ;-) -- Evertype· 09:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I oppose this format. If I wanted one-line summary, I'd write a one-line position statement. And who decides what to say? For example: "Rannpháirtí anaithnid - discussion and background on various options" - the statement is clearly for Option F. --HighKing (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
"...the statement is clearly for Option F." So why not edit it? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I've done the bold thing and edited it. Is it a fair summary now? Scolaire (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The notion that this is in any way a credible process has been well and truly dismissed. The “who decides what to say” was not the issue with me, that made no difference as long as what was said was factual. The POV/Soapboxing Statements being preferred over referenced/policy based ones despite my efforts should provide editors with the necessary information on both the motivation and purpose behind them. Having I believe highlighted enough irregularities all that remains now is to see Masem’s Pro/Con Statements. As they have indicated above the “information that everyone else appears has taken for granted” except me of course not being able to locate any of the discussions or being provided any links to them, they are all “willing to move forwards” without them. Masem will be including the “conflicting reliable sources given for each option” in the Statements and since they will be most directly responsible for both the process and the outcome its best now to leave them to it. HighKing why are you not surprised by Rannpháirtí anaithnid statement? Did you expect it to be neutral? --Domer48'fenian' 10:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As in all collaborative processes, there's always going to be some give and take, and no single editor will "get their own way". I understand why you prefer sourced comments only, but IMHO this was practically unworkable TBH as we would have instead just ended up arguing over sources just like in countless discussions elsewhere. I have subsequently read the available position statements and found lots that I didn't agree with (even to the point where I prepared in my sandbox a list of objections to unfounded statements being made, etc), but in the end I decided that the best course was to let readers make up their own minds. But I'm not surprised at the statement from Rannpháirtí anaithnid, just the fact that it is "summarized" as being a general statement, whereas in actual fact it is not. It's another reason why I object to the one-liner summary because it disinclines the reader to actually read the position statements and instead they'll merely look at the one liners. With respect, the summary one-liners are not a good idea and I still oppose this version/format. --HighKing (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I would support a single line basic point next to each statement explaining which option a position statement is supporting or opposing. i think thats a good idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
With respect, "i think thats a good idea" isn't a convincing argument. What about if an editor supports a couple of options? Or slightly favours one above another? Or objects strongly to one but doesn't care about the rest? etc... What's the point of a one liner anyway? Who gets to write it? --HighKing (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not care if you do not think my comment is a convincing argument. I am agreeing with someones suggestion. I would presume an admin would write it, as for whats the point in a 1 line It might be helpful if someone sees a list of 10 usernames, if they can see what option one is in favour of and what ones are against. Quite a few of the statements are against the worst option on the ballot paper, people may not see the need to read everyone against a certain option because they will have been convinced already. Anything you want to threaten me for here?? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Some way for a reader to know what their are looking at - as opposed to blindly clicking through a list of user names - is surely useful? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't really follow your reasoning, HighKing. If I want to know why I should vote E, I go to the statements list; if I read there "HighKing - in favour of option E" I will read no further? Why? Surely knowing that HighKing is in favour of E will make me want to know his reasons for it? The alternatives to a one-liner is a no-liner or a multi-liner. A no-liner is just a list of strange names - why would anybody want to read them? A multi-liner is just a Babel of mini-statements - see this for instance. Scolaire (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Even less convinced by this explanation. You say "If I want to know why I should vote E, I go to the statements list" - so all that will happen is that editors who are already predisposed to one or other choice will merely reinforce their existing view. Given that I expect a large amount of editors turning up here (and it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that the majority of which may be new to this discussion, and thanks to the existing UK law and amount of predominantly British usage of the term, see nothing wrong with the term), then if they only selectively read position statements that have been pre-sorted into support for a choice, I expect they'll read a statement that makes them feel good about their predisposed choice, and vote without reading a position statement for a different choice. The attractiveness about a randomised list of position statements, for me, is that editors may actually read something that makes them think about more than their current world view. --HighKing (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What if they deliberately seek out views that contradict their own? Then they'll end up reading only those statements that are against the status quo. Your right, HighKing, this idea is a bad one! (Joking.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Maybe instead of a prose statement, we could have some standardised code to indicate what a statement is about. For example (not saying this is any good): "For: A, B; Against: C, D; Comment: E; No comment: F." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
HighKing, we cannot make the people read the statements. If they want to know about any given option they'll read the statement. If they've already made up their mind about it, they won't need to. If they're confronted by a list of ten user-names with no clue what the statements are about, they won't bother. It's a nice idea that each voter will take the time to read and digest each statement, but they won't! No way. Scolaire (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no consensus on whether there should/should not be summaries at all, and hearing no consensus on what the content of those summaries should be were they to appear, I have boldly deleted them. This will give the advantage (or apparent advantage) to no particular editor. Alphabetical order should be retained as being "random" enough. (Yes, this means that potential voters will have the pleasure of "blindly clicking through a list of user names") -- Evertype· 13:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hearing everybody but one saying that one-line summaries are a good idea and a bald list of names is a bad one, and nobody complaining about the order they were in, I have boldly restored them. Let's stay calm, people. The discussion is ongoing. Discussion is good. Scolaire (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Also agreed that one-line summaries are necessary and that a bald list of names is a bad idea. No preference on using an alphabetical list, reverse alphabetical list, first come first served, or randomised - though the latter seems fairest. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I've come round to HighKing's view. If there happen to be a lot of Position Statements that say "vote for B" or "vote for F" or whatever, that's a kind of canvassing. Apparent or otherwise, it shows a bias. I don't believe that this is what this Collaboration ought to be supporting. And Scoláire, I was not the only one saying that the one-line summary was a bad idea, so kindly be a bit less acerbic. -- Evertype· 15:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
You were not the one editor I was referring to. You have only said now that you have come round to HighKing's point of view. Kindly be a bit less sensitive. Scolaire (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I came to that conclusion before I deleted the "summaries" which you reverted. I think this is very lopsided and I object to it. I would much rather the names appear on their own, and people can look at what they want and make up their own minds AFTER reading the Position Statements, rather than being primed aforehand. -- Evertype· 18:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This brings us back to something I said a while ago: since there are still, with only a day left, only two options out of the six that are explicitely supported, does that not make the whole statements process biased? Since we are agreed that all six options are equally valid, is it not "a kind of canvassing" to have statements that collectively give the impression that only two of those are worth voting for? It seems to me, as I already said, that in the interests of fairness we ought to remove the statements altogether, and see whether Masem comes up with a workable 'pros and cons' draft. Scolaire (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. First - there's still a day or so left, and Sarah777 has promised us a statement that will be supporting (I presume) several of the "anything but Republic of Ireland" options. Secondly - Evertype's statement addresses all of the options in a neutral fashion. Thirdly - we were all offered the opportunity of presenting statements. The fact that some have chosen not to take up that opportunity (so far) should not discriminate against those of us who have done so. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It should not be about discriminating against people. This is a poll of options, not of editors, and the arguments are supposedly for the provision of balanced information, not a debating contest. I tried to have this addressed before people had gone to the trouble of writing their statements, but I was brushed off. If, by some miracle, all six options are fairly represented by the opening of the poll, then there won't be a problem, but if not, it's going to have to be addressed somehow. Scolaire (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
And to show that I am willing to work towards a balanced view, I have now added a statement in support of Option A. -- Scolaire (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
That's good, but at least two editors now oppose the short summaries after the names, and have given a credible rationale against retaining them. I think that on balance that the summaries ought to be deleted. -- Evertype· 18:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the position statements page - standardising the phrasing after each name, bolding names and adding a "reminder" of the options since they are only described in letter (e.g. A, B, C...) form on the page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a little better, but it doesn't get around the reason I oppose. Scolaire's addition in favour of option A actually also makes it seem a little more balanced. I've rethought through all the previous suggestions, from having a "my reasons here" link when someone votes, to asking Masem to construct Pro and Con arguments for each choice. And I'm probably back here again. There's no perfect solution. Perhaps the best we can do is to put a banner on top of the statements encouraging editors to read as many statements as possible before voting. If it stands out enough, it might just encourage readers to educate themselves a bit more. And. Finally. I'd like to propose that the "General" statements are not randomized, but they appear on top. --HighKing (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to put it more in voters faces to read the statements. Where would you put the banner? At the top of the polling page? We could put a custom notice that appears when a person clicks tries to edit the page (i.e. cast their ballot), see only my talk page for example? On the statements page (encourage people to read as many as possible)?
I don't agree with what you say about "General" statements. I don't think there is anything unique about not making an explicit recommendation. They are all position statements. They all represent a POV. There is nothing unique about any of them. (Except my own, of course, which is obviously the Truth.]) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The point about "General" statements going first is to encourage participants to read before voting - the more background they read, the more informed their vote. In fact, what about before voting, they should have to pass a text/exam/quiz to show that they have read some background information. Questions such as:
  • What is the name of the state?
  • What is the name of the state under UK legislation?
  • What is the Republic of Ireland Act 1948
  • etc
Also, any banner is good. Anything that makes it more likely that voters will read. --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
We could add an WP:Edit notice to the ballot page so that when someone goes to vote they see something like this. I considered adding a "quiz" to it (and we still could - I had thought about using the show/hide thing to "reveal the answers") but do you really think we could agree on a set of question ... never mind the answers? (Bear in mind we are the poll will start possibly this weekend.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd assumed HighKing was joking? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd assumed he was serious. I still thought it was laughable! If you do mean to go through with this - and I don't recommend it - please at least tone down the bold and lose the large and the underlining! Scolaire (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Duly toned down. What would be wrong with an edit notice? (I ain't pushed about it, but I don't see anything wrong with it.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Nothing actually wrong with it, I just think it's kinda perverse to ask people to come and vote and then get them to jump through hoops before they do. This is a community-wide poll. To me that means encouraging the maximum number of people to vote, not scaring them off with "Wait!" messages. BTW I know the apostrophe is grammatically correct, but I think the notice would look better without it. Scolaire (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I've added a second option, gentler. -- Evertype· 08:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks @RA - the banners look good. Any of them would do just fine. I don't see it as making people just through hoops, just something that might encourage them to read the position statements. As the notice says, there's a 2 year ruling on this, and so I'd be happier if editors looked before leaping so to speak. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
My own feeling is that, once we have invited Wikipedians to vote, they have an absolute right to vote on whatever basis they choose - scholarly research, political bias, sticking pins or making up funny words like "cabedg". The statements are there if they want to read them; a banner won't make them if they don't. If you do mean to go through with this - and I still don't recommend it - Evertype's wording is far less intimidating. Scolaire (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Still don't see what the big deal is. No harm. Not off-putting. Not POV-loaded. And perhaps a few editors might pause and decide to read a little more (tubbyshure tubbyshure), before voting. Unless you're arguing from an aesthetic POV? --HighKing (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a disgraceful POV imposition! Everyone knows "febadg" is far funnier word than "cabedg". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:SOURCES please? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You've got to admit that the summary/preview of the last result is pretty funny. Plus the fact that it's actually an acronym in Austria. Now, unless you've got sources to contrary (that I haven't actually edited myself yet), I win, neener neener neener. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) Evertype, what about putting it in as a WP:Edit notice on the ballot page? (So that when people go to vote - by clicking "edit" - they get reminded, "Have you read the statements page?") I think it's preaching to the choir to put it on the statement's page itself. If someone is already on that page then we don't need to hit them over the heads asking them if they've gone there. It's the people who haven't, surely, that we want to target? :) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Seriously! You've read the invite, you've read (or half-read) the preamble, you've gone to the statements page, or not, you hope you've figured out the template thingy, you finally click "edit", and then you get reminded? What would you do? Go back and do your civic duty? Go ahead and finish what you were doing? Or say, "F*** this for a game of soldiers!" and exit the whole thing? I know which I would do. Scolaire (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think he means this part of the ballot page... not the part where you are doing the editing (after you click the "edit" button, but before, at the top of the list of names, thus. -- Evertype· 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I meant the part after you click "edit" (a WP:Edit notice). Really, would it put you off? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it would. We have now such a plea JUST BEFORE the voter clicks "edit". To have another one there seems like serious overkill. -- Evertype· 23:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"To have another one..." I mean instead of obviously. That one that is there currently, you put there after I made the suggestion. It doesn't matter anyway. It's fine the way it is. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Other statements by this user"

Is the section, "Other statements by this user", now redundant? Can it be removed from each of the position statements? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like a rationale for that. Why should it be "redundant"? -- Evertype· 08:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Because nobody's going to make any "other statement"? Scolaire (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The only reason I could see for it existing up to now was for people to link to a statement they'd made here, or at the original Arbcom page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of making an additional statement on my own. I'm considering offering my opinion on the different options in addition to offering neutral arguments for both. (I do, after all, have a position.) There's no reason to delete this from my page or any of the others. If it lies fallow, so be it. But leave it there, please. -- Evertype· 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd stick with one statement (but amend if you want of course). I don't think it's a good ideas to start an "arms' race" out of the statements. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That would be your choice. My statement is the neutral statement that this project couldn't agree on. I do have a personal view, however, and I might wish to append that in the other section. -- Evertype· 23:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"My statement is the neutral statement that this project couldn't agree on." Domer's words coming out of Evertype's mouth. No, my statement is the neutral statement that this project couldn't agree on ;-)
Would it be OK if I wrote a couple more statements? Or Sarah777? Or Scolaire? Or HighKing? Or Bastun? Or Domer? How many statements do you think any one person should be let write? How many times should they be linked from the statements page? If I write twenty statements, will they all be linked? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, no, because the deadline for the submission of statements has passed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Now they want references?

Having walked away from this POV/Soapboxing Process , being unable to get agreement on providing readers with sourced/referenced and policy based statements I agreed to leave it to Masem. I now find myself surrounded by the same editors, on an article they have never edited, looking for references/sources and disrupting an article expansion to get them. That the sources/references they are looking for, and placing tags on, are already referenced? Not only that, but they make a report to ANI. Now anyone who has followed this discussion here should find this edit amusing. Despite the fact that I never added this text, I’m being asked to reference it? While as I outlined above, they request citations for referenced text? Looks like they got bored here and decided to follow me? --Domer48 (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Domer - what has any of the above got to do with this project/Arbcom process? I've had Vintagekits and Tfz turning up on Anglican cathedrals... of course, I'll have to WP:AGF and put it down to coincidence. (Some great WP:SYNTHESIS going on in that Papal bull article, by the way - no doubt it'll be removed soon. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors who’ve signed up so far to follow me around:

Names have been generated randomly to promote fairness.--Domer48 (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We have you surrounded Domer, come out with your edit buttons off. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, yes, with these wiki-links, grammar fixes and MOS edits we are all out to get you. No one requested any references from you on that article.
And as pointed out on ANI, no one is stalking you. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh! those Dog Days are here again! Hippie hi ya hippi yi yea. lol. Tfz 13:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyone else want followed around I'm always here as a volunteer. Just place your name below and I'll stalk you for a week, no charge. Jack forbes (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No thanks, Jack. I've already got Tfz doing that. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I first edited that article (with this account) on 15 June. Domer48 first edited it on 24 July. (My previous a/c had first edited it on 30 July 2007.)
I don't suspect Domer48 "stalked" me there. And I don't think that there is anything suspicious about any one of us (heavens forbid!) helping each other out on articles of mutual interest. Please, let the war end. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Man, what an ego. -- Evertype· 22:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Housekeeping: template

If I knew more about templates/infoboxes, I'd do this myself. Would it be possible for someone with the necessary skills to exapand/rearrange the WP:IECOLL template at the top of this page to add in links to the Position Statement and Ballot pages? Would make navigation a fair bit easier, I think? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done I removed the column to do with the procedure for the old statements process. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

List of user-statements should be randomised, with no two voting the same way next to eachother. Pairs can have subliminal effects, and may skew the poll. Tfz 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The current method is the fairest. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I tried having a go myself earlier, but on preview I'd got stuff skew-ways. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest timetable

The article page contains the following:

  1. 24 June 2009 - Polling opens for subsidiary poll on "Ireland (XXX)".
  2. 1 July 2009 - Polling closes on subsidiary poll.
  3. July 2009 (date to be decided): Polling opens for main poll on Ireland naming options.
  4. 21 days later - Polling closes on main poll.

As we are now almost at the end of July, can some one up date (as yet more weeks appear to have slipped by in this process which has long since lost credibility). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe 'August 1, 2009' is the date. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
ditto, and to run for 42 days to account for Summer holiday. Last night was the deadline for inclusion in Masem's pro/con summary (if that's to happen, I think leave it as this stage!).
Masem, how are you doing on that list of pro/cons? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
We've heard nothing from Masem as far as such a list goes. I'm still for launching this at 21:00 tomorrow night (1 August). If his list is controversial, I think we should give it a thumbs-down and go ahead with the vote as planned. -- Evertype· 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. No need for any more delays. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of order

Sarah777 asked on my position statement: "Point of order: as BritishWatcher has his own "official" argument should he we commenting on other's "official" argument page? Surely it would be better is those of us with "official" statements stayed off one another's pages? No? Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" Don't know the answer to this. BW had "endorsed" my statement rather than commenting. I had presumed it would be in order for, say, me to put a link to my statement under the "Alternative perspectives" section of Sarah's statement, and vice versa, as our statements pretty much directly contradict each other, but I'd like to hear the moderators' views on that. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Im always getting blamed for something, although im not quite sure what i did lol
Oh i see what you two are talking about, if its a problem i will delete my endorsement however i did ask here the other day about those sections, nobody said anything about only people who dont add statements can sign (from what i saw). BritishWatcher (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I also thought the idea was that we could endorse or provide an "alternative" view. With regard to "Other statements by this user", can that section be removed (asked above) since it is now redundant.
On a similar "point of order", can Sarah's comments be removed (to the talk page or somewhere else) and be replaced with a link to her statement (since it appears in the "alternative perspective" section)? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
What's the issue here? We do have space for comments on the Position Statements pages. -- Evertype· 08:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Given the "history" between Sarah and myself I thought it better to get a third view rather than just deciding myself. So, endorsements by anyone, whether they've a statement or not, is fine. I'll move Sarah's comment to the talk page and link to her statement instead. Don't see a problem with removing the 'Other statements... ' bit either. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What has me scratching my head is the sight of GoodDay endorsing Bastun, even though both editors have different primary proposals. Point being, "there's something wrong somewhere" in all of this. Editors shouldn't be put in a position to contradict themselves. Tfz 11:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Many of us are happy with several options, despite having a preference. If someone can have a statement supporting 2 different options, i dont see why they cant endorse two different statements. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I've "endorsed" other statements supporting options other than 'F', or giving an overview of all the options, because they appear to me to be logical, fair, neutral, and backed by sources and/or policy, and something I could live with. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well you've endorsed my statement – which means you are happy with all the arguments for and against? -- Evertype· 14:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"Happy" with them, no - but I do think you've covered the for and against arguments fairly. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Tfz, you've scared off GoodDays's endorsement of my statement! Oh noes! (Or did you mean someone else?) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes don't know what to believe, it must have been someone else, I knew he was smart, anyway you have the "British Isles Brigade" behind you with 'good' support. In the meantime Evertype has snook into my position page and removed my endorsement[2]. The sub-title says does not distinguish and author or user, so I'm going to revert it later when I get some time to spare. Tfz 15:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely you'll garner some endorsements without having to be put in the embarassing position of having to endorse your own statement? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course I will garner some, it's not the point, nor do I embarrass easily, that's for teenies. If the President can endorse him/herself with a vote, then I can't see why a user cannot endorse their own position page. Tfz 16:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The President of Ireland can nominate him/herself for reelection, and can vote in the subsequent election (if there is more than one candidate). That's the equivalent of nominating a position statement for adoption by publishing it, then voting in the poll. It's a given that one endorses one's own position. Still, whatever floats your boat. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for getting some of you guys all worked up and hostile, I should have been more considerate. Have a nice weekend,) Tfz 15:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)