::::::::I'll repeat what I said earlier. You have all put in a great deal of time and effort to accomplish something which is not easy. Could you all forget who said "but" first or anything else? What do you think of my suggestion above? [[User:Coll Mac|Coll Mac]] ([[User talk:Coll Mac|talk]]) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I'll repeat what I said earlier. You have all put in a great deal of time and effort to accomplish something which is not easy. Could you all forget who said "but" first or anything else? What do you think of my suggestion above? [[User:Coll Mac|Coll Mac]] ([[User talk:Coll Mac|talk]]) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Cool. And I apologise, Scoláire, if what I wrote above was unfair. I understand you've been working hard on this too. And I don't doubt your [[WP:FAITH|faith]] one bit.
:::::::::Coll Mac, I don't know what's being tweaked anymore. We've got 10 different versions of the intro text, pro/anti statements that are on the page/off the page/on the page/off the page, apparently no room for general statements - but apparent consensus on having no discussion of thel issues in the intro text, statements that will be linked by user name, but not by user name, linking to personal statements from the ballot area ... of maybe full discussion ... or maby not ... who know what's going on? And ''still'' there has been no change made to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names|the ballot page]] itself!
:::::::::I've love to say I'd agree to whatever Masem says - or just offer minor "tweaks" ... but god knows what's happening anymore! I don't know what Masem could come back with. I was all set to go this day last week then it all came down in a heap. And it's been in heap ever since. And I don't know what for ... because that has not been one change made to to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names|the ballot page]]. So I can't agree to saying anything when Masem comes back because it's all a "pig in a poke" at this stage to me. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>([[User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid|coṁrá]])</small> 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Everybody is invited to participate in discussions here. The discussion will be moderated by a panel appointed by ArbCom. Moderators can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted. If you have a complaint about a user, please try to resolve it on their talk page first. For any complaints, please always be specific and provide links.
Please, for the moment, refrain from discussing the individual Ireland naming options until we agree on a procedure.
For summaries of the various arguments pertaining to particular names, see the archives. Any further discussion should take place here, rather than there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caoineadh
Ochón is ochón ó. -- Evertype·✆ 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype, most of the editors here wouldn't understand that, but Touché. It's pretty apt at times. Tfz
I offer something positive, then? -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dry your eyes you play a major part in what is happening at this farce. BigDuncTalk 12:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you say this because you disagree with me (whatever you think my view might be)? My support for an STV poll according to Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's template is there to allow you, as well as those whom you consider to be your enemies/opponents/whatever to offer a range of options which you (and they) feel that you (and they) can support. In what way is this unacceptable? It is certainly a more neutral approach than others I have seen. -- Evertype·✆ 22:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's that phrase in English? GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No direct translation, but it's a way of saying that you're very sad. Used mostly in laments. FF3000 (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ag caoineadh is crying, and ochón is a keening cry. BastunnutsaB 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would be a better way of putting it. FF3000 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Alas and alack, ah'. I guess. Oy vey. -- Evertype·✆ 22:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Months later...Is this process just a ruse?
Some relevant recycling: Is this process just a ruse to ruse to stop the "disruption" caused by the RoI/IRL dispute by pretending that a process is in place to resolve the conflicting viewpoints? I hope this is a genuine process that will lead to a prompt decision but it looks unlikely to me. In particular, the ground rules on the project page state "Decisions for the WikiProject will primarily be based on the consensus of members". Is some one seriously suggesting a consensus will emerge? If no consensus emerges, does that mean there will be no decision (or another decision to make no decision as before)? What reason is there to think a consensus will emerge when it has not done so before? Is there a timeframe for this process? How long will it run? What is the deadline? I think those running this process should answer these questions and set them out on the project page. Participants can then take a view on whether this is a credible process. After all, who runs a project without having a clear timeframe? It goes without saying, I hope the project is successful. It should have credibility. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Time, unfortunately, is proving my original scepticism right. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
If it's a ruse, it's an effective ruse. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it getting anywhere? well it certainly looked like progress was being made and we were close to having a vote in the coming days, that was until certain incidents have hijacked the conversation so the vote looks like its going to be delayed. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it does get anywhere, I want to be informed so that I can take part in the vote or whatever. However, what is in danger of happening is that the more protracted things get, the more likely that the final result will reflect the views of the most stubborn rather than a genuine consensus.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See here. We'll likely have a timetable for a Single transferable vote poll on Monday. User:Masem's intention is to hatnote it on the Watchlist page when it goes live, so noone will miss it. We probably would have been a good bit further on if it hadn't been for distractions... BastunnutsaB 17:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying there is going to be a poll on Monday (to end when?) and lead to what outcome (? - perhaps months of more discussion because no consensus will emerge) is not a timetable. Indeed, there have been plenty of votes already casts - see the statements linked to the project page! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know folks (and it kinda tough to say it), perhaps we should leave the 3 articles--in-question where they are. It's been years now & Republic of Ireland, Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation) haven't yet got a consensus to change. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is above, Redking7. It will likely be similar to this with *very* wide community input (alert message in the Watchlist, etc.) leading to a binding outcome. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite agree, there will never be a consensus. --De Unionist (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any faith I had in Wikipedia has been shattered, that editors could not devise a system to gain consensus. Reverse process of elimination could have done it, with time factor involved. No structure, and this is what we get, one of the biggest "washing of hands" I have ever witnessed. Be careful what you wish for, my faith in the moderator is sinking pretty fast too, maybe he has run out of purpose, I fear. He shouldn't have taken the project on if that is the case. Tfz 22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's process is a process of elimination. -- Evertype·✆ 22:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we'll end up with a result based on a political-pov of the most numerous, not what's best for Ireland, North or South, mark my words. Tfz 22:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the poll is truly community wide a certain amount of common sense may be applied, since the unrelenting sectarianism has failed to yield consensus. At least the STV vote will allow everyone to rank their first preference (which will doubtless fail) along with other options which are more generally acceptable. -- Evertype·✆ 23:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Tfz: And I think that's the first time I've seen you make a suggestion such as "Reverse process of elimination could have done it"... it was open to you at any stage to propose something.
@Redking7: Read the page above. The moderator will outline a timetable (probably) on Monday, not the vote itself. It will be a STV poll covering all the options. The ground rules will be decided, and the poll will be advertised for all registered users when they visit their Watchlist. And it will be a binding outcome. Maybe not the one you want, or maybe not the one I want, but it will be binding. BastunnutsaB 22:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just 50% fully support a poll, according to this [1], and not one of them live in the country being discussed, I discern. Mindblowing! Tfz 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conaímse in Éireann, a Tfz, ar a laghad. And the Wikipedia, and its articles on Ireland, belong to EVERYBODY, not just people living in one jurisdictionr or t'other. Note Bastun's comment below. -- Evertype·✆ 23:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would most certainly be very important for the poll to have more local support. That attitude wouldn't wash with me for one second. Tfz 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case you hadn't noticed, Tfz, this isn't a "local" encyclopedia, so "local" support is what it is -- nothing more, nothing less.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be letting the "local" newspapers in on the 'scheme', no rules about that. I'll be composing my press releases tomorrow. Tfz 23:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, Tfz, that one of the ideas floated was severe punishments for meat puppetry. See too that it is both a majority of "Gaels" as well a majority of "Galls" are in favour of a ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me we are not allowed to talk to the "free press". I won't be telling anyone which way to vote, so it cant be, to use your phrase, meat puppetry. They will invariably love this as it is something new, and Wikipedia will get publicity, either good or bad. Tfz 00:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything at Wikipedia:Canvassing that would be against it, but I would be concerned about it inviting a lots of new editors unfamiliar with policy etc. (I know it was floated by someone to limit balloting to established editors). Check with the mods (and ArbCom) for what their take on publicising it (in a neutral manner) off WP would be.
Why don't you draft up a letter in your user space (so you can keep "ownership" of it) and invite comments from contributors here next week. (Since it will be in *your* talk page, you will be able to tell people not to edit it or revert their edits if they do.) Then, next week, when we get a clearer picture of exactly how we are going to run this, you could finalise the letter and post it off to the Indo or Times or wherever. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why scare quotes around 'free press'? If you write neutrally and factually, then I'm sure the Indo, Examiner, Times, Metro and Herald AM will be beating down our door when they hear a majority of WP editors who expressed a preference, many of them living in Ireland, wanted to democratically decide whether the Republic of Ireland article should move to the place currently being used by the island page, or whether some other solution was possible. (How will you disambiguate between the two when you write your letter, I wonder?) They might be interested in knowing that the main opposers of a democratic vote appear to be - well, of a certain political persuasion. A really good journalist may well look at the contribution history and see where they've contributing and what they've been saying... I assume of course you won't be writing to just the one newspaper... BastunnutsaB 00:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit. Bastun, it was not my intention to scare you, sorry. Rannpháirtí anaithnid, thanks for the reply. No, I must demur from your invitation, the "Wikielite" didn't listen to me before, so I'm not going to put my "press release" here on Wikipedia for all to see in advance of issue. And all the Wikilawyering? "Thanks, but no thanks". Tfz 00:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New schedule for polling
Given the above last check on consensus which shows that this project will never come to one in a reasonable amount of time, I now propose that the following schedule be used for voting on this matter (This will follow, with any necessary identify changes, the STV poll as listed at User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/sandbox).
Stage 1: Final input on polling issues (questions in terms of format or process) up to June 27, 2009
Stage 2: Polling opens for three weeks from June 28, 2009 and will end July 19, 2009
Stage 3: STV results will be evaluated over the week, posted no later than July 26, 2009
Stage 4: Finalize any other questions as a result of the poll by the end of August.
Final page moves (if needed) or any other impact due to the results of the poll will not occur until Stage 4 is completed.
Again, I am working off the starting point that attempting to achieve consensus will be a much longer and convoluted process that this project no longer needs, and that the poll is the next best option to resolving the issue. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need 7 days of discussion before the vote? 76.118.224.35 (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. While User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid has listed most of the options that have been discussed here at the draft poll page, there are probably others - some people want RoI to move to Ireland (country), I think, and there may be more variations. There also needs to be a decision on the winning quota - whether 50% + 1 is enough, or whether that should be 66% or 75% or whatever. There are probably other issues that need to be decided in advance. BastunnutsaB 23:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@76.118.224.35 - I'd say yes - but less discussion and more preparing. This is not a simple 2-option ballot. If we are to ballot the entire community and the result is to be final then let's not muck it up. Better plan things properly and make sure we have everything running smoothly in advance.
Agreed. I was going to say that a week was too long, but if it's going to the full community, we should take the time to get it right. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Final page moves (if needed) or any other impact due to the results of the poll will not occur until Stage 4 is completed." - Thats a statement of a timeperiod before which they will not occur....what is the time period before they must occur if the poll calls for a move...? Does it mean that if there will be moves, they will take place before end of August? And who will enforce it...Are you a moderator? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redking, you are about to get stomped on hard by Arbcom, as soon as they read your attempts to wikilawyer on the Clarifications page. Going around making up red herrings about whether I'm a mod or not, when you know darned well that Masem is one, and he's the one who set up the schedule, is not going to help your case at all.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This timetable sounds good to me. I don't know whether Ireland (country) works as an option along with Ireland (state) and Ireland (nation) etc as this could lead to tripling the number of options in the poll. I think that the potential for readers of the Wikipedia to confuse Ireland with an entity Arkansas is a red herring. (Note that Pennsylvania is a commonwealth at one level of abstraction but a state at another level of abstraction.) Yes, the U.S. state might be a "federated state" whilst Ireland is a "sovereign state" but that ambiguity exists in the English language and is not the fault of the Wikipedia. Ireland's constitution uses the term "state". This can be handled in the introduction to the article with piping: [[Sovereign state|state]] just as [[U.S. state|state]] is used at Pennsylvania. -- Evertype·✆ 07:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a comment on the poll here. -- Evertype·✆ 07:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a few mods to RAs version and posted it into my own sandbox. I think mine is an improvement. Kudos to RA for the concept. Fmph (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult when you to make changes without indicating what the changes are. Can you? -- Evertype·✆ 10:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be teaching my grannie to suck eggs, but can I suggest the following:
The STV poll should be either on a project subpage, or on the main project page, with the majority of the current content archived.
We need to come up with a list of appropriate venues where notice of the poll should be posted
Why is notice of the poll being published at all....any selection will be wrong - if the poll concerns three pages, should the normal practice not be followed - advertise it on the three pages concerned (Island, State and Dab page) in the usual way. They are the only places where notice should be given....beyond those, you are into the dangerous territory of "politically" choosing who to notify. Lets just stick to the standard rules. After all, who is to say Australians, Canadians, French, Nigerian and Samoan users should not be notified too.....
In summary, here is the list of appropriate venues where notice of the poll should be posted:
As I understood it, this was intended to be a communitywide poll, and would aim to include Australians, Canadians, French, Nigerians and Samoan, and just about anybody else. Taking it out of the 'local' community would mean that an NPOV solution woul be more likely. Fmph (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poll location - aye, either of those works. Poll notice - aye, all of those, certainly. But aren't we also going to get a Watchlist hatnote similar to when Arbcom elections are on, or the recent poll on the license to be used? BastunnutsaB 09:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oooooooooooo. I missed the hatnote proposal whenever it was mentioned, but it sounds great. Fmph (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fmph, I'm not so happy about what you've done, because now we have a fork with two nearly-identical proposals. In this case I think it would be better if you offered the proposed changes on the Talk Page of RA's poll, and let him maintain editorship of the page (he seems to be even-handed). Would that be OK with you? Incidentally I dislike your voting procedure; it is quite confusing. But can be improved. -- Evertype·✆ 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have put together a proposal which I hope will move this discussion forward. I’m actively looking for the support of the community in this effort. While editors are welcome to participate, based on previous discussions I have place a number of guidelines on the proposal which are designed to prevent disruption, keep the discussion on topic and provide an environment conducive to rational and reasonable discussion. As this proposal is a work in progress which I will be placing before the community as a formal process, I will moderate the discussion according to the guidelines outlined on the proposal, however, if one or all of the moderators wish to adopt the process (this should not been seen as an endorsement of the proposal) it would be very welcome. The guidelines must be viewed as part of the process, and will themselves form part of the final proposal. I have placed my rational behind the proposal on the proposal page which is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Domer48's proposal for Ireland Article. --Domer48'fenian' 09:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same proposal you already put forward. It wasn't accepted. You were disruptive when you put up the previous one, and now you are threatening to be even more disruptive: "I will moderate the discussion according to the guidelines outlined on the proposal". I appeal to the moderators to refer this to Arbcom. BastunnutsaB 10:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very different proposal! Clarified guidlines. --Domer48'fenian' 10:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, granted, a different proposal. It is one option that can be included in the "Final poll" that the Project has indicated it wants to proceed with. Why not include it in that? BastunnutsaB 10:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Masem "I will say that if you want to make a subpage of this project for a proposal, that's fine - but you better state that you are doing this here." I have stated here on both occasions. You did not read the proposal before you commented, and as to the poll, I addressed this issue in my rational on the proposal page. --Domer48'fenian' 10:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already editors are trying to disrupt this proposal. Despite clear guidlines they still ignore them, [2], [3]. I used the exact same guidline as Masem on the oppose section asking editors to just sign their name and not to post comments and it is ignored [4]. This is being just plain disruptive. Next thing is to is edit war to put their unsourced opinions back in, and have their helpful Admin come along and block the page. While editors may not like the process or the proposal this type of carry on should not be condoned. --Domer48'fenian' 18:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, this is typical to what is powering the "show" at the moment. Countries stealing names [5]. I don't think Ireland ever stole anything. Talk about political agendas, is this the future of the poll? Tfz 19:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao, where is the political agenda in my comment? It is fact that the island of Ireland had the name Ireland LONG before southern Ireland decided to use the name Ireland for their country, perhaps they didnt steal it, but they certainly copied it =). Besides, i consider that page a complete joke and knew the trigger happy self proclaimed moderator would delete my comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You knew posting comments which had nothing to do with the proposal would be removed. So you were being disruptive to make a point. It's not the page that's "a complete joke" as indicated by Tfz above. Having a lets see which POV has the highest number of votes is a joke. --Domer48'fenian' 21:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were about ur proposal, i just knew you would delete anything you didnt want to hear as has happened before. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the guidlines say "Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Please address one point at a time. Moderator/Proposer will remove all infractions of this conditions." So you did exactly what you did before! You just can't seem to understand a simple instruction. You have to comment on an editor, and not the edit, you can't help yourself making sweeping claims and generalisations, and you could not provide a reference to save your life. It's because of this, that this whole talk page is a joke. Because of editors like you can't back up your POV. Now I know the guidlines cramp your style, because they were meant to. I trying to create informed discussion and personal POV's play no part. --Domer48'fenian' 22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of whether this is a good solution or not, who is going to have confidence in any outcome when the proposer, someone heavily involved with a self evident point of view, is also the self declared arbiter of what is and is not allowed in support or opposition? As we saw from the previous attempt, what we end up with is a propaganda piece where the arguments presented are massaged to suit the POV of proposer/moderator. Have you considered that just because Domer doesn't accept an opposing justification or citation as valid, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth considering? It may just means Domer doesn't want his proposal criticized.
Have someone neutral "moderate" your proposal, or let editors express themselves without fear of you editing their comments to suit yourself, and you might get people taking it seriously. Until then, there is a process being developed under the guidance of a neutral, ArbCom appointed moderator. I suggest editors engage there instead. Rockpocket 00:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The moderators should be helping out with the proposals, failure to act is a dereliction in their duties, and I blame ArbCom for their stark lack of leadership in this regard. This is why I have lost confidence in the whole process, and no doubt some form of result will be an outcome. But it will not be a NPOV outcome, it will have a very British bias I'm afraid. As can be seen from this link [6], there has been an unhealthy relationship with the UK ever since Ireland left the UK in 1922, however this is becoming history of late, but yet a residue remains. I fear these POVs will spill heavily into the Wikipedia vote, and give a 'politically' skewed outcome. We already have seen a microcosm of this today where an editor accused Ireland of "stealing" its name. From whom, I ask myself. For that reason I support editors who will work here to achieve a consensus, and an amicable conclusion. Tfz 01:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps we should ask both Irish and British editors to recuse themselves and leave it to the rest of us, without the weight of history on our shoulders, to decide on what the most neutral outcome would be. Up for that? Rockpocket 01:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would have no problem leaving the vote to a truly neutral, non-b.commonwealth, non-Irish, non-British elective body of editors to decide. Tfz 02:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it weird that the editors that are going to get notified of the vote are exactly the people who might hold some POV even if that is not their intention. If I was running the show I would have Irish/NI/British editors stand back and see what people from the rest of the world think.76.118.224.35 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rock do think anyone her for one minute considers you neutral, "leave it to the rest of us, without the weight of history on our shoulders, to decide on what the most neutral outcome would be." As per my comments above: You edit warred [7][8] to keep your snide remarks in ignoring the block on the page to again to insert them. Saying you were not aware the page had been protected, holds no water here. Because you also said "even if [you] had known it was protected [you] would have still made the edit." So then adding "once the page is unprotected I'll be withdrawing both my !vote and my comments" show how hollow your arguements are. Why did you not just use your Admin tools again to remove them, why wait for the unblock, when the block did not stop you putting them back in? Your real motive in my opinion is obvious, because you wanted to "encourage everyone else to do likewise" and disrupt my proposal. Not one of yeh could come up with a policy based reason to oppose it, and all you could offer the discussion was inane comments. Well the guidlines prevent the POV pushers from disrupting the proposal, and it seems to have worked. --Domer48'fenian' 08:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz, I agree with you 100%, "the moderators should be helping out with the proposals, failure to act is a dereliction in their duties." --Domer48'fenian' 08:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a personal attack here Bastun, seems you must of missed it. --Domer48'fenian' 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading that, it was an extremely rude and offensive piece, and AFAIK didn't get a warning from any admins, and not even from Bastun, although I told that particular editor at a later encounter that he was rude, and would ignor him. Tfz 11:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a neutral Admin would have spotted that and said something. --Domer48'fenian' 11:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, excluding self-declared British & Irish editors from a final vote would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested below (A serious proposal) that everybody who has taken part in the debate until now be excluded. Let the unaligned decide, free of pressure from within this debate. Scolaire (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took part in this poll in good faith.[9] My comment was not disruptive, inflammatory or disparaging of anybody else's point of view. It was deleted by Domer.[10] Note the edit summary. I don't think it is reasonable to require that editors spend the afternoon in the library before commenting. In all fairness, I would have to question the good faith of the initiator. Scolaire (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your bizarre and unreasonable dislike of being censored by Domer is not supported by reliable sources and therefore, obviously, is POV, OR, RS, WTF (and lots of other acronyms, too). If you don't agree with how Domer's interpretation of our policies informs Domer about how to moderate Domer's proposal then you are clearly disrupting the process, putting the entire encyclopaedia at risk and, very possibly, driving the space-time continuum to collapse. Rockpocket 20:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you also were unable to provide any sources to back up your opinion, only you edit warred to keep your POV in and outline above. It now appears that you are now reduced to a poor attempt at sarcasm to distract from this, which does not look well coming from an Admin IMO. However, I don’t think it is product to any reasoned discussion and could be viewed as disruptive.--Domer48'fenian' 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here again are the guidlines for the discussion:
Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Moderator/Proposer will remove all infractions of this conditions.
Here is the Editors comment:
In my view, the primary meaning of "Ireland" is the 32-county country which is currently partitioned between Ireland (the 26-county state) and Northern Ireland. The 26-county state article should therefore have an alternative title e.g. "Ireland (state)". Republic of Ireland - if it is not the title - should redirect to it, since "Republic of Ireland" is, in Irish law, the description of the state. Scolaire (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the referenced sources which contradict their POV: here. Their responce of "I don't think it is reasonable to require that editors spend the afternoon in the library before commenting" is a bit lame when one notices the policies cited against their POV. To then claim censorship hold no weight in light of the fact. The guidlines are part of the proposal and outlined above so it is my view that the editor simply wished to make a point. --Domer48'fenian' 20:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so "our" policies means Domer48's policies! Way to achieve a consensus, Domer! Scolaire (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's disappointing to see you reduced to trying to mislead editors. Our policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV and it is right to ask for WP:RS. Our polices mean references talk and BS walks. --Domer48'fenian' 20:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, Domer, say what you like, but spare me "disappointing"! Scolaire (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status of the other proposal? has it been dropped? GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or put it at on a Draft page so we can get everything sorted before placing it on a VOTE page. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be moved out of my/Fmph's sandbox anyway. WP:IECOLL/VOTE sounds good for an ultimate location, but maybe draft it up at somewhere like WP:IECOLL/VOTE (draft) (so people don't confuse it with the final thing before the actual date) then move it to the ultimate location when the ballot opens. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of any additional options
Currently we have six options:
A: The island at Ireland. The state at Republic of Ireland.
B: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
C: The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).
D: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state).
E: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.
F: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
Some editors have indicated preference for other options - e.g., use of Ireland (country); or "Ireland -> Ireland (island), Republic of Ireland -> Ireland, replacement of RoI with article on the term." These need to be collated and included.
Comments
Adding an option Ireland (country) would divide the vote for those who want it at either Ireland (state) / Ireland (country). I still think we should have a quick poll before the main one on if Country should be used or State in the main poll. This is something that should be decided before not after. On if the ROI should redirect to the country article this should be a separate question agreed after the main one IF the country article is moved. options for that would have to include - Redirect to country article. - Have suggested new article on the description or take to a disam page where the country is listed but also the Irish football team etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't know whether Ireland (country) works as an option along with Ireland (state) and Ireland (nation) etc as this could lead to tripling the number of options in the poll. I think that the potential for readers of the Wikipedia to confuse Ireland with an entity Arkansas is a red herring. Yes, the U.S. state might be a "federated state" whilst Ireland is a "sovereign state" but that ambiguity exists in the English language and is not the fault of the Wikipedia. Ireland's constitution uses the term "state". This can be handled in the introduction to the article with piping: [[Sovereign state|state]] just as [[U.S. state|state]] is used at Pennsylvania. -- Evertype·✆ 18:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the vote is going ahead, here is another to consider. Some people don't like 'state' as it's too much like a state as in USA, and others object to 'country' because the '32 counties' is the country of Ireland. There is a more neutral article name, Ireland (sovereign country), in that it describes the sovereign part of the country of Ireland. Entirely NPOV, and describes exactly what its supposed to describe. Tfz 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt have a problem with (Sovereign country) although it wont have the support (state) will have. Lmao @ "the sovereign part of the country of Ireland." How pathetic. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have issues with Ireland, that's your prerogative. Tfz 19:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Lmao" and "pathetic" and "issues" aren't helpful tropes at this stage, are they? -- Evertype·✆ 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have problems with Ireland, i have a problem with your wording there Tfz. The "sovereign part of the country", implying the other part is occupied huh? There is an island called Ireland. On that island there is a sovereign country called Ireland (described sometimes as Republic of Ireland) and there is Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom. If you had said the sovereign part of the island youd be correct, but ALL of the country "Ireland" is sovereign. Thank you BritishWatcher (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you have picked it up wrongly. You should have quoted more fully "and others object to 'country' because the '32 counties' is the country of Ireland". It's what some folk think, whether we agree or disagree with them. That's why we have a term here at wikipedia called "point of view". Anyway it is a good proposal. Tfz 19:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the majority "point of view" is that its not a good proposal. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the idea here is that it suits both POVs. Surely that must be a good thing? Tfz 19:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I don't think this is wise because (!) it multiplies the options in the poll, (2) "sovereign country" isn't a precise term (161,000 raw google hits) as the common and precise term is "sovereign state" (724,000 raw google hits), and (3), the State is self-described as a State right there in the same constitutional clause that has been used as strong evidence against the whole "Republic of Ireland" issue which is a primary cause of this entire debate. I really think that there is no credible argument against the word "state" except some sort of "lowest-common demoninatorism". and in fairness just stating "some people don't like 'state'" isn't enough of an argument to double the items in the poll, in my view. -- Evertype·✆ 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sovereign country" does have currency, and the whole idea of the poll is to give people the choice to select their preference, no our our preference. It's as common as "Ireland state" imho.Tfz 19:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
You've not made any argument. You've simply gainsaid me. The phrase sovereign country has much less currency than sovereign state, and I still believe that doubling or tripling the options in the poll is a bad idea. Ireland (state) is not credibly ambiguous, and having all the options repeated with both Ireland (sovereign state) and Ireland (sovereign country) just because some Americans might mistakenly think that Ireland was on the par with Missouri. Let's set the bar a bit higher, shall we? -- Evertype·✆ 20:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The time for arguments is now over and it's up to the voters/editors to select the term that's most appropriate. Neither term is particularily correct anyhow, for I have never seen the string "Ireland (state)" written anywhere, except here at Wikipedia. To claim a 'primary string' for disambiguation is a wide open debate indeed, and there is no 'right way', only 'better ways'. Tfz 20:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the solution to this problem would be to have a quick vote before the main vote starts. Just so we can see which option (country) (state) (sovereign state) (something else) should be placed in the main vote, rather than splitting votes by including different options in the main one. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what Tfz is saying is he wants:
A: The island at Ireland. The state at Republic of Ireland.
B: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
C: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign state).
D: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign country).
E: The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).
F: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state).
G: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (sovereign state).
H: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (sovereign country).
I: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.
J: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
K: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign state).
L: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign country).
M: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Republic of Ireland.
I would like to see consensus on this before it is accepted. I oppose it, but will accept consensus. RA? Fmph? Masem? -- Evertype·✆ 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very messy and complicate matters yes, i also strongly oppose it. The quickest and simplest resolution to this problem is a quick poll on what term should be used in the main vote. (country), (state), (sovereign country)(sovereign state) etc. Its likely to be state that wins but atleast we will know its what the majority support. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My personal take is that these options have very limited support, but perhaps the solution is to have a single polling option covering all 3. So
X: ...... The state at Ireland (<dab-phrase>)
And post PRSTV, if that option is selected by the voters, then we re-poll on what the <dab-phrase> should be. But I doubt it will be selected. Fmph (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thats a bad idea. Scrub that. Instead add an Option G: None of the above. That may well prove popular with lots of people, and will allow the disgruntled to make a meaningful vote. If it proved to be the most popular option, then we would have to go back to the starting blocks. But we've been there before. Fmph (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally disagree with a "None of the above" - that puts us right back at square one, where we were in Decemeber. (It also leaves the status quo, which is my preference anyway - but I'd rather have the status quo retained by community consensus expressed through this vote than face another year of arguments, polls, edit wars, etc.) BastunnutsaB 09:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "none of the above" vote approach has been implied from the past - since a user does not have to rank all options and has been suggested that if they are totally against one option to not rank it at all, a user could submit a totally empty vote implying "none of the above". Yes, if that "wins" we're back at the table, but I see this as a necessary inclusion but a slim chance of happening. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody really need to see "sovereign state" or "sovereign country" in the poll? I have not heard anyone saying "Hey, I absolutely cannot live with 'state'! I insist on other options!" All I have heard is some people saying that some other people might be confused about the status of Ireland vis à vis subdivisions of the US or Australia. That's not a compelling argument to add 6 new options to the poll. -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a poll before hand to narrow down the Ireland (state/country/sovereign entity/intergalactic time traveller HQ) options. While in theory all options can be put in an STV poll, in practice too many similar choice split the vote for those options - hence, for example, why political parties usually only field a number of candidates equal the number of seats up for grabs in a constituency. I think two variations on the theme is the most we should include in the ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed before that instead of spelling exactly "Ireland (state)" in the options above, instead to say that the name is requested at a second question on the poll, and then to have another STV for that aspect. That keeps the options above manageable to six while still resolving this part. The only question is: if you support any option that currently is listing the country at "Ireland (state)", would your choice change if that was instead "Ireland (nation)" or something else, presuming that we're talking a disamb. phrase within reason? --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A concern with having a "Republic of Ireland → Ireland (xxx)" option in the ballot, with what "xxx" is decided afterwards is one option will represent many possible alternatives, which otherwise may not attract a single "bloc" of voters. Image, for example, that the "Ireland (xxx)" option wins the ballot with 50%+1 (and that another option have 49%). We might then have another ballot for what "xxx" is to be where "nation" wins with 33%+1 (not having even reached the quota!). That would mean that the "winner" for the ballot overall would have the support of only 17% of the community (and we would have thrown out an option that had 49% support).
If it was to be done, the ballots would have to be done the other way around i.e. first poll on options for "xxx" then the top options from that poll in the actual ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To reduce this as an issue, the wording of the second question would asked "Regardless of your response to the previous question, which of the following choices do you believe is the best appropriate disambiguation phrase to describe the 26-county nation called Ireland?" It removes the necessary tie in with the previous question. Now, there may be people that want the county to be at "Republic of Ireland" and refuse any disambiguation name, and will null vote here. That's ok as a result. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the issue. Imagine another ballot: one where the question is do you want a) chocolate or b) toast or cheese. The "toast or cheese" option is like the "Ireland (xxx)" option. It would attract an aggregate of votes (i.e. votes from people who want toast and votes from people who want cheese). In reality, people who want toast may prefer chocolate as their second choice. However, the consequence of having one "toast or cheese" option is that not matter what their real preference, the votes of all people who vote for "cheese" would be treated as if their second preference was "toast".
It would be better to split "toast or cheese" into "toast" and "cheese". In the same way it would be better to split "Ireland (xxx)" in to (say) "Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (country)". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I realize what you are saying, but I'm trying to judge this: how many people, given that they were separate options on the main question, would rank them in an order like this: "Ireland (state)", "Republic of Ireland", "Ireland (nation)". Based on the opinions I've seen here, I'm having a hard time seeing this type of opinion forming, though it could happen - the question is, is this likely going to affect the results? I'd rather keep the choices on the STV fewer to make it easier to understand the results, but if we need to address these at the same time, then maybe we have to do that. But I don't want to have one poll to decide on the possible name, and then a second to put that name into place for the solution. I really think that a two-question approach is not going to skew the results; maybe we can asked a secondary question that is "Do you feel the choice of disamb descriptor for the country article would have affected your choice in the first question?" - if there's more than a handful of responses here, then maybe we take the result of the disamb descriptor question and start a new vote using that. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue can be avoided entirely by polling the "xxx" options first and including the most popular options in the ballot. Either way we would have to run two polls. Polling the "xxx" options first avoids the possibility of a catch-all "xxx" option distorting the results. It's clearer too to vote for an known value (e.g. "Ireland (nation)") rather than an unknown, to-be-decided-in-future value. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should have a mini vote before the main vote to decide what term is placed in (----) after Ireland for the country article, such as state/nation etc. I think its far better to have a known word there rather than voting for something with may change as some people would support Ireland (country) but may not support Ireland (state) because of its like a US state rather tha a sovereign one, BritishWatcher (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This really pisses me off, BritishWatcher, and it seems to me as though this is a blocking tactic. I'll try to assume good faith however. I have given fair arguments for preferring Ireland (state) to {sovereign x) above. You're just back here reciting the unsubstantiated claim that "some people" would be confused by the polyvalence of the word "state". This is easily remedied. (1) in the poll, state that "In Ireland (state) the word state refers to Sovereign state", (2) in the eventual Ireland (state) article, clarify state in the first sentence and you're done. The term state should be preferred, because that is what the Constitution of Ireland calls it (so you can blame that), regardless of US and Australian practice. The words "country", "state", and "nation" are all polyvalent, but that problem is outside of the Wikipedia. Please, please, can't we get a move on? -- Evertype·✆ 08:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I provided evidence that it is confusing for readers. Your claim that it is "unsubstantiated" is wrong. DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that some people may have the preferences: 1. Ireland (state), 2. Republic of Ireland and then far down the line Ireland (country). Having one combined Ireland (xxx) option in the ballot and then deciding what "xxx" is afterwards means that by voting for Ireland (state) their second preferences automatically goes towards Ireland (country). It would be better to run the polls the other way around: to first poll on what "xxx" options should be included then include only the top two or three of those in the actual ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who? What people? Who is saying "I don't want Ireland (state) to be the option on the poll, I want something else instead"? What is wrong with using Ireland (state) given the use of the term in Bunreacht na hÉireann, and indeed, the historical Irish Free State? Which editors here are saying "I get confused every time I see the word state"? Where are you going to poll the (xxx) options? Community-wide? Here? I find this really frustrating. I see it as a way to prevent progress. -- Evertype·✆ 08:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I don't mind whether the vote on the disambiguator comes before or during the poll but I do think that Masem has a strong point that no-one who wants "Ireland (whatever)" is going to prefer "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (not the particular whatever they preferred as a first choice)". DrKiernan (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that too. -- Evertype·✆ 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it logically follows that someone who favours any "(xxx)" option would have every subsequent preference for any/every other "(xxx)" solution. I think it will end up distorting the poll greatly. In the event of a second poll then to decide what "xxx" means, we could very easily find ourselves in the position where the range of options are such that everyone is left unhappy. Far, far better IMHO to run the polls the other way around (and it's not as if it is extra work). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To give myself as an example, I would rank "Ireland (state)" above "Republic of Ireland". Somewhere thereafter I would rank a merge of Ireland/Republic of Ireland, followed by moving the state to "Ireland". "Ireland (country)" would be far down my list and I wouldn't vote for "Ireland (nation)" at all. Having one "Ireland (xxx)" option would force me to give my 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th preferences to the "country", "nation", "sovereign state" and "sovereign country" options despite them not being my preferences at all. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's clear. I'm saying that I don't see anyone saying "I insist on having options other than Ireland (state) in the poll". I have suggested that adding those options increases the size of the poll needlessly. If there is a NEED to be added, we should add them. But I think this is predicated on a big "some people might be confused by 'state'" pseudo-argument, since nobody is raising their hand saying they are actually so confused. -- Evertype·✆ 11:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave an example on the 17th June, and there must be others because I remember it being raised as an issue in the past. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having every permutation of "Ireland (xxx)" on the ballot would be insane (and despite STV theory, in practice it might split the "(xxx)" vote). IIRC the most likely options were "(state)" and "(country)". Was "(sovereign state)" a contender too? I too remember conceding that "state" might be misunderstood (by non-Europeans?).
I think we're talking across each other, Everytype. The argument I'm having is over two options:
a) to have "Ireland (xxx)" as the option on the ballot paper then, if that is selected by the vote, to run a second poll to decide what "(xxx)" should be (i.e. "state", "country", "sovereign state", etc.)
b) to run a poll first (here?) to decide the "best" one, two or (max?) three "(xxx)" options then include those in the poll.
I'm saying that I would be dead set against a) because it would distort the vote (by aggregating all "(xxx)" votes as if they were the same) and not allow for expression of preferences around the "(xxx)" options (e.g. like ranking "state" higher than "Republic of Ireland" but ranking "country" lower than that again). BritishWatcher was of the same opinion above. Masem thinks that a is the way to go. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, State is very poorly done here on Wikipedia, and gives all the wron impressions. Has the word "state" a more modern loose meaning, as it sounds like province/territory. "Country" I think is more common, but can't offer a citation on that at present. Tfz 11:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting pretty sick of this unsubstantiated guff. The word "state" is polyvalent. That means "it means more than one thing". In terms of Ireland, the term "state" is precise and correct, and is specified in the Constitution of Ireland. In the meaning A particular form of polity or government it is attested as far back as 1538 STARKEY England 56 Ther ys the veray and true commyn wele; ther ys the most prosperouse and perfayt state, that in any cuntrey, cyte, or towne, by pollycy and wysdom, may be stablyschyd and set. In the meaning A republic, non-monarchical commonwealth it is attested as far back as 1656 WALLER To Evelyn 2 Lucretius, with a stork-like fate, Born and translated in a State, Comes to proclaim in English verse No Monarch rules the universe. 1651 HOBBES Leviathan IV. xlv. 365 When Augustus Cæsar changed the State into a Monarchy. 1673 DRYDEN Amboyna Prol. 22 Well, Monarchys may own Religions name, But States are Atheists in their very frame. Its modern use, meaning the body politic as organized for supreme civil rule and government; the political organization which is the basis of civil government (either generally and abstractly, or in a particular country); hence, the supreme civil power and government vested in a country or nation., is attested also in 1538 STARKEY England 48 The kyng, prynce, and rular of the state... The gouernance of the commynalty and polytyke state... He or they wych haue authoryte apon the hole state. Ibid. 53 Whether the state of the commynalty be gouernyd by a prynce, by certayn wyse men, or by the hole multytude. Here are some more: 1538 STARKEY Ibid. 53 Whether the state of the commynalty be gouernyd by a prynce, by certayn wyse men, or by the hole multytude. 1590 in Cath. Rec. Soc. Publ. V. 179 For the better understanding of the trewthe of matters agenst her Maiestie and the Stayte. 1594 [see PILLAR n. 3b]. 1617 MORYSON Itin. II. 17 Which may concerne the good of the State. a1618 RALEIGH Rem. (1644) 2 State is the frame or set order of a Common-wealth, or of the Governours that rule the same, especially of the chief and Sovereign Governour that commandeth the rest. The State or Sovereignty consisteth in five points. 1. Making or annulling of Laws. 1622 BACON Hen. VII 8 As one that hauing beene somtimes an Enimie to the whole State, and a Proscribed person. 1681 DRYDEN Abs. & Achit. I. 174 Resolv'd to Ruine or to Rule the State. 1697 Virg. Georg. IV. 229 All is the State's, the State provides for all. 1834 ARNOLD in Stanley Life (1844) I. vii. 376 The State, being the only power sovereign over human life, has for its legitimate object the happiness of its people. 1879 M. ARNOLD Democracy Mixed Ess. 42 The State is properly..the nation in its collective and corporate capacity. 1884 SPENCER (title) The Man versus the State. 1891 C. LOWE in 19th Cent. Dec. 858 The railways..in Prussia are now all in the hands of the State. The modern usage as found in the US and Australia, is not as old: One of a number of polities, each more or less sovereign and independent in regard to internal affairs, which together make up a supreme federal government; as in the United States of America or the Commonwealth of Australia. Attested 1634 Mass. Bay Rec. (1853) I. 117 When I shalbe called to give my voice touching any such matter of this state, wherein ffreemen are to deale, [etc.]. 1774 JEFFERSON Writ. (1892) I. 420 A proper device (instead of arms) for the American states united would be the Father presenting the bundle of rods to his son. Even in Ireland before independence we find this: 1882 M. ARNOLD Irish Ess. 97 State-aided elementary schools. Not "Country-aided elementary schools". -- Evertype·✆ 17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By copying all this from the OED, you've just defeated your own argument by confirming that "state" has meant a state in the American sense for over 350 years. DrKiernan (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? There is one hit for that meaning from 1638, but the others are from North America 1774. All of the other hits were about the non-US/Australian meaning, going back 100 years earlier! Are you really confused by the use of the word "state", DrKiernan? -- Evertype·✆ 00:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sovereign state, is what I think Evertype is looking for. I see Evertype citing the Constitution of Ireland, BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN, that's nice. Tfz 19:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to have anything but Ireland (state) and I have yet to see a credible counterargument. -- Evertype·✆ 00:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me suggest two options (they can be handled separately):
To figure out the best "xxxx" options to include for "Ireland (xxxx)" names for the country, I will open a quick feedback poll to ask editors to submit, irregardless if they feel the country should be at RoI or "Ireland" w/o disamb, three options they feel "xxxx" should be. This will close Friday, and the top 3 (or 4 if a tie) will be used as options in the STV poll.
My gut feeling is that editors outside of this group are going to care less exactly what "xxxx" is, as long as it resolves the naming dispute - there may be purists (as exampled above) but I think the majority may not care. Furthermore, I worry that if we push the number of options to 12 or 15, non-involved editors (the ones we want to participate) may skip the poll thinking it too complex. Regardless, let's keep it an option but manage that expectation: In the presentation of the questions where "Ireland (xxxx)" is an option (such as presently B on the 6-choice poll), I propose that we keep the main option as say "country at 'Ireland (xxxx)' where xxxx is some appropriate disambiguation descriptor.", and then provide options B1, B2, etc. for each of the possible "xxxx" choices. In voting, a user can opt to preference vote for any individual option and/or the general B option. In tallying, if the general B option is eliminated before the winner is selected, all "B" votes immediately morph to the current best scoring sub-B option. So for example, say that B1, B3, and B remain, but B is eliminated - at the time B1 has the majority of remaining highest preference votes and thus all those Bs are virtually treated as B1s. Now a few rounds later, both B1 and B3 remain, but now due to other factors, B3 is the highest in preference votes - at this point all those Bs that were treated as B1s become treated as B3s. This allows for the generic option as well as the specific options to be used. I'm trying to think of scenarios that might be difficult to understand the results from in this but I can't think of what they might be. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When and where will you do this. Masem? There are four or five options (state, country, nation, sovereign state, sovereign country). -- Evertype·✆ 17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed (republic) again. I think it would be easier to run this as an STV poll, just selecting the winning option. As some people don't seem to understand how STV works, it might also be a useful trial run. DrKiernan (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holy hand grenades. You want Ireland (republic) on the ballot? What a farce. This has never been proposed by anyone before. Ireland is DEFINED by its Constitution as a State, even if DESCRIBED as a republic in an Act of the Oireachtas. Your suggestion seems outrageous. -- Evertype·✆ 00:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland (Republic of)? In any event, I don't see these "minor" options being very likely. There's no point in fussing too much over options that are likely to get eliminated in the early rounds. But ... it's Wednesday so can we get a bullet list of what we are going to include? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course (Republic of) will be eliminated. That's partly the point of having a poll: to eliminate unfavourable options. If these options are not eliminated in a transparent way, then there is a danger that someone will come along later and say "Oh, but, we never discussed/voted on 'Ireland (land of the leprechauns)' so the vote is invalid." I want to ensure that the most favoured possible option for change is selected, whether it be state (I hope not), country (I hope so), republic (I wouldn't mind), nation (I oppose strongly), sovereign state (I hope not), or (Republic of) (the winner! [not]). DrKiernan (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put a draft poll for this together. See below. -- Evertype·✆ 10:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drafting of statements promoting each option
We presumably need a clear, short, statement (max of x words) for each option explaining why each one is "viable" or should be chosen - with links to the previous Project statement pages?
Comments
This is certainly needed as we will be opening this up to anyone and everyone probably best in bullet points rather than a statement. But i strongly believe each option should also provide the counter arguments. So for example on the country is at Ireland option we have Say yes because.. Ireland is the commonname for the country. But we also say Say no because Ireland is ambiguous. The island of Ireland had the name long before the state etc.
If we are doing bullet points then everyone can add what they want and it just needs cleaning up by someone, if its going to be a written statement we may need a vote on which statement to use (or just go with the one the majority clearly support). BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we not first assess the validity of arguments, rather than promoting each option. This just opens up the whole issue again. We know what editors positions (POV's) are, lets policy test them before we present them to the community. --Domer48'fenian' 07:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The validity of arguements will be judged by those partaking in the poll. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
verifiable, reliable sources are of paramount importance, as in keeping with Wikipedia policies. Any lazy approach to these factors is amateurish in the extreme, and quite startling if not addressed before anything proceeds. Tfz 11:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With STV, 50%+1 is what you would tend to get. The process, by its mathematical nature, does not need to show a greater majority. If we ran a simple first past the post ballot, it might be prudent to require a greater than 50% majority. The whole process of PRSTV obviates that requirement. And in the end, ArbCom and the WP bureaucracy could always overrules a decision from here if it were obviously a bad decision. Fmph (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly need a majority of atleast 50% for the option to win without a tranferable vote. If say something got 55% but a second option won 95% with the transferable vote then i think the mods should agree to implement the one with an overwhelming majority rather than the 55%. Im not sure what the figure would have to be to override a majority of 55% but it would have to be over 80% or something like that on the transferable vote to justify overriding the majority on the first vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, BW. If we're running this under Single transferable vote (which is the consensus), then if an option passes the quota (which yes, reading Fmph's comment, should almost certainly be 50% + 1), it wins. If on the first count, no option reaches the quota, then the least popular option is eliminated, and those who voted for it have their second preferences (if any) counted and added to the results from Count 1. If there is still no option reaching the quota, a second elimination takes places and there is a third count - and so on, until an option does pass the quota. BastunnutsaB 16:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found First Past The Post very confusing when I first moved to the UK. That an electorate would allow themselves to be governed by a political party which did not command the support the of the majority of the electorate is very confusing to many democrats. Fmph (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut-off targets should probably be something like : 75% option 1, 60% option 2, 51% option 3. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These strange voting systems confuse me, its why i like First past the post which is nice and simple. If an option meets the quota set then it should win, all im saying is if there is another option that with transferable vote has like 90%+ support then in the interests of reaching an option that the most people are satisfied with it should probably be chosen despite the other option winning the original vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not let everyone have multiple choice voting, that is voting for their more popular choices and not voting for the choices that they don't like. That would work like proportional voting, and give a less contentious result. For instance, if a voter 'could live' with 3 different options, then that voter could vote for all those 3 options, and ignore all of the other options. It's worth considering. Tfz 23:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have consensus for STV, and STV means you should rank your preferences. Note that I *have* suggested that people be allowed to vote "0" (zero) for any choice they "can't live with". (I always fill out my ballot completely, so as to prevent anyone from filling in a box I left blank. Also for the pleasure of putting the unacceptable at the bottom of the list.) -- Evertype·✆ 10:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And in any case I don't see how a STV vote would be any more contentious than a multiple-choice vote - you have more "say" in the outcome of an STV vote than you would under multiple-choice. BastunnutsaB 10:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:IRV counting flowchart.1.pngflowchart for counting IRV Votes @MickMacNee. If you're only choosing a single winner using single transferable voting, cut-off levels are not really necessary. According to Wikipedia, STV to choose single winner is sometimes called instant-runoff voting, though I've not encountered that term before. With a bit of thought you'll see that when only a single winner is being chosen, in every circumstance, the Droop quota (requiring 50%+1) yields precisely the same result as the flow-chart on the right, and indeed as the less-commonly-used Hare quota (which requires 100%). (The Hare quota requires many additional iterations to get the answer, but once a single option reaches 50%+1 it cannot fail to eventually get to 100% once all the fifth, tenth, twentieth... choice votes are factored in.) Cut-offs, whether at the top end to allow a winner to be declared early or for multiple losers to eliminated early, are just algorithmic devices to simplify and speed up the calculation of the winner without changing the result. Saving an iteration or two when you have millions of paper votes is a big benefit; saving an iteration or two when you have a few dozen electronic votes really isn't much gain. So we can do things nice and straightforwardly and use the flowchart on the right until someone reaches 50%+1. —ras52 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most logical. -- Evertype·✆ 13:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easily the best proposal. FF3000 (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Even BW could follow it! (joke!) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol Bastun, only after id read it a few times ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a comment and need for clarification, it appears we are allowing users to null vote for certain options, with the implication that you absolutely, positively cannot live with null voted options. This would imply that 1) it is possible for the final winning option to fail to get 100% when all choices are considered, and that 2) it is possible that no option could get more than 50% when all options are considered - meaning that the community has rejected all the solutions, and we will need to return to the discussion board.
However, I will agree (in contrast with my earlier statement) that 50%+1 as the winning option seems best, though the tally will work through all the numbers. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ras52. There's no advantage to setting a higher quota to find a "winner" - any option that gets 50%+1 will beat all others (always).
That said, an advantage to running iterations of the count past 50%+1 would be if we set a quota - not for declaring a "winner" - but for deciding a minimum before the "winner" would be deemed to be *binding* on the community (e.g. only if the "winner" got 66% of preferences would it be deemed to be binding on the community). Fmph has recommended software for calculating the result (OpenSTV). Using that software some options will perform the Hare method - which would allow us to see if any option got greater than, say, 66%.
Also, what Masem says is true. It is possible using STV that the "winner" will have less 50%+1. In such a circumstance, will be declare that although we have winner (under the formula), we will not accept it? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This vote should end the dispute full stop. Obviously if a majority vote is gained, there is a consensus for it to get the go-ahead. If this vote isn't the end, we will be back to square one and many more months of endless, pointless discussion will continue.
It must be made a rule though that all of the options A-F must be numbered 1-6 like this:
1. A
2. D
etc.
Otherwise the vote won't work. FF3000 (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true - because we have not listed all possible solutions, a possibility of no option winning 50%+1 exists and is useful; it means we need to seek other options (For a matter of principle, editors will be encourage to suggest options if they don't see one they agree with on the voting talk page - these won't be part of the vote, but they will be our next steps if this fails). The chance of that happening here? WP:SNOW. We'll worry about it if it comes to pass, but nothing that requires us to alter how the vote should be conducted. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There's no advantage to forcing people to use up all of their options. It doesn't create consensus by forcing people to artificially rank their preferences.
With regard to "If this vote isn't the end..." - we have to options either
a) this is the end and the "winner" of the ballot (regardless of whether it be SNOW or less than 50%+1) is binding on the community
b) this may be the end
If is it b) then can we please set out metrics before the ballot happens for what will constitute a binding result? e.g. if a Hare quota is used will 50% be binding? 66%? If an option gets 90% will it be binding? (This too is another reason not to force people to use all of their options because that would artificially create a 100% Hare quota.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Masem's comments about "null votes", this is problem that real-world elections have to deal with too, and the standard way of dealing with this (see single transferable vote and related articles) allow for this. If a voter's top preference is for the least popular option in a given iteration of the scoring, that vote is discarded and their next highest preference is used in the next iteration. This is true irrespective of whether they've specified a next highest vote. The result is that once all of a voters preferences are exhausted, the vote is treated if an empty ballot paper were handed in — i.e. it is treated as if it were a spoilt paper (though typically not added to the tally of spoilt papers). That's the standard procedure in any STV election where it's permissible to omit your least favourite choices. This means that sometimes in the final stages of the election, the number of active votes is reduced, but you still inevitably eventually get 100% consensus from those whose votes are still being counted (which will include everyone who ranked all the options). If you think about this, this is good. Clearly in any election someone who chooses to vote is going to have more effect on the result than someone who abstains. Similarly, someone who doesn't fully rank all the choices may get less say than someone who does. Though in practice, if you genuinely consider all unranked preferences to be equally bad there's absolutely no need to rank everything.
In answer to Rannṗáirtí, I think there's some confusion here. If you go for a Hare quota, then by definition you need 100% quota to get a binding decision. Not 50%+1, not 66%, and not 90%. However per my previous paragraph, because of the way it deals with unranked options, you are inevitably guaranteed a 100% quota because anyone who has only ranked minority options eventually gets remove from the voting. (And as a corollary, by ranking everything you will never have less influence on the outcome than if you omitted your least favourite few.) Yes, arguably this is artificially creating a 100% consensus. But any voting system is to some extent artificial. And I think we would be better off using a well-documented, well-understood system such as standard STV. To repeat the gist of my earlier email: whether you use a Droop quota, a Hare quota or the IRV flowchart makes absolutely no difference to the outcome in any circumstances (because we're only after a single winner). — ras52 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should just clarify — I'm not saying we shouldn't do something that may fail to reach a decision because of unranked choices. However, if we want to do that, we need to be clear about precisely how we are going to conduct the vote because saying single transferable voting is no longer sufficient as what we would be doing would not be a standard STV. So by all means do something different, but make sure the procedure is fully documented beforehand to avoid subsequent arguing about how to interpret the votes. — ras52 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. I believe we should accept the STV outcome of 50%+1, with the proviso that - as ever - the mods and admins can enforce a different decision (poss going back to the drawing board) if they are not happy that the result will best serve the community. I think we are chasing a red herring on quota.
@FF3000 - It is NOT pointless to try and get a consensual decision like this, even if one of the options may be "go back to the drawing board". We cannot possibly have an infinite wisdom and knowledge, nor to be prescient of what's to come. I am quite sure that is entirely possible for the whole process to be scrapped because of something we have not foreseen. But that is no reason for not trying.
@RA/@Masem We should not try to second guess the electorate by assigning reasons for their actions and assuming we know why they have voted in a particular way. Null votes, incomplete ballots, 'lazy' '1234567' votes, are all acceptable. Let the community decide how they want to cast their votes. Don't try to 2nd guess. Fmph (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Fmph/Ra52 - The "quota" doesn't matter. Forget about it. Let's stop even talking about it. This is a "one-seat constituency" so we will *not* be using a quota for *anything*.
Fmph, I think you believe that the quota will be used to determine a winner. No so (but it is commonly thought that that is what it is for). It is entirely possible for an option to be elected without having reached the "quota" - and *always* at least one candidate in an a real-life election is elected without having reached the quota. (Although anyone that reaches the number given by the Droop quota is guaranteed to be elected, hence the misconception that the quota signifies a winner.) The real purpose of the quota is in calculating transfer ballots: ballots cast for a candidate in excess of the quota are transferred to other candidates. Depending on whether you use the Droop or Hare quota the number of ballots transferred in this way will be different.
Since we will only be electing one candidate, there will be no such transfer and so there is no "quota". 50%+1 only comes into it because this is the magic number - if any options receives that number of votes then it is guaranteed to be the winner - but it is also possible that the winner may not receive 50%+1. No option will receive a "Hare quota" of 100% unless *everyone* who votes uses *all* of their preferences. Neither of these numbers represent the Hare or Droop quota in any real way (because ballots in excess of them will not be transferred), so please can we stop talking about "quotas".
The only point of running an election based on the "Hare quota" is because - **in our case** - the Hare quota represents 100%. It would mean counting all ballots and making all possible transfers until we are left with just one option and a percentage to say how close to 100% it got (it will *not* get 100% in practice). Regardless of what percentage that option got - even if it is less than 50%+1 - it will be the winner under STV rules ... *BUT* we can decide to attach an extra proviso: to only accept as binding a winner that got, say, greater than 50%, greater than 66%, greater than 90%, etc.
The question is not about "quotas" in the STV sense but about an extra bench mark we can set for ourselves. The choices are a) to accept the result of STV as biding regardless of what percentage the final option got or b) to only accept the result as binding if it received a super majority after transfers. STV will give us a) regardless (even without reaching a "quota"). The advantage of b) is that is would give extra democratic legitimacy to a binding decision - but risks us not agreeing on a *final* decision. (I think the benefits of b) outweigh the risks, especially we we set a relatively low super majority of, say, 66%.)
"We should not try to second guess the electorate by assigning reasons for their actions and assuming we know why they have voted in a particular way." I don't know what you mean by this. I never said any such thing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Organising advertisement of poll, including hatnote
A list of pages/projects is published below. Presumably we should also inform those who have previously contributed to the Project. Does anyone know how to go about organising a Watchlist hatnote similar to those used when Arbcom elections are on, or the recent one on change of WP's licence?
Do we notify individual users? There is a real danger of an explosion of canvassing if we do. Fmph (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, we should at least notify the users who have previously participated here. It could be done with a template written by a moderator to ensure neutral wording - little more than a pointer to the poll page and what the closing date is? BastunnutsaB 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And also notify all the named parties in the arbitration case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A full watchlist notice is probably not going to happen; those that maintain that really discourage from topics that only affect a small number of editors and articles (which this truly is) from using that space (otherwise, everyone's pet cause would be up there). WP:CENT needs to be added. As for individual users, the only two sets I would use are those that have been named in the ArbCom case and those that are members of this project; attempts to bring in anyone else specifically may seem to be canvasing. However, with all the other locations, this should probably be wide enough. - Oh, and also add in ArbCom as a place where it will be advertized - at least in the sense of notifying them this is occuring. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we edit the {{WikiProject Ireland}} template to show the notice, and maybe let a few other people know about it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can at least request a Watchlist hatnote, though? This is, after all, an Arbcom initiative to resolve a long-running dispute. BastunnutsaB 16:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im ok with the above listed although i dont know why Scotland is listed and not England and Wales as well. My main concern is that if the Ireland wikiproject / notice board is listed the UK one MUST be listed as well, not too fussed about Scotland/Wales/Englands projects. I certainly think everyone signed up to this project should be contacted, maybe all those on the list for being involved when trying to get Arbcom to act on this should also be sent a message. Agreed there needs to be a template placed on certain articles talk pages too. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my request for a full watchlist notification, this process has gone on for so long, and I have seen much more trivial rubbish on the wathclist before. I recently spammed an Rfc regarding a massively important issue which was relevant to the entire pedia, in all the relevant venues including wp:cent, except the watchlist; it has to date got barely 30 opinions. We should not start cherry picking which projects get a say. Canvassing individual users is utterly out of the question (barring Sarah777, I am genuinely interested in how she would vote) MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose the USA notice board being listed. That is not related to this dispute unlike Irish / Northern Irish / UK ones. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also tend to agree. Many Americans can hardly distinguish England from Britain, never mind Scotland, Wales, or Ireland—even those who are reasonably good editors. It's a "feature" of the educational system (and I went through that system though I'm 19 years in Ireland now). I don't believe listing the USA notice board is appropriate, any more than listing the Australian or South African notice boards would be appropriate. -- Evertype·✆ 18:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What has the change in the RoI page to do with Britain then, that's one of the reasons why this whole process is all wrong, if you are correct. Tfz 16:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be realistic here. The goal is to get a solution which, at least for a time, reduces the levels of conflict. That means involving the Irish Diaspora. Over the years there have been a lot of Canadian editors involved as well as Australians etc. etc. All of those are part of the complex political heritage that has produced the problem in the first place. Also we need an international perspective on this, not just the hothouse that is the editorial group who have failed to achieve consensus so far.--SnowdedTALK 07:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you decide which country noticeboards get notified? There's a small but significant Irish community in Argentina, for example (an Irishman founded their navy). I know a couple of Irish people living in Nepal. Someone has added Wikiproject Middle Ages, above. I don't see the relevance at all, but it may well be valid. Really, this points again towards the really obvious noticeboards Irish/British noticeboards and needing the hatnote... BastunnutsaB 09:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the navy out of this. Argentina should be there on the list, as it has many friendly relations and historical ties with Ireland. And countries like Nepal can bring NPOV factors into the voting. Tfz 12:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, do you intend to inform the USA noticeboard, and if so, why do you not intend to inform the Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand noticeboards? -- Evertype·✆ 10:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should Argentina be deemed NPOV and be included and Nepal be deemed POV and excluded? What about Nigeria? Lebanon? Ingushetia (oh - another state not on its official name)? Who decides? Really, the various Irish and UK noticeboards/projects/pages should be the only ones in addition to the likes of WP:CENT - and are the only ones necessary if we can get the hatnote. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz, Nepal may be NPOV, but we DO also want some measure of intelligence applied. We could announce it to Iran noticeboard. I've been there several times and one thing I can tell you is that when you mention Ireland they all think of two things: Bobby Sands and Chris de Burgh. How's that for well-informed? If we include the US noticeboard, we will need introductory information describing the constituent countries of the UK, since many, many Americans do not distinguish between the UK and Great Britain and England. Yes, there are folks out there who think that Wales and Scotland are in England, because Elizabeth II is Queen of England. -- Evertype·✆ 13:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason the USA has been added is because certain editors dont like the fact that UK wikipedians should be informed. This message is going to be placed on many different wikiprojects, Countries / Geography boards will attract many Americans and non British / Irish editors so i really dont see the need of including individual countries other than the UK / Ireland / Northern Ireland. I dont really see the need for England,Scotland and Wales to be listed but ok either way with that. Just as long as UK editors are treated the same way Ireland editors are.
Dont get me started on the American media and their incompetence on reporting the British monarchy. Youd think international organisations would know better than to make silly mistakes like "Queen of England" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get it that UK are getting special concessions over the moving of the RoI article. Tfz 13:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just about the Republic of Ireland its about the island of Ireland aswell. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shares the island of Ireland with the republic. Most of the people in Northern Ireland are UK citizens there for they are UK wikipedians. Tfz, honestly there will be plenty of non British ./ Irish input if we advertise on geography / countries etc so we dont need to advertise on different country boards BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's more in the structure of the 'whole' process, that I have my reservations. That's what I mean, why should everything be tied together, one would almost think that Ireland and the British isles were all one. Anyway, the initial concern was a move from RoI to a less pov-infected name, and we end up with a multi-dimensional voting process of almost trans-galactical proportions that has become overgrown to the original notion of an article name change. Tfz 14:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol well what ever the voting system used im pretty sure that the country artcle will be moved from the Republic of Ireland article at the end of the day, so surely thats better than the current setup. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, do you intend to inform the USA noticeboard, and if so, why do you not intend to inform the Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand noticeboards? -- Evertype·✆ 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to notify any other country WP outside of those already listed. The naming is central to the ones listed, much less so for the other ones, so there's no vested interest in those. There will still be general notification via CENT and VPP. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the countries of Europe must be informed, especially those of the EU. Countries with strong connections with the state of Ireland too, especially in regard to the renaming of the RoI article. Tfz 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the UK shares the island of Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. This vote is NOT only on the future of the sovereig states title, its about the island aswell. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why WP:USA? It seems bizarre. And Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages - WTF!? UK and Ireland forums only should be the only "ethnic" forums contacted (and I think it would be better to avoid projects such as Irish Republicanism for fear of forgetting Irish Unionism). For completeness, I would like messages posted at forums for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I would not put a notice of Irish Free State (it is a historical state). Other notices should only be put on "neutral" forums e.g. WP:CENT and the Village Pump. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting stupid now, why are we adding countries like spain and portugal... this is pointless. British and Irish forums are the only nationalities that need to be informed, non British / Irish editors will see the messages on the other projects like Countries, Geography etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I see words like bizarre being used, I know that argument being offered is empty and devoid of any real substance. Firstly France, Spain, and Portugal are neighbours of Ireland, check it on the map, and they should be included according to your own criteria BW. There are more Irish people living in the USA than the whole population of the Channel Isles and Island of Man combined. You should understand that this is a community wide poll. Tfz 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with what i said. I said the UK noticeboard must be notified because the United Kingdom shares the island of Ireland with the Republic. France, Spain, Portugal DONT. Again i strongly oppose this idea of posting on different country projects other than that of the UK / Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the UK does not share RoI. QEDTfz 20:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it should be a different and completely seperated issue altogether. Bundling 'things' together at Wikipedia is a new and ill thoughtout manouver that is making a complete laugh out of the project. Tfz 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well we cant change the mandate of this process it makes sense to have a central debate on this matter to decide the outcome of all the pages. Otherwise u could be in a case where people on ROI decide something and people on Ireland decide the complete opposite, whod vote would be more important and override the other?? We have to deal with what we have, this is a vote on all the Ireland naming issues, there for that includes the island of Ireland which has a direct impact on UK wikipedians aswell as Irish ones. I fail to see how any other country is impacted besides UK/Ireland BritishWatcher (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UK has absolutely nothing to do with the RoI page than the USA, Russia, or China. Weren't UK kicked out in 1922. It's nearly 100 years ago, to use your own words. Tfz 23:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this was just about the ROI then yes it has nothing to do with the UK. But this isnt, its about the ISLAND of Ireland. Like it or not part of that island is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland there for anything on the island of Ireland involves UK wikipedians. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about special arrangements for UK voters above other countries. Fundamentally flawed. Grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented. Tfz 23:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about one article, this process involves several. I know you dont like that fact but u should accept it. Part of the Island of Ireland is the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]s land, you cant exclude people in such a case. If we wanted to do something about Europe ud have to wikiprojects for every European country. This involves the island of Ireland there for both sovereign states wikiprojects must be informed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to exclude the UK, it's editors here trying to exclude other countries, is my point. Tfz 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do these other countries have to do with the Island of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland?? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"When I see words like bizarre being used, I know that argument being offered is empty and devoid of any real substance." I didn't offer an argument. The reasoning is surely self evident? One of the pages being discussed is Ireland. Two states occupy Ireland: the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Hence, it's fair assume that this ballot might be of interest to editors that watch the Ireland and UK notice boards. You are of course free to post notices to other countries' notice boards. I just think the people that watch them will scratch their heads and wonder why-in-the-hell you're so keen on telling about some ballot on renaming an article that has nothing to do with the topics of their notice board. But, sure, if it makes you happy, knock yourself out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GUBU was a phrase used by CJH, in case you didn't know, and would you? I might have more respect for your "snide remarks" if you had some extra 'article edits' under your belt. We are talking about a level playing field for the poll. The poll should not be advertised in any one jurisdiction above another, otherwise it will be a flawed poll, and "will never be accepted" here at Wikipedia. Can you look ahead? Tfz 00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with WikiProject Gaelic Games? It is very much related to Ireland and has many users who are not on any other wikiproject. FF3000 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Internet ate my response) WP:GAA has 27 members, 2 of whose names I recognise from elsewhere on WP. So hardly "many users". The problem with including one niche wikiproject is that you'd then have to include them all. Where do you draw the line? The main article pages/country noticeboards/central discussion areas should be sufficient - though again, I really think we should try to get the Watchlist hatnote notification. Oh, and something in WP Signpost. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what's the harm with it? Seeing as it is an Ireland project full permission should be granted for advertisement there. The "line" can be drawn between wikiprojects that are an aren't related to Ireland. FF3000 (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem, it's an opportunity. Tfz 14:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A serious proposal
I've put in that heading because I don't want anybody to think I'm just stirring it. It has been suggested a number of times that Irish and British editors should be excluded from the poll. An obvious objection to that is that there is no way to definitively determine an editor's nationality. But what if everybody who has taken part in the debate until now were excluded? The poll would then reflect the views of truly uninvolved editors, and participants would be uninfluenced by the "heated" contributions of involved editors. Since people here are presumably still split 50/50 (otherwise it wouldn't have come to this), excluding ourselves should not have a material effect on the outcome anyway. Thoughts? Scolaire (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally reject this crazy proposal. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this interesting idea should be rejected. Good lateral thinking though. -- Evertype·✆ 08:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attention Masem
Masem, do you intend to inform the USA noticeboard, and if so, why do you not intend to inform the Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand noticeboards? -- Evertype·✆ 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to notify any other country WP outside of those already listed. The naming is central to the ones listed, much less so for the other ones, so there's no vested interest in those. There will still be general notification via CENT and VPP. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you saying that this issue is central to the USA noticeboard? Irish emigration went to Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand just as much as to the US. Please either (1) delete the US noticeboard or (2) add the others or (3) explain why you are keeping the US noticeboard but excluding the others. Right now it does not make sense. -- Evertype·✆ 08:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about WikiProject Gaelic Games? It is a very active wikiproject related to Ireland, with lots of users that are not part of any other wikiproject? FF3000 (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see someone included the USA noticeboard. Of course that should not be included. The wide-spread announcement should be limited to national/regional WikiProjects and Noticeboards that deal with Ireland, the United Kingdom, and all of Europe / Western Europe (but not other specific countries of Europe). --MASEM (t) 15:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting rights
Who should be entitled to participate, in order to eliminate WP:SOCKS, WP:SPAs, etc.
Comments
Limit voting rights to editors who have exceeded 150 'main article' edits for the last 6 months, that should take care of any trolling accounts. A weighted figure could be calculated for editors with under 6 months editing. Also limit the voting rights to editors who have joined before 21st June 2009. Tfz 11:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 150 in 6 months idea is impractical, but I do like the shortstop registartion date Fmph (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A cut off date of editors who have joined before the 1st of June seems reasonable, rather than 21st. IPs should be banned from voting without a doubt. On 150 main article edits, i think thats unfair but every person that votes should have their edit history looked into by the mods to see if there is any chance of it being a sock, and those suspected need to be checked fully with any tools held by admins. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem suggested a pre-qualifying date. I can't remember what it was, but I agreed with it - nobody registered after tha date can vote. The potential for fun and games is just too great. MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem said June 1st, is hard to find now as theres been so much text over the past few days. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was in my first polling schedule. I still think it's fair, but again, I leave that up to others. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my paws and whiskers, do I detect consensus? At least on this point. If the vote lasts for three weeks, a cut off date of three weeks prior to the beginning of the poll seems reasonable. Also I agree that IPs should be banned from voting without a doubt. And a look into a voter's edit history should be part of the tallying procedure. -- Evertype·✆ 18:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like we have consensus, then - nobody registered after 1st June can vote? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, autoconfirmed users only would be allowed to vote. This would be achieved by semi-protecting the page while the poll is taking place. FF3000 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but I think that would allow someone to vote even if they'd only registered an account up to three or four days before the poll closes, and they'd made a few mainspace edits? There really doesn't seem to be anything unfair about using 1st June as a cutoff. Just like being on any electoral register, there's always a cutoff. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's worry about semi-prot until the poll happens; if there is an influx of IP votes despite instructions, we may need to semi-prot and put instructions to put your vote on the talk page to be transferred to the actual page should they not yet be autoconfirmed. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think any IP's votes should be deleted immediately and should be completely prohibited to prevent sockpuppetry. I think the page should be semi-prot while the poll is taking place regardless of what the cut off point is. FF3000 (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protecting the page sounds like an easy way to prevent socks. (Edit: Actually, it's not *nice* to do that.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well socks have to be prevented as it could put the whole thing in jeopardy. FF3000 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With only those already registered before June 1 (a date that's past) being allowed to vote, only pre-existing socks may come into play. I'd not worried about this situation. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else?
Actually deciding the winner
Fmph had a good idea for the actual *counting* of the votes. Part of that was to use software (OpenSTV). His proposal was to have three tallymen counting the votes and answering to a single mod. If their calculations didn't match they would have to go back and count again.
A problem with this is that the STV formula sometimes calls for random selection to eliminate tied candidates and so the three tally men could (in the realm of the possible) come back with three slightly different counts. I think overall Fmph's suggestion is good so I propose the following:
One moderator to act as a presiding officer.
Three editors act as counters
After the ballot closes, the presiding officer runs down the list and strikes out invalid votes (e.g. prople who have give two 1st prefences, or have a first and third preference but no second preferences) - there should be an attempt to correct these either by "fixing" the vote if it is clear what was meant or by contacting the editor and giving them e.g. 3 days to fix their vote.
The counters should then individually prepare ballot files for the OpenSTV software.
The ballot files should be returned to the presiding officer who runs a diff on the files.
If the files don't conform then they should be returned to the counters (saying what the diff was) for them to fix errors.
If the ballot files conform then the presiding officer should select one at random and run the software to determine the winner
The ballot file and the software's output (which shows the details of how the winner was decided) should be posted on Wikipedia alongside the result of the ballot
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I don't think advertising the poll should be constrained. People will do it anyway. I do think a watchlist hatnote should be requested, even if it has to be requested via ArbCom. It doesn't open it up to every pet issue. This is a major on-going issue which were are trying to resolve, and one of the main problems is that it is dominated by such a small and in parts highly radicalised crowd. This poll needs as broad a base as possible, because the broader the more legitimate the result. But make no mistake, this is the solution. So we should go ahead when everything is ready. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to do regular sweeps of 3rd party forums to check for vote rigging. In a recent vote on something about the British Isles it was advertised on a Irish forum in an attempt to rig the vote. We need to decide what should happen if its clear its being advertised like that and its impacting on the voting result.
If Republic of Ireland becoming a redirect is not added on to the end of certain vote options then we need a vote on it in phase 4 as stated, it seems commonsense that ROI becomes a redirect to where ever the country article goes but some people have moaned about that. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of checking to see if the poll is advertised on forums? As long as there is a cut-off date, the only people to be alerted (and who could vote) would be Wikipedia editors - which would be no bad thing. Daicaregos (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of wikipedia editors that use certain forums. In a previous vote which involved Irish Nationalists there was several attempts at rigging the vote, including posting on an Irish forum. I think its important we try to check such rigging isnt being tried again. If we are allowed to advertise on 3rd party sites however, all sides must have that right not just one acting outside of the rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to make a 'federal issue' of it just because once upon a time an editor posted something on a forum. I was involved in that case, and it didn't make the slightest difference to the outcome, and no extra editors voted either. Another thing that should be addressed, now that nationalists has come up. British Nationalists outnumber Irish Nationalists by 16/1. Should this be taken into consideration in the vote count? Tfz 20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It didnt make any major difference to the vote because it was closed very quickly after the canvassing was detected. The page had several hundred views in a very short period of time, had that vote remained open for 3 weeks who knows how it would of influenced the outcome, there were a couple of suspicious contributors to that vote and lets not forget it was VERY close between the two main options. Vote rigging is a very serious matter, if we are allowed to post about it anywhere so be it, but if thats not the case we need to do sweeps of certain forums to keep an eye out. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point remains: as there will be a cut-off date, only established Wikipedia editors will be entitled to vote. Therefore it would not be possible to rig the vote by advertising it. 'Advertising' in that way would only ensure that as many editors as possible are aware a vote is taking place. You are being unnecessarily dramatic. Daicaregos (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How long will the poll last? 1 week? 2 weeks? FF3000 (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem said "Stage 2: Polling opens for three weeks from June 28, 2009 and will end July 19, 2009" i support something along those lines, it seems a reasonable amount of time. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well OK but is that long really needed? FF3000 (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks or less, particularly during the summer, is too short - people may completely miss the vote. A full month is too long given the scope and how many places this will be announced. To me, three weeks seems the most appropriate aspect. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something needs to be done about the format of voting so that it is clear what people are choosing. We should make it very easy, and foolproof both for the voter and for the tallyman. Also, if we have six options, do we insist that a number be given to each option? Perhaps we should start with a state like A-0 B-0 C-0 D-0 E-0 F-0. I think we should keep this order in all instances and ask people to change the 0 to their preferred number, 1 being the most favourite and 6 being the least favourite, and to tell them that if there is an option they DON'T support they should just leave it at 0. -- Evertype·✆ 18:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to suggest a template that I can make up that will look like:
{{irelandvote|a=4|b=3|d=2|f=1|~~~~}}
Which can be made into a quick table to represent the votes without too much problem, and also emphasieze that to completely opt out of a solution, just don't vote for it at all. This format will be very easy to copy and paste in a polling page. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really understand the nowiki template you have described. -- Evertype·✆ 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Masem, we don't want people to inadvertantly spoil their votes. STV is unfamiliar to many people. I recommend starting with {{irelandvote|a=0|b=0|c=0|d=0|e=0|f=0|~~~~}} and letting people change the numbers accordingly. If you have people free to omit choices they don't like they could inadvertently omit the right one. -- Evertype·✆ 07:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone submits an obvious spoilt vote, then they can always be advised on their talk page of the potential that their vote could be spoilt. It's not a showstopper! Fmph (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Are you saying that you oppose my suggestion? Or just that I am foolish for making it? I have made it in the interests of clarity and ease of interpretation for both voter and tallier. Masem, I propose that you use a template that will look like:
{{irelandvote|a=0|b=0|c=0|d=0|e=0|f=0|~~~~}}
All right? -- Evertype·✆ 10:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype, I think you and Masem are both proposing the same template - just yours is 'blank' and he's showing what a 'completed' one might look like? BastunnutsaB 10:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, mine would be the blank one. The difference is that I think people should NOT delete any option. If they dislike an option and want to give it no weight or support they should leave the digit 0 in place. Otherwise the should rank from their favourite 1 to their least favourite 6. So normally you would rank 123456, but if you wished you could rank 123400. I just think it is unwise to suggest that people should delete any of the items from the template, because that's asking for error. -- Evertype·✆ 12:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Example:, let's say someone likes the vowels, in alphabetical order, more than the consonants, and likes the consonants in reverse alphabetical order. So taking the template A=0 B=0 C=0 D=0 E=0 F=0 they would rank A=1 B=6 C=5 D=4 E=2 F=3. Or let's say that the voter likes the same, but wants to give NO weight to the last two. That would be A=1 B=0 C=0 D=4 E=2 F=3. I believe that this is "safer" in terms of getting the vote, and also probably easier to tally. To put it another way, I think that allowing A=1 D=4 E=2 F=3 could introduce error or confusion. -- Evertype·✆ 13:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asking voters to rank options with numbers could be confusing and ambiguous. I propose that to register a vote an editor should be asked to add just a single line with option letters in order of preference. For instance, if I were to vote for Evertype's example above, it would simply appear as:
This would be simpler for people like me who don't understand templates. Hallucegenia (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't favour that approach, and the template can be easily explained. -- Evertype·✆ 18:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A template sounds good - it could prevent mistakes - but I would be against a template being compulsory. We would have to be careful not to cause more problems that it would solve. Some users may be scared off by a template or may not understand how it works. A "smart" template could alert the user if they made mistakes (e.g. if they had two 2nd preferences or if they had a 1st and 3rd preference but no 2nd preference). We would have to make sure that the template would allow for all possible kinds of votes e.g. vote for only one option, or vote for all options ... or something in between). The template should, IMHO be designed so that it doesn't infer one style of voting or the other.
I think we should bullet point up some requirements for any such template. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Masem should make the template and we can see it. -- Evertype·✆ 08:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there should be any problem counting the votes if everyone lists their choices clearly. FF3000 (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was bored so I did this:
* {{stv-ballot|D=1|C=2|A=3|F=4|~~~~}}
... or ...
* {{stv-ballot|A=3|C=2|D=1|F=4|~~~~}}
... will produce:
D C A F rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "smart" (i.e. doesn't check for spoilt votes). The template is here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope noone "spoils their vote". Either vote or don't vote. Any vote that all of the options aren't numbered should be deleted. FF3000 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should not!!!! It is up to each individual how they vote, not YOU! If I want to vote for just one option, then that is my right! No one should be deciding for me. Fmph (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I remember seeing a photograph in the Times after the (last) Lisbon vote. It was of a ballot paper cast in Co. Donegal. No option was picked, instead - in real old man's writing - was written, "I don't know." To me, that one vote said more than the other 862,414 ballots cast combined. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If only one option is picked then the voting system with a majority of 50%+1 won't work, I think. And this isn't like the Lisbon referendum. This is an online vote so if you don't want to partake, then don't vote instead of wasting space on the page with a "spoiled vote". FF3000 (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT a spoiled vote. If you don't understand how it works, then go and read up. You are talking nonsense. Fmph (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not under normal circumstances, but to ensure the smooth running of this vote, each option should be numbered. Obviously, the options numbered last are the options you disagree with. Also remember hat only one option will be picked, so it's not like an election. FF3000 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elections very often only have 1 option. Think by-election or presidential election. They still run perfectly smoothly under STV WITHOUT any requirement to complete the entire list. I repeat, you are talking nonsense. It is entirely possible to vote for one, or all, or just a select few. It makes no discernible difference. Unless of course you have an real life example which proves me wrong? Fmph (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is different. We won't have ballot papers.
Another question, does the 50%+1 majority include all remaining votes i.e. votes that haven't died away due to lack of numbered options, or does it include all original votes. FF3000 (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've read them and they don't answer my question. FF3000 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...does the 50%+1 majority include all remaining votes..." If any option receives more than 50% of all (unspoiled) votes then it is impossible for any other option to "beat" it (since the best imaginable alternative would only have 50%-1 votes, thus losing by a vote). In a real-life election (e.g. the presidential election), 50%+1 is the point at which a candidate knows that they have won (and so people stop counting and go home).
It is possible that no one reaches 50%+1, if there is a low number of no transfers from eliminated options to more popular ones. In that case, after all possible elimination rounds have been done and all transfers have been made, there will only be one candidate remaining. Even if they have less than 50%+1, they are declared the winner.
For our purposes, we can set a proviso in advance that if the "winning" option doesn't receive 50%+1 of the total (unspoilt) votes cast then we won't accept it as being binding on the community. We could set a higher proviso ... or a lower proviso ... or no such proviso. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do need to make it clear that a completely null vote is assumed you mean that you agree with none of the options. This isn't like a regular paper poll where you're given a piece of paper and a few minutes to figure it out and if it's too complex you simply write nothing on your ballot - in that case here, you simply should choose to not participate. I'd also say that if 50%+1 of the votes are completed null, then we need to reconsider our options and not work off the majority of remaining votes. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is *possible* that the result will be less than 50%+1. Forcing voters to rank *all* of the options in their ballot would prevent that possibility. But what is being solved? If the problem is that a result of less than 50%+1 lack democratic legitimacy then *forcing* people to vote for options they don't want is hardly a solution. Setting a minimum that we would accept as being a *binding* result (e.g. 40%, 50%+1, or 66% etc.) would solve the democratic problem, but would risk that proportion not being reached.
Masem, I don't think that we can count non-transferable ballots as meaning "none of the above". It could just as legitimately mean, "any of the above, I don't mind". A "None of the above" option would be an explicit way for a voter to say, "I want this, that or the other, otherwise none of the above." (An "Any of the above" option would not be workable because the permutations for how to transfer it would be so difficult to calculate.) A person voting using a "None of the above" option would fall into the "null" votes pile. A "None of the above" would also not necessarily have to be the last placed pereference in a ballot. A person could vote, "None of the above, but if 'none of the above' is not going to be the winning option I want my vote to go to such-and-such". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand it, you're suggesting adding a 7th (or whatever) option, "None of the above", which implies that after selecting options they prefer (none if the case) they should then put None as the next preference? (and thus technically, if someone ranks an option below None, that becomes a bad ballot and should be fixed?)
And thus a null ballot is not a None of the Above, just, "I don't care" - so if a voter has a 1st and 2nd pref, both which are eliminated early, their vote is then always group with the current winning option? (Whatever this is, we need to be explicit and careful how people fill votes out, and make it clear leaving options blank means you don't care which wins). --MASEM (t) 19:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have to keep things simple. If people want to suggest another option, let them do it now. Otherwise we could have a thousand different proposals. I don't think "none of the above" should be an option. FF3000 (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem, pretty much except for two things:
1) we would get it for "free" (i.e. we don't have to do anything special when counting it: "none of the above" would just be another option like everything else, "none of the above" might even come out as being the "winning" option)
2) "none of the above" doesn't *have to be* the last ranked option in any ballot, it could be (and more often that not, I suppose, would be) but a person could place "none of the above" higher in their ranking (which would means something like, "None of the above, but if "none of the above" is going to be eliminated as an option then I want my vote to go to such-and-such.").
As for "null" votes, once all possible transfers of any particular ballot are used up, the ballot has no more influence on the outcome of the vote - so it is effectively becomes, "I don't care".
NB: It would still be possible with a "None of the above" option that the "winner" would still get less that 50%+1. That's just how STV works, there's nothin we can do about that except for: a) forcing people to fill in the full ballot or b) add a provisio that unless 50%+1 (or whatever percentage we pick) is achieved by the winner we won't accept the result as binding.
@FF3000, "none of the above" is not a usual option in a vote (I think the Greens have a policy where they want it as an option in Ireland). Normally, it is meaningless (except for expressing dissatisfaction) because, whether you like the candidates before you or not, they are the only candidates and saying "None of the above" is not going to conjure up anymore out of thin air. In our case, "None of the above" has meaning because we (the Wikipedia community) are the ones coming up with the options. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we've had months of discussion! A thousand different options could be proposed but we have to get this over with and choose an option. FF3000 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a good argument against having a "none of the above" option and not having a "proviso" of 50%+1. The counter argument is that doing so might force an unpopular decision on the community. (To be honest, I would be willing to bet money that even with a "none of the above" and a "proviso" a ballot will result in a "winner" - and have greater legitimacy because of them ... but there is always the chance.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if the community once it’s advertised across wiki reject it, saying polling is not an acceptable solution? On the polling options, editors like me are currently excluded because we have no option listed to object to polling. This is not the same as an editor who "spoils their vote" and is a valid option. --Domer48'fenian' 15:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a none of the above option, which results in coming back to the debate to try and reach consensus. If that option was to win however it would mean the country article would remain at Republic of Ireland for a lot longer and im not convinced when it comes to the vote itself if people will be prepared to boycott it or waste their vote in that way. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Domer48You are not excluded. You are choosing to exclude yourself. You object to the poll. That's your perogative. Don't expect the rest of us to wait around until you change your mind. Fmph (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A very valid issue. It is why I think it is important to have the opportunity to "spoil you vote" by casting a comment.
More practically, has anyone gone back to ArbCom with this proposal? Or is Masem's backing good enough? I know Bastun has pointed out below that they did say "consensus or a majority" but we should get their blessing before running a poll. Like the Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation, ArbCom overrule "normal" policy so ArbCom's sign-off would copper-fasten the genuine concern that this is a vote and not consensus.
Masem, I don't get what you mean by a "null" vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It means that if no votes are fully numbered, the votes of elimanated options can't be distributed and therefore the voting system of 50%+1 can't work. FF3000 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get you. (Read what I wrote above starting, "The 'quota' doesn't matter.") Ordinarily, after all possible transfers have been made and still no option has 50%+1 then the option with a plurality is declared the "winner". If we insist that - for our purposes - a winner must have 50%+1 we are tacking an extra proviso on top of normal STV. This "proviso" doesn't have to be set at 50%+1, it can be any proportion (higher or lower).
I would be in favour of setting a higher "proviso" (something like 66%) because it would give a binding agreement a greater legitimacy. But, of course, the higher we set it, the less likely we are to reach it. I think 50%+1 would be easily reached in a ballot with 6 or more options ... and I certainly think that if the "winning" option did not achieve it then it would have no legitimacy as a binding solution.
No matter what, I think it would be best to run the count until all transfers are exhausted (past 50%+1) so that we can see the proportion of people who had a preference for the winning candidate (ideally this would be in the region of 80-90%, but maybe that's a pipe dream).
Did I get you right?
BTW, what is the situation with ArbCom? Have they given this ballot the OK? Do they need to? Their official sanctioning of it would be of benefit IMHO. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am double checking with ArbCom. I personally feel the STV poll, given that this community brought the idea themselves and have been developing the poll themselves (with some hopefully-helpful nudging by the moderators), means that it is an acceptable replacement for a normal discussion-driven consensus - however, we'll verify if ArbCom has a say in it. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a normal discussion-driven consensus, a poll can not be described as an acceptable replacement. The poll was put forward as the only solution IMO, and is based foremost on the strength of numbers in the absence of strong arguments. We have had circular arguements, repetitious arguments but none of it source based. When has any editor been challenged to support their assertions? I can’t concede that Wikipedia has failed in its ability to deal with a content dispute. So again, show us were this normal discussion-driven consensus was attempted? --Domer48'fenian' 19:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been plenty of source-based discussion, starting with the Statements (not all of them, but there's enough sources there to support a number of different naming schemes. But because the whole of the group cannot agree towards even one direction, the agreement to vote is the next best step in resolution. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: The statement process
"The statement process is the first step in gathering facts, findings and opinions regarding the naming of Ireland-related articles, and will be in the form of a non-rebuttal debate. Editors can post statements in which they plead their case for one of the proposed solutions above, or formulate a solution of their own. Other editors can either endorse or oppose these statements, but may not enter into discussion. The only way to 'argue' is to create a statement of your own, which others will endorse or oppose."
So what was "The statement process"? Yes! Another Poll, just like were having now. --Domer48'fenian' 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the part of the process that they never got round to:
Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments, moderators will use the pyramid to the right.
Sorry, the Statements is not a normal discussion-driven consensus! I'll provide you one example, just one to illustrate my point. Republic of Ireland used as the nation-state of Ireland is out of contention considering the overwhelming evidence which prevents its use. I would suggest that our policies of WP:V and in particular WP:NPOV would also prevent us using this option. Were was this challanged? Were was this overwhelming evidence which prevents its use challanged! --Domer48'fenian' 19:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the the Statements, I provided editors the opportunity to put forward the Links that support “The term "Ireland" is ambiguous” to determine the level of ambiguity I received only three examples, all of which could be challenged. Fourteen Editors rejected my statement and only three references provided. Based on consensus and the strength of argument what would your view of this be? Since then, as illustrated above the number of sources to support my Statement has more than doubled. Because the whole of the group cannot agree towards even one direction, we have to decide by the quality and quantity of sources based on both verifiability and neutral point of view would that not be a normal discussion-driven consensus! There was no one there to do that, the three moderators walked off. --Domer48'fenian' 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out what ArbCom remedy #1 is: The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement. ArbCom basically has said that if you want to avoid Remedy #2 coming into place, to select some means - which I read from the avoid to include a vote or poll since it calls for "majority view" - to resolve this. Consensus did not work before the ArbCom, during the ArbCom, or the first few months off this project - it is not suddenly going to work now.
Now, I do agree with you that all solutions should be within WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV - "Ireland (magical happy land)" is completely unacceptable. But I've read through the statements, and every naming scheme that's been proposed of late and currently being considered for the poll is backed by sources and is neither NOR or NPOV - the problem is that the sources are conflicting. At that point, we turn to WP's ultimate rule: Ignore all rules. We need to consider all these options since no single one is obviously better than the others. We also have to use common sense - we are never going to find a source that says "Ireland as a name is equally ambiguous between the island and the country", but common sense tells us it clearly is otherwise the naming issue would have been resolved months ago. Given that many members of this project are agreeing to the STV poll, it may not be the most desirable path in normal Wiki-venues, but it is both an acceptable path and the path of least resistance that will end this dispute once and for all. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what was this, "ArbCom has received an e-mail from Masem forwarding your question and considers Remedy#1 still valid." Now the very same editors who ignored the "Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments" I mentioned above and just focused on a vote, are the very same editors of this project who are agreeing to the STV poll! Now please show us were this normal discussion-driven consensus was attempted? Because all you have done to date is say that you have read through the statements, and every naming scheme that's been proposed of late and currently being considered for the poll is backed by sources and is neither NOR or NPOV and I'm saying your wrong. I offered you one example above to illustrate the point and you ignored it. I've provide an alternative process that would "be within WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV" and you ignored it. You have not considered all the options, and its your opinion that we are never going to find a source that says "Ireland as a name is equally ambiguous between the island and the country" and your wrong on that also. Your path of least resistance, quick fix is based on nothing more than numbers. An example of your intrest in anything other than a poll is when you said above, on my first proposal "I will say that if you want to make a subpage of this project for a proposal, that's fine - but you better state that you are doing this here, otherwise, as happens here, it looks like a submarine attack on the process and thus disruptive." Problem was I did state what I was doing, I started a whole section, which you missed. Now is Remedy#1 still valid per ArbCom or not? --Domer48'fenian' 23:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the issues raised above but with all of the other points made it appears to of been overlooked and nobody has commented, its something that we need to ensure is sorted well before the vote begins.
Is there just going to be the wording in the vote itself, or will there be statements / explanations on each of the options so those who come from outside this dispute can know all the facts. If there is to be some statement (i think it should be bullet points rather than a long statement) so its simple to understand, there really should be negative points as well. So we can explain to people why some feel the country article shouldnt be at Ireland or Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather the arguments be left off, actually -- some of the pro or con arguments are going to look really stupid, and I'd rather not prejudice the results that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Generally agreed on the need for bullet points. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Position_argument_summaries would seem to be an obvious starting point? (Incidentally, would you mind moving this section up to the "proper" section above, so all discussion on each subtopic happens in the one place? This page is getting very unwieldy... ) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments
Sarek - remember a lot of people are likely to coming to this issue completely "fresh" and may not appreciate the sometimes subtle differences between options. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the sort of method on that link, Argument, counter argument, summary seems very reasonable. On moving the post back up to the top i will if needed, but i wanted to make a new section to draw attention to this point because so far nobody else posted on it, it seemed to of got lost in all of the other points like voting / advertising and yet this is something that we need a heads up on as quickly as possible so agreement can be reached on wording of such statements if they are to exist. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As regards #Position argument summaries above, I think the arguments and counter arguments are well stated, but I feel that several (not all) of the summaries are biased towards either the pros or the cons. I think it would be better just to present the pros and cons, and allow voters to draw their own conclusions. Scolaire (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's very difficult to summarise beyond a quick statement of the pros and of the cons. And in each and every case, both the pros and cons can be backed up by verifiable, reliable sources; the reason we're here is that those sources conflict with each other. Hopefully we'll be keeping the pro and con sections short, so they'll already be summarised about as far as they reasonably can be. — ras52 (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we not first assess the validity of arguments, rather than promoting each option. This just opens up the whole issue again. We know what editors positions (POV's) are, lets policy test them before we present them to the community.
Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments,--Domer48'fenian' 07:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The validity of arguments is what the community will be deciding on when they partake in the poll. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they will not, they be presented with a mix of POV options and asked to pick. The validity of arguments is what the community should have addressed before the options were put forward. --Domer48'fenian' 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it should come for time to vote
Remember, this is the Summer Holiday period and we in Ireland/Eire/RoI take them damn seriously - so lots of notice please; the fact that I'm not saying anything here doesn't mean I'm not interested. Same would apply to several others I know of. Sarah777 (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Consensus seems to be for a twothree-week voting period, with ample advertising of the poll (at minimum, the various Irish/British noticeboards and hopefully a watchlist hatnote), including specifically notifying users who've previously been involved and/or those listed at the Arbcom case. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's fair to notify users about the poll only if the poll is about to close and they haven't cast a vote yet. They will be contacted both on their talk page and by e-mail, where applicable. FF3000 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I favour a three-week voting period, as did Masem. -- Evertype·✆ 18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 weeks sounds good in my view too. Maybe we should have a 1 or 2 week "advertising" period too? (The actual ballot page could be locked but questions, etc. could be discussed on the talk page during th tperiod?). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three weeks seems good. Sarah777 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sub pages of the Ireland project (part 2)
Again i would like to complain about the disgusting and offensive treatment taking place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Domer48's proposal for Ireland Article. There is a vote ongoing there which could be used to justify scrapping all of the above mentioned plans for a STV vote. As thats the case can REAL moderators please take action and stop Domer from acting like a dictator and deleting peoples comments or points which challange his position. It is resulting in people removing their vote because they dont want to be part of such a joke. This is unacceptable BritishWatcher (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have put together a proposal which I hope will move this discussion forward. I’m actively looking for the support of the community in this effort. While editors are welcome to participate, based on previous discussions I have place a number of guidelines on the proposal which are designed to prevent disruption, keep the discussion on topic and provide an environment conducive to rational and reasonable discussion. As this proposal is a work in progress which I will be placing before the community as a formal process, I will moderate the discussion according to the guidelines outlined on the proposal, however, if one or all of the moderators wish to adopt the process (this should not been seen as an endorsement of the proposal) it would be very welcome. The guidelines must be viewed as part of the process, and will themselves form part of the final proposal. I have placed my rational behind the proposal on the proposal page which is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Domer48's proposal for Ireland Article.
Editors my like to read this discussion here, as it illustrates how Wiki policies are the only solution to this content dispute. --Domer48'fenian' 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i posted the wrong link there appears to be two ongoing votes in different locations, this is a mess and very confusing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/proposal for Ireland Article. Im complaining about both of the pages i have mentioned because they are being run by a dictator but especially about the removal of my comment on the one i just listed. Oh i should of said its being held in 4 places because the votes / comments appear to being made on both the main page / talk page on each making matters even worse. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the policies there are, not to add spurious uncited claims. Those are the rules there, pity we don't have them here. Tfz 20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish you cant just remove any comment you dont like, i clearly said i will provide sources if you really need them. This type of censorship is unacceptable, especially as the votes on there are going to try to be used to justify ending the above agreements on STV. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remove comments I don't like, I remove unsorced and unreferenced opinions. Do you have a problem with our policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:RS? --Domer48'fenian' 21:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with an unelected "Moderator" dictating terms on this projects subpages. If it was on ur userspace ofcourse you can do what you like, but its not. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A simple question, do you have a problem with our policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:RS? Yes or No? --Domer48'fenian' 21:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support those policies for articles on wikipedia. I do not support those policies being used to impose censorship on talk pages and leading to removal of reasonable comments by unelected moderators. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guidlines are included and are part of the proposal. They are to prevent disruption, and provide a forum for reasoned and informed discussion. They are based on our policies and guidlines of WP:V and WP:RS. Now you can support or oppose and don't have to comment. However, if you do comment you are required to support your comments with references. Otherwise, like this discussion page all you get is POV, bias, and unsupported opinion. You are also able to comment on the process/proposal on the talk page. You can challange the sources I provide, but again it must be informed and based on supporting sources. The only ones to date to complain are the editors who have added opinions which are not supported by references, and which do not address the proposal itself. That the discussions are free from the type of comments/POV/bias and opinions expressed on this discussion has proved it point. --Domer48'fenian' 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me where it says YOU have the authority to impose such restrictions on a wikiproject page. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting both a proposal and a process. Now you accept the policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, so I impose no restrictions other than what the wikiproject imposes on all of us, that is the process. I implement, that is I put into practice policies which we all accept, so I reference and source all my comments. My proposal is referenced and sourced per our policies, is it not reasonable to ask editors for the same. --Domer48'fenian' 22:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but we do not have to provide verifiable sources to make posts on talk pages, that only applies to articles. On this wikiproject, there was consensus early on that the moderators would have a right to remove any content they deemed unacceptable, i fail to see where people gave you the authority to remove content from that wikiproject subpage. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If one or both of the proposals were to have consensus, would they need approval at this Collobration page? GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BritishWatcher, I have explained my proposal and the process. As part of the process yes you do have to provide WP:verifiable sources. This whole issue is a content dispute. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. I provided referenced sources to support my proposal, you have not. So you reject both the process and the proposal, fine. Nothing more needs to be said. GoodDay, what I'd like is for the Collobration page to accept the process first off, and secondly, to test all the suggestions put forward for the poll per our policies. Consensus can be reached with this process because it would remove all the POV/bias that has bogged down this discussion. The policies of the project do work, we just need someone with the intrest of the project first to apply them. --Domer48'fenian' 23:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay - of course they would need approval at this page! Problem is, it won't arise, because Domer is treating the pages like a personal fiefdom even though he's not a moderator, so people are refusing to participate. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but im still waiting for someone to tell me when u were given the authority to remove any comment you dont like or dictate the terms of what is and isnt acceptable on this wikiproject sub pages. You are not a moderator! I also note u dont appear to be removing certain comments by those agreeing with ur proposal despite them not providing sources either for some of their claims.
Again i seek input from a real moderator on this matter. Does Domer (whos not even signed up as a member of this project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Member_list) have the right to impose such radical restrictions on a page that is not in his own area. He seeks to have the planned STV mentioned above cancelled and his own proposal adopted instead, yet he refuses to let people challange him on these matters there resulting in people removing their vote (which will end up stacking the vote the way he wants). BritishWatcher (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun; Domer's "rules" seem pretty basic and straightforward - I cannot see why anyone should be "put off" from participating. You weren't! Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a parlour game to lighten the mood around here and boost participation in Domer's proposal. I suggest that everyone should participate, but here is the fun part: should Domer "moderate" one of your comments per some "policy" of his choosing, you get to select any one of his comments somewhere else in Wikipedia space and "moderate" that in return. To be fair, you may only choose a comment of his that lacks citations, makes a sweeping claim or generalises. (You might think these are hard to find, but since you get to choose what qualifies, it really couldn't be easier). You might be concerned about your ability to "moderate" fairly. However, all you need to do is read what he wrote, than change it so it now says what you want it to say. Bingo! You're done "moderating". Feel free to not tell Domer which of his comments you have "moderated", and await the hilarity that will ensue when he later returns to the page to find that his comments have been fucked about with so that they no longer say what he intended. Don't worry about getting reverted, because you are allowed to edit other's comments as you see fit so long as you anoint yourself as The Moderator in advance. Who wants to go first? Rockpocket 02:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao thank you Rockpocket, that is the first time ive been able to laugh about this issue over the past few days. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per ArbCom, "The community [thats us] is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism [the process] for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles [the proposal]. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures [Wiki policies] for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement."
Now look at Rocks latest attempt at sarcasm, this is coming from an Admin one of two who edit warred on the process/proposal to cause disruption. Rockpocket an Admin, edit warred [11][12] to keep their snide remarks in ignoring the block on the page to again to insert them. Saying they were not aware the page had been protected. However they also said "even if [they] had known it was protected [they] would have still made the edit." Adding then "once the page is unprotected [they'll] be withdrawing both [their] !vote and [their] comments" show how hollow their arguements were. Why did they not just use their Admin tools again to remove them, why wait for the unblock, when the block did not stop them putting them back in?
Likewise SarekOfVulcan edit warred on the talk page to put comments back in: [13], [14], [15], and on the proposal page, [16], [17] and then protecting the page which Rock ignored. It is wrong for an Admin to use their tools in an edit war, they were warned about this already so they know they should not have been the one to protect the page.
Rock went a step further however and attempted to "encourage everyone else" into withdrawing their vote, and so scupper my attempt to move things forward. Now having been ask by ArbCom to try come up with a process and a proposal, and having made the attempt I have an Admin being actively disruptive and trying now with sarcasm to do what they could not do with policies. Sad really, but one only has to consider what the response of moderators would be if I actively tried to prevent their proposal?
If you read this discussion here editors will see the comments I removed, and notice how most of them were from Editors who supported the proposal. The most telling of all though, is the editors who have been the most active here, are less so on the proposal page, would that have something to do with being asked to back up their opinions with references? I will continue to moderate the discussion according to the guidelines outlined on the proposal, however, if one or all of the moderators wish to adopt the process (this should not been seen as an endorsement of the proposal) it would be very welcome. The guidelines must be viewed as part of the process, and will themselves form part of the final proposal. --Domer48'fenian' 08:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Domer, you're just going to have to accept that events have overtaken you, and be content that your proposal is one of the options in the community-wide poll which the members of this project have supported. -- Evertype·✆ 08:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The community [thats us] is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism [the process] for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles [the proposal]."
Yes. And the community has been discussing it - since December '08. "Consensus or majority view". The consensus and majority view of 75% of the participants here of late is that we will use a community-wide STV poll. End of. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get back on track
There seems to be a few different discussions taking place.
Where to advertise the vote?
Should the voters be provided with statements
Domer48 also seems to be trying to work on a different solution
I think instead of all this arguing we should decide
Do we just want to advertise in areas directly involved with the subject (Ireland, NI, UK) or do we want to include other areas. If we do include other areas is this not just going to lead to more arguments ("if Spain is included why can't I add Mexico" "if China is included why can't I add Vietnam".....)
If we are going to provide statements to the voters, is this just going to lead to more arguments about what to include in the statements?
Should Domer48's proposal continue to be even discussed when we are 6 months into the process and the moderator has decided that there is no chance of consensus?76.118.224.35 (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per ArbCom: "ArbCom has received an e-mail from Masem forwarding your [Domer48] question and considers Remedy#1 still valid." Moderators are currently looking for consensus on the method of their poll, the type of options, who can and can't vote, were it should be advertised etc... So my proposal / process is still a valid alternative. That this approch has never been attempted is something positive, that it is policy based, is positive and that to date it has prevented the type of disruption that has been the hall mark of the above discussion is positive. The poll in my mind is just a collection of editors personal POV's not one of which has been tested against our policies. Which ever POV is the most popular wins! That is not the way this project works. --Domer48'fenian' 08:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noone's really arguing, 78... things are being thrashed out and good progress is being made. We've even got consensus on some of the things that need to be decided - even to the point of me and Sarah777 agreeing with each other. The points you've made are perfectly valid, but why are you trying to split the discussion across yet another subsection? Please contribute in the relevant subsections above. If I want to contribute to the "advertising" question, for instance, I don't want to have to do it in its subsection above and down here, where you've mixed it in with two other topics. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This poll has not yet been put before the community and various projects. What if the community once it’s advertised across wiki reject it, saying polling is not an acceptable solution? On the polling options, editors like me are currently excluded because we have no option listed to object to polling. The community, like ArbCom may view this as a content dispute and request that our policies be applied to the various POV’s to see if they are supported by verifiable and reliable sources. They might want them tested to see if they conform to our policy of neutral point of view. We already know the use of Republic of Ireland being used for the name of the Irish State is against WP:NPOV, and very much documented with verifiable and reliable sources. It is however being presented as an option. Is it possible then that my proposal might be considered an alternative? --Domer48'fenian' 09:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RoI should not be an option, re Domer above. It does not withstand the "acid test" of verifiable, reliable sources (and not Wikipedia). Wikipedia must act in concert within professional standards if it's ever to be taken seriously by lecturers and students alike. Tfz 22:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I caught a news ticker on the BBC World News broadcast the other night referring to Republic of Ireland. Canterbury Tailtalk 02:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC have always called it that. They also seem to like to call the Netherlands "Holland". Neither are correct.MITH 09:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't, that's the whole point. Any academics that I talk to in the UK or the US have nothing but disdain for it...I wonder why? --De Unionist (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really Canterbury, what a catch! The queen of England will be amused. lol Tfz 11:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) This was on a ferry in Canada as well. Never said it was correct, just that it's used by something usually considered as a reliable source. Canterbury Tailtalk 15:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Poll on Ireland (xxx)
OK, everybody, thanks for the input above. I am now putting the bullet list together which Masem said he wanted to ballot. I have seven items on it, in alphabetical order: country, nation, republic, Republic of, sovereign country, sovereign state, state,. Here is how I ranked them. I placed them in alphabetical order as you see, and then went to http://www.random.org/sequences/ and generated a random sequence of 1-7. The sequence I got was 1546273 so that is the order I have put them in the list. I have also given a summary source rationale, which I believe to be neutral. Please see the draft poll at User:Evertype/sandbox -- Evertype·✆ 10:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me too. How many winners do you propose to select? Just one? Three per Masem's earlier suggest? One further comment: much as I like the idea of blocking for 12 months anyone caught fiddling the election, do we actually have the authority to do that? Masem has, per this (formally enacted) Arbitration Committee case amendment, the ability to unilaterally ban anyone from this WikiProject for up to one month. But that's all I'm aware of. — ras52 (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Results of the vote are final and binding for a period of two years" is confusing, as all we are picking is what option(s) will appear on the final ballot? Apart from that, I think it looks fine. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three winners seems too many, doesn't it? Because it makes the main poll much longer, I say we pick two winners, reserving the right to go with one only or choose a third depending on how the poll goes. Regarding the blocking provisions, these were pasted in unchanged by e from Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll which I took as a template. And I didn't edit the Results of the vote section; I was concentrating on getting the choices down and getting neutral wikilinks to material which can assist people in understanding the choices. -- Evertype·✆ 11:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like. What is the end-date for this? I think running it as a "two- maybe three-seater" is reasonable - but I imagine that whatever the result people will want the third one included. Doing it that way would allow us to better understand STV anyway - and we could all take part in the calculating process, so it's a good "dry run" for the *BIG* ballot.
RE: "You are not obliged to give a weight to any of the options that you do not wish to support at all; it is easiest to leave the number as zero, i.e. Z=0." I'd put this onto a seperate line. and rephrase it to something like, "You do not have to express a preference for all of the option" (or probably better wording that you can think of). Technically, also we are not giving weights. Also I'd change "... that you do not wish to support ..." something like "... that you do not wish to support (or have no preference about)..." since not ranking a preference means that 1. your ballot won't go to supporting it, 2. your ballot might not go against it either. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making changes which are more or similar to what you've proposed. I'm editing this section here and will say when I've saved the changes to the poll. -- Evertype·✆ 15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it (Republic of), surely it would just be (Republic)? MickMacNee (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get bogged down discussing trivial details. Stick "Ireland (Republic)" in as an addition if you must, but it's unncessary to discuss each option in detail. They key thing is to hold a quick vote on all the options and get it over and done with. DrKiernan (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support having both Ireland (republic) and Ireland (Republic). Please let us not make this more farcical than necessary. -- Evertype·✆ 15:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I was thinking more like "Germany (Federal Republic of)" or "Netherlands (Kingdom of)". The monarchy of the United Kingdom is something else. I suppose the UK equivalent would be "Great Britain and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom of)" ... a bit of a mouthful! But I don't expect "Ireland (Republic of)" to poll so highly so don't worry about it.
We should put "Ireland (Republic" in there too. In fact, the whole caboodle of alternatives. We've discussed them all to death by now anyway. And the more options in this poll the better. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The options above are better as they also deal with the name for the island. This proposed poll doesn't. And we won't have "Ireland (Republic of)" as the title of the article if that option wins. It'll be "republic of Ireland". FF3000 (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've misunderstood. This is the pre-poll to decide on which "Ireland (xxx)" option is presented in the main poll not the main poll itself. DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh now I understand. FF3000 (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, people. Republic of Ireland is already the cause of this. I do not want to sit here editing and editing and adding and adding a whole caboodle of alternatives. I have put in all of the ones that have been proposed so far. Let us, I beg you, have done. -- Evertype·✆ 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting only a simple (non-STV) poll asking each person here to list the three terms they thing are best for the (xxx) part of the disambiguated country, and then using the three terms (possibly four if there's a tie) that were selected the most often as the choices in the community poll. There's no need to get to a detailed STV vote for this. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's just as well we use STV for this. Good practice for us. How long should this poll be? Two weeks? One week? Masem, please understand that if we had ONE winner from this poll, that would lead to three options in the main poll. Two winners gives us six options. Three winners gives us nine options. Four winners would give us twelve options. For my part I would rather not see so many options on the main poll. -- Evertype·✆ 15:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the draft. I cut the socking punishment to one month as discussed above. -- Evertype·✆ 16:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the reasoning for this poll, the problem is that the question of what "(xxx)" is cannot be asked seperately on a community wide poll since it's possible one may prefer "Ireland (state)" over "Republic of Ireland" but also "Republic of Ireland" over "Ireland (nation)" (for an example). As there's three options on the main poll that have "Ireland (xxx)" as a possible option, that means every option we give for "(xxx)" will be repeated three times, so we can't have all the options. My proposal was to have a brief poll here and only here (within the naming project) to establish the likely best three choices for what "(xxx)" is, which would result in 15 options total for the poll. It wasn't meant to be a long or elaborate poll and it would have been done before the main poll was started (like, as planned, on Sunday). The community would still be left to pick among the top three "(xxx)" options. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If I had read"? This page is pretty long. I understand what you are saying. I think 9 is too many. I think 6 is better. 12 is certainly too many. That's why I've said we'll pick 2 options unless there's significant support for a third. Maybe it's likely we go for a third but I thought it would be good to be able to aim for 6 even if we end up with 9. OK? -- Evertype·✆ 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I initially thought, like Masem, that a single first-(few)-past-the-post vote was sufficient here. But I think there's merit to Evertype's suggestion of using STV simply to get practice with it. If we're going to have an argument about how to interpret the results of the STV vote, far better to have it with this (relatively) insignificant poll rather than later with the real poll when the whole world and his dog are watching. STV would also reduce the likelihood of a tie. As to the duration of this preliminary poll, I'd say a week is more than adequate if we let the top three options through. And I think Masem is right to want to allow three options through — this really is just an initial filter to dispose of the options with insignificant real support. (Minor correction, Evertype: if we allow three winners through, the final community poll will twelve options, assuming the version in Rannṗáirtí's sandbox is up-to-date. A, D and E don't involve an Ireland (xxx) article.) —ras52 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only B, C, and F do, so three options = 9. I agree, a week is fine. Shall I move it to a subpage over here and start the poll? -- Evertype·✆ 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... so that's A, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, C3, D, E, F1, F2, F3 which is more than I can count without taking my socks off. :-) —ras52 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But if that goes on for a week will it delay the starting of the actual vote? FF3000 ·talk 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what this group seems to want to do, there is no problem delaying the start of my proposed schedule to include this. If we do do this, I recommend having *this* poll completed by July 1, with the new schedule then pushed back a week for all other aspects. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shall be bold and make it so then. -- Evertype·✆ 17:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading in your opinion. Please stop being so pedantic on insisting on sources for the obvious. It's not an article, its a poll. If anyone does want to find the sources for anything Evertype wrote, such as why "Ireland (Republic)" might be an option for them, all they have to do is click on the links he provided and see the sources there. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have indicated above the venues where I have announced this poll. -- Evertype·✆ 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you cannot impose sanctions on other editors based on your say, and you have no authority to decide upon a blocking term for an offense based on your say so. Also voting isn't how to resolve things on Wikipedia, consensus is. Saying if someone canvases makes what they say irrelevant isn't right, and isn't enforceable since what someone says carries weight, what someone votes doesn't. Canterbury Tailtalk 19:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will be for the ArbCom moderator to decide who gets a 30-day ban if the rules (which are clear and which HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED above) are breached. Obviously I myself have no such powers. The text was agreed. Unless you're planning to breach the rules and hoping not to get caught, I don't see why you should be concerned. Assume good faith please. This is a step forward. -- Evertype·✆
Will the Arbcom moderators please say if this poll is a part of the process or not? I've been busy for the last fortnight and have not really followed the detail, but an official sounding announcement appeared on my talk page so I voted. If its not sanctioned then I will withdraw it. --SnowdedTALK 19:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh nooo, everytime I 'vote' at something concerning this topic, my vote ends up null & void. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem has indicated just above that this is the way that we are getting some answers which will help us put the REAL poll out there. This is only to winnow down the number of choices on the final ballot to a manageable number. Please look it over. You will see nothing sinister, and if you look above you will see a number of people from all sides who are satisfied with the content of this poll. -- Evertype·✆ 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page BigDunc asked me:
"What criteria did you use for the editors you chose or were they cheerypicked to notify of the poll? BigDuncTalk 20:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. First please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Proposed_locations_for_advertising_of_poll which tells you who I notified. I notified a number of non-superfluous related artiicles, in which editors of both "sides" participate. I notified the Ireland, Northern Ireland, and UK noticeboards. And I notified, as a formality, those editors who were listed in the ArbCom case, without regard to who they were. (I even informed myself.) If there is another, subsequent, list of relevent people please point me to it. Thanks, BigDunc. I trust that this will help us to get to a resolution. -- Evertype·✆ 20:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype you say the text was agreed, however in that discussion above you say "I shall be bold and make it so then." --Domer48'fenian' 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem had just said that he wanted this to go out in a week and end on 1 July. I don't believe I have acted improperly. I do believe that a poll is now there which allows you, if you wish, to express your preferences. -- Evertype·✆ 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the list, and you notified some editors who are not on the list, and failed to notify some of the editors who were, why is that? --Domer48'fenian' 20:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that list. It was not listed in the area on this page above which I used to send out the notices. There is nothing sinister going on. Please do not ask questions aggressively. -- Evertype·✆ 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've not asked questions "aggressively" you said the text was agreed and I pointed out that you were just being Bold. The list you used was from the ArbCom case, and not from Ireland Collaboration, some of those involved have never even commented here, did you not find that even a little strange? --Domer48'fenian' 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your tag line "Why is that?" seems needlessly harsh and critical. Your use of the word "failed" seems to suggest that I have done something wrong. -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype having been informed by Canterbury Tail above that "you cannot impose sanctions on other editors based on your say, and you have no authority to decide upon a blocking term for an offense based on your say so" you are still posting the notice on Editors talk pages? --Domer48'fenian' 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have ALREADY SAID that I would not be making any decisions or determinations about who gets blocked or for how long. I do not have the power to do that. I never said I did. It will be up to the moderators of this project to determine whether there have been breaches of the rules. The RULES are laid out clearly. No sock puppets, no meat puppets, no ballot stuffing. I am QUITE SURE that Masem will not look favourably on such behaviour. If the rules are breached, they will be able to make whatever sanction is permitted them. -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted them too but I take no heed of the warnings as blanket blocks are up to admins. BigDuncTalk 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please exercise your intelligence. I cannot block. I can however state the rules for the ballot which have been discussed for the main ballot as well. It will be up for the project admins to decide if the rules have been breached. But the rule are no canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry. Do you agree with these rules? If so, why are you complaining? If you are planning to breach the rules, don't complain if an Admin sanctions you. Clear? -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit rich Evertype. Where is my notification? Behaving like untrained poll-cats, are we? Also you voted first just to get your bias in the lede. Sheese!!! Tfz 21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is "a bit rich"? Are you on one of the lists that I informed? I informed one list which you were not on. THen another list was pointed out to me and both BigDunc and I send out messages. Were you on that list? If you are and did not receive a notice, it was an oversight. -- Evertype·✆ 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked. Your name does not appear on either of those lists. That is why you were not informed. My vote being on the top means nothing. Should I have anticipated your scorn and waited? Who the hell cares? People vote what they want. My bias? To hell with my bias. I voted first. If you had done the work to put this together, you might have voted first. By the way it is spelt "Sheesh" not "Sheese". I can't believe the bad faith. I really can't. "Untrained poll-cats"? That is uncivil. Perhaps Masem will take notice. Perhaps you will apologize for your incivility. -- Evertype·✆ 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, your "lede" bit is really out of line. I went to some effort to randomize the order of the items in the list, for FAIRNESS, and also described the process I used to come to that. Whence your hostility? -- Evertype·✆ 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way, since your name isn't on any of the lists, I'm not going to send you a notice, because if I did, I would have to trawl through this entire project looking for people who did not get the notice. Not my responsibility. And this one isn't even the real poll. -- Evertype·✆ 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype you said I asked questions "aggressively" which I did not, and now you are being uncivil. The wording was not agreed above like you said, you were being BOLD. The was no agreement on the comments under each option either, which are to say the least misleading. Spotting these things did not exercise my intelligence, but putting forward a flawed and misleading poll is raises questions about yours. --Domer48'fenian' 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem said he wanted a week-long poll on this, and Masem said he wanted it to end on 1 July. The only way to do that was to post it today. I had edited it. Was someone else supposed to do it? -- Evertype·✆ 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is it you want, Domer? Do not have this poll which is only a minor preliminary poll in advance of the community wide poll? Is that why you are grousing? -- Evertype·✆ 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not answer my questions! --Domer48'fenian' 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What questions? -- Evertype·✆ 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only suggested this poll to help set up the options for the others. There was some agreement for it, but I wasn't expecting it to be started as fast as it was. Furthermore, it was only meant to be limited to this project - this is not the community poll that has been talked about for the STV. And definitely with something like this, one can't stipulate penalities or the like for socking or such (I think I'll need to check what the STV poll has listed there, as any usual violations of socking or the like should be dealt with by normal means and not specially called out). While I appreciate Evertype's boldness to move it forward, I think there just needed to be a bit more discussion about it to make sure that's the way to resolve what "(xxx)" choices were to appear on the main STV poll. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, you said you wanted a 7-day poll that ended 1 July. I posted this at 1900, since there were only 5 hours left to let that time schedule happen. It is now 22:45, so there is 1:15 left in order to give you your 7-day window and end on 1 July. I know this is not the community poll, but it did not seem to me that is should only be limited to the few people who visit this page. Do what you want with it. I guess your choices are to cancel it or it let it run. If you cancel it, we're just going to have to run it again anyway. The VOTING looks to be within expected parameters. You are going to have to make the executive decision here. But I suspect that cancelling it and re-enstating it with a few insubstantial modifications won't help this project all that much. -- Evertype·✆ 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have 19 ballots cast between 18:01 and 21:29, including many active members of this project. -- Evertype·✆ 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested (not said) that we end it by the 1st to give us a few days to keep to the week-pushed-forward schedule (eg starting STV polling on the 5th). As the vote wasn't meant to be a community-wide aspect at this point - only a means to limit what choices were to go on the STV poll since all choices would be impractical - it wasn't a demand to start the poll right away as I think we were still trying to make sure it made sense. I don't recommend stopping it - it's in progress, but the way you approached it boldly is probably a bit heavy (given the response from others); again, it was meant to be informal and thus issuing warnings about banning and the like was probably out of place. I strongly recommended that, presuming nothing changes the July 5th proposed starting date for the poll that either we decide who will announce it across the approved areas (listed above) (it doesn't have to be me that posts it, but let's make sure everyone agrees abou this). and what that announcement will contain. I appreciate the move to try to keep this effort going to find a resolution but let's not messy it up by jumping too fast. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between "suggested" and "said" is a bit beyond subtle, and I think can only be differentiated by means of mind-reading. Having said that... the section on sanctions and all I took directly from Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. I didn't make it up on my own (though I dialled down "ban for a year" to "ban for a month" which I saw was confirmed an option (somewhere on this page). If the section on sanctions is really all that objectionable, it had better be addressed with regard to Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. -- Evertype·✆ 07:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask a question about this? Am I correct in my interpretation that all these are proposed titles for the article about the state (i.e. the one currently at Republic of Ireland). I have heard it suggested that Ireland (country) or Ireland (nation) could be used as the title on an article for the entire Island (the one currently at Ireland). Before I express my preference, I just want to make sure I know what articles these titles are being proposed for. Thanks. Rockpocket 00:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was only supposed to be for what the "(xxxx)" in "Ireland (xxxx)" would be should that be the option of where to move the 26 county country to. This has no impact on the other possible naming schemes (including if the option to have one article about all things Ireland (island and country)). --MASEM (t) 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thats great. Thanks. Rockpocket 00:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a new Moderator here
Masen, have you given some extra rights to Everytype, because he seems out of controal!! Tfz 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have claimed no "extra rights". Nor have I done anything to harm you, or this project, or the Wikipedia. I have set out rules for this poll which are not unreasonable, and which are on the list for the main poll. I didn't invent them. I don't have the power to enforce them either. But I am within my rights to announce them. If you violate the rules, and an admin sanctions you, you can appeal. Easier to avoid violating them, though. -- Evertype·✆ 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering spoiling my vote, or not voting at all. Btw pollcat(pun) was collective, I said "we". Tfz 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you want. I don't know what would satisfy you. It's a few hours into the poll and plenty of people seem happy to vote in it.
Evertype you have put forward wording that was not agreed too, and said it was. You attached comments to the poll options which were not agreed to and are totally misleading and based on nothing more than WP:OR. --Domer48'fenian' 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have I? I see a number of people happy to vote on it. "Totally misleading" is hyperbole. The comments were reviewed by several people and no one raised any objections. I pointed out explicitly that I attempted to make some neutral links to related topics in case people wanted to know what the terms meant. There's nothing WP:OR about that. It's just some wikilinks. COMPLAIN TO ARBCOM IF YOU WANT. I am satisfied that I, who initated the Request for Arbitration, have made a postiive contribution here. -- Evertype·✆ 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The comments were reviewed by several people" Where? --Domer48'fenian' 22:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above. What is your problem? Vote. Don't vote. Do what you want. So far, people are happy to vote. -- Evertype·✆ 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry can't see it, could I have a diff please? --Domer48'fenian' 22:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't see it, could I have a diff please? Thanks,--Domer48'fenian' 12:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.". See also Republic.
Were was this agreed too? They are very misleading and none of them are supported by sources. Please provide the diff's thanks. --Domer48'fenian' 13:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just provided them. They clearly show editors saying "yes, that's fine" or equivalent to the proposed poll including the text. DrKiernan (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No DrKiernan you did not provided them, but that was no reason for you to be uncivil. I asked a very reasonable question. --Domer48'fenian' 13:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find these two notices by Everytype particularly outrageous [28], [29]. What has the United Kingdom to do with the renaming of RoI article above and beyond any other state? Imagine it was the other way around, that the UK was being renamed at Wikipedia. Would Ireland editors get some extra territorial privilege and sway over the outcome? No, and I wouldn't expect it either. This is a violation of the Ireland's sovereignty from the United Kingdom. Tfz 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype's actions were entirely proper. Trying to derail the poll train at this point is not going to work. If one is ill, it is better to swallow a unpalatable pill than to spit it out. DrKiernan (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DrKiernan did you even read Masen's response above, Evertype's actions were entirely improper? Railroading this process through at this point is going to work, because both Admin's and Editors refuse to swallow a unpalatable pill, that they are going against every policy of the project so why not just say that, spit it out so editors like me who do still have confidence in the project are not seen to be wasting their time. Tell editors like me that trying to derail the poll train at this point is not going to work, because wiki policies are out of the question when there is a POV to push and the numbers to back it up. Explain how when both Admin's and Editors set out to derail the alternative process to polling I put forward, not one of you, including Masen said a word. --Domer48'fenian' 08:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only person who derailed your alternative processes was you, with your usurpation of moderator privileges on your proposal pages and imposition of selective censorship. As a direct result, people voted with their feet and stayed away. Now, do you or do you not accept the Arbcom decision that this whole could be achieved through consensus or majority decision? Do you or do you not accept that 75% of editors are now in favour of a final STV poll? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I unsuccessfully tried to put a minimum of 150 main article edits for the last six months, before users be allowed to vote, that would have taken a very sizable chunk out of the 75%. Content editors should have more sway, than the other accounts, imo. Tfz 10:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, my alternative process has not been derailed despite the attempts of both Editors and Admin’s and the blind indifference of the one moderator. Rockpocket an Admin, edit warred [30][31] to keep their snide remarks in ignoring the block on the Proposal page to again to insert them. That they tried to suggest that they were not aware the page had been protected is laughable when they went on to say "even if [they] had known it was protected [they] would have still made the edit." To then say that "once the page is unprotected [they'll] be withdrawing both [their] !vote and [their] comments" " and that they would encourage everyone else" into withdrawing their vote, saying that “lack of engagement will doom it much quicker and with much less drama than any official sanction” and so scupper my attempt to move things forward show how hollow their arguments are and disruptive there actions were.
Likewise SarekOfVulcan edit warred on the talk page to put comments back in the inane comments: [32], [33], [34], and on the proposal page, [35], [36] and then protecting the page which Rock ignored. It is wrong for an Admin to use their tools in an edit war, they were warned about this already so they know they should not have been the one to protect the page. Now in case you forgot, what about your attempts to disrupt the proposal:Bastun edit warring to make a point when the question I asked was clear an unambiguous. [37], [38] and had to use incivility to make a point.Comments which were removed from the proposal page, and added and commented upon on the talk page. [39][40][41][42]. None of which addressed why they opposed the proposal and ignored the guidelines. Comments removed from the talk page, [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. Notice how no mention was made on two of the comments which are from editors who agree with me. Now we know the moderator did not miss all of this going on, but did manage to miss the whole discussion were I did tell editors about my proposal. Now despite all of this my proposal is still there.--Domer48'fenian' 12:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, you simply don't get it. You are 6 months too late to the party. Many many people have already been down the arbcom advised route, and with all good intentions first attempted a solution without polling, using discussion based methods and policy based argument to solve this dispute, every single approach has either crashed and burned, died a death due to apathy, or been derailed by the same repetitive bullcrap going unmoderated, because the moderators and some of the more vocal participants did not simply understand that moderators were there to control behaviour, and not rule on content, or make the decisions for the community (and that ridiculous notion has been a common derailing mechanism). So we are moving to the endgame, where most people now simply accept that without something so concrete as a poll, whose results will be, per the arbcomm case, binding for two years, this dispute will never end. Me myself, after putting forward proposals for a properly timetable and moderated discussion based system for producing a solution after the arbcom decision, I simply gave up on this particular IECOLL page when it became clear the definition of 'moderator' was not understood by either the moderators or the regular combatants, there was no agreed or even understood structure or timetable, and we were just in for more of the same, albeit just harder to follow with numerous sub-pages and triangles and all that jazz, while others I am sure at the end of the arbcom case decided to merely ignore any discussion phase, content to wait for the inevitable poll. But since Masem has come on board, it seems to me that most people who participated in IECOLL and still believed a discussion solution was still possible, having seen his outside assessment of how its going, are now content with the analysis and suggestion put forward by him, which is unfortunately, a poll. Redking's infinite reposting, 'I didn't hear that' and 'this is all a ruse' shenanigans, and Tfz's repeated withdrawals and his latest statement of outrage and call for Ireland to withdraw its Wikipedia ambassador, are but mere sideshows, the poll train is indeed leaving the station, arguably with their help in pushing it by contributing to the kilobytes of irrelevanvce to the discussion venue. Get on it or don't, it's your choice. I am personally not interested in any discussion venue you intend to self moderate. Setting up a process only you intend to moderate is only going to turn everybody off, because, certainly in my case, you have made it impossible for me to point out on that page that you are selectively quoting my solution (last I looked, my comment had disappeared but your explanation remained), and I am sure for example a general comment on it from me that you have not correctly described the 'China' solution in the way its been described here, would not last very long without being moved/refactored. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diff's please for the "solution without polling, using discussion based methods and policy based argument to solve this dispute"? You mention "every single approach has either crashed and burned, died a death due to apathy" I'm not asking for every single one, just the ones based on policy based argument? By the way, if the process I suggest is accepted, I'll not be the one to moderate it, and your inane comments will still be removed. Misrepresenting an editors comments is considered a personal attack, and a bit like your comments here. P.S agree with you on the moderator and the bullcrap going unmoderated. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 16:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Misrepresenting an editors comments is considered a personal attack". That's good to know, because you are misrepresenting me on your proposal page. "Inane comments" also sounds like a sleight. As for diffs, you can go fish, I don't need to provide supporting diffs for everything I say on a talk page, this is not ANI. But by all means, if any body bar yourself disagrees with my recollection, they should let themselves be heard. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like everyone else around here, ask for a supporting diff and all you get more inane comments. --Domer48'fenian' 17:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any time you ask for anything and anyone offers it to you, you respond with yet another passive-aggressive request. Or at least you sure seem to. Enjoying all of this, are you? Feel as though this is a productive use of everyone's time? My stars but I would rather be editing Rivers in Ireland or Gaelic script or something real. -- Evertype·✆ 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for the supporting diff on which Ireland it is you want a diff on to show it's ambiguous... But really, what Mick said. The only person stopping your proposal from being discussed was you - you drove editors from the page. Repeating yourself ad nauseum, your constant demands, and accusations of snide remarks and inanity while doing exactly the same yourself - well, it's doing a better job than I ever could of making sure your proposal isn't adopted. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, proving my point, ask a reasonable question, and all you get is inane comments! Bastun I've illustrated your disruptive editing above, so you are still unable to answer a very, very simple question, "Provide a Diff for the discussion were consensus was reached that "Ireland" is ambiguous. Both MASEM & myself can't find it." If you are unable to do that, provide a source that says "Ireland" is ambiguous? --Domer48'fenian' 18:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, this is the type of insistence that is derailing the process. Common sense: we are never going to find a source that says "Ireland" is an ambiguious term, but the fact that we are here at this project means it is. In fact, that's a Finding of Fact by ArbCom, so trying to retread over that is ignoring the ArbCom case completely - we need to move well past that point, even if you feel it is not justified.
I know you're arguing that we need to build consensus on solutions that meet policy, but I've read everything and every solution proposed is built that way - the problem is that we have conflicting sources and states of mind, so normal resolve of those has not occurred. After 6 months of the same wheeling-discussion in trying to come to a single solution that has lead nowhere tells me its time to abandon hope of a consensus and seek another mechanic that the parties are agreeable to to resolve this, in which case seems to be polling. Your solution is part of that poll so it is not being ignored, just the push to drive consensus on it. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun is do you really know what you are 'talking' about, or are you just pretending? Tfz
Masem since you have ignored my post above, and the disruptive editing of this process, suggesting that my insistence is derailing the process is a bit rich! Now first of, Finding of Fact, is a section head title nothing more. Under the title "Locus and state of dispute" ArbCom outline the nature of the dispute and nothing more. You have ignored the ArbCom case completely and the Principles they set out. You have allowed incivility and disruption illustrated above. You can not provide one diff to support your contension that fact and policy based discussions have been attempted. To come along here now and suggest that my insistence on editors providing diff's that support there actions and comments is derailing the process is a joke. Were was it agreed to start this poll, were was the wording of the notice agree, were was it agreed to post it over the whole community, were was it agreed to add the misleading comments under each option, were was the options agreed to. Now were are the other Mods? You say "We are never going to find a source that says "Ireland" is an ambiguious term" well why are we having this poll and discussion. Now you show me were you have suggested an alternative to polling, or show me were a policy based discussion was tried and failed. --Domer48'fenian' 19:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Place holder for Masem's reply)
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Ireland as "The name of a classical scholarship at Oxford University founded in 1825 by John Ireland, D.D. (1761-1842), of Oriel College, Dean of Westminster." Here are various citations, NONE of which mean EITHER the island or the Irish state. Note that one citation is by Oscar Wilde. 1861 J. A. SYMONDS Let. 13 Mar. (1967) I. 282 We hope to secure the Ireland too this Term. If we do not, we shall be in a poor way. 1877 O. WILDE Let. Mar. (1962) 32, I have been in for ‘the Ireland’ and of course lost it: on six weeks' reading I could not expect to get a prize for which men work two and three years. 1951 M. KENNEDY Lucy Carmichael II. 80 He really is clever; he got the Ireland or the Hertford, I forget which, at Oxford. 1953 E. BARKER Age & Youth II. iii. 317 A year later, when I tried my luck for the Ireland, the king of classical scholar~ships, I had less confidence. 1972 Oxf. Univ. Cal. 1972-73 216 Dean Ireland's Scholarship... Value: £120. Awarded annually in Michaelmas Term after an examination... The examination is the same as that for the Craven Scholarships and the person elected to the Ireland Scholarship is, if not already a Craven Scholar, elected to the first Craven Scholarship. I hereby declare that on foot of this precise definition, the word "Ireland" to be polyvalent, that is, to be ambiguous. -- Evertype·✆ 19:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was uncivil. It was an ad-hominem attack. But what is your point? That the word "Ireland" is not ambiguous? It sure seems polyvalent to me. It means an island, a state, and, evidently, is the name of a scholarship. -- Evertype·✆ 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you picked me up wrongly, I was referring to the convoluted explanation offered. One of my cohorts is an Ireland, and I don't think he competes for the name. You forgot to include him. It made me laugh. Tfz 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were enjoying your outrage. -- Evertype·✆ 20:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly I don't get sad, even when outrageous things happen. It's just a hobby with me, but I do like a certain "professionalism" to be employed. Discussion, citations, and elimination are the better resources to be used in a case like this. Polling is only a measure of the most popular pov, that's all it is. There are essays on NPOV here, and they are here primarily to help with discussion and resolution, not polls. Tfz 20:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype on the section for polling options there are a number of comments posted under each option such as:
The diffs were given to you above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a diff supporting the assertion these are "very misleading" thanks. Alternatively a diff for consensus that they are very misleading will do thanks. Rockpocket 20:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well yet another inane responce Evertype, so I put the poll and the comments together to make it a bit handy for you. Now DrKiernan above gave these diff's [49][50][51][52][53] none of which address the question. So were was this agreed to? Rock, I'll do one better, I'll place citation tags on the comments and you can provide the references. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. All the comments are based on WP:OR. --Domer48'fenian' 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point, Domer, is that you are quick to demand citations for every single talk-page assertion you disagree with, and then claim the statement to be invalid when none are provided. However, you make plenty of unsupported assertions yourself (such as those statements "are very misleading"). You can't have it both ways. If you think every single statement on a talk page requires a citation, then stop making unsupported claims yourself. Its smacks of hypocrisy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Rockpocket 23:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs were given to him above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs were given to her above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs were given to me above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs were given to us above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs were given to them above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That should cover it. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An absurd responce to a reasonable question. --Domer48'fenian' 23:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have been given the diffs. You have also repasted your question over and over again, pasting in the text over and over again. "Response" is spelled with two s's. Your question has been answered. -- Evertype·✆ 23:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You like most editors here have perfectly illustrated how disruptive editing has been allowed to continue on this whole talk page. How reasonable questions are stonewalled, undermining both the project and the editors to drive home a POV laden process. You have more than played your part in exposing this, and for that you should be thanked. --Domer48'fenian' 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to believe that Wikipedia is an anarchy, no law nor order, with "laws made on the hoof". I too am still waiting for the citation that Ireland is ambiguous. It seems to be the case with a bunch of editors, that if thy can claim that often enough like a mantra, or affirmation, that it may become true in the minds of other editors. Wikipedia is nose-diving fast and is looking very shabby and amateurish, imo. Mob rule rules the day. Masen will have to get a grip on a certain editor who is making up consensus, as he sees fit. Now we see maneuverings to the effect that if the "right" choice is chosen in the poll, then only that will be offered in the main poll. But if the "wrong" one is chosen, then the first three will be presented again in the main poll. What a mess! Tfz 00:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, Tfz. We have had this discussion over and over and over. What exactly are you asking for? You want a source that states, parrot like, "Ireland is ambiguous"? You are probably not going to get one, but does that mean it is not ambiguous? Of course not. You and Domer appear to misunderstand what we mean by verifiability.
"Ambiguity" is only a word that describes the property of something being interpreted in more than one way. So what we are really stating is that the name "Ireland" can be used to represent different things and therefore can be interpreted in more than one way. Now, to most of us on this page, the ambiguity is so self evident that requesting a source for it appears to be purposefully pedantic. But it really isn't difficult to provide one: See the opening lines in A Country by any other Name, Mary Daly, Journal of British Studies, Jan 2007 volume 46 number 1 for a perfectly coherent description of the ambiguity of the term "Ireland".
So, if its the term "ambiguity" that is bothering you, lets forget it and instead ask, are you satisfied with the verification of the fact that "Ireland" can be used to refer to different things? If so, than you are - by the very meaning of the term - acknowledging its ambiguity. Even if you cannot accept this, then that leaves you in a minority of two, because it is perfectly understandable to everyone else who has commented here. Rockpocket 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote just a few sections from that entire paper which reinforce that ambiguity (that "Ireland" can be verifiably used to refer to different things)
Ireland is the name of an island in the North Atlantic. Ireland is also the name of a state, comprising roughly three‐quarters of that island.
This explicitly states that Ireland can refer to different things, which is the meaning of the word "ambiguous". This is the opening sentence of the entire paper and really couldn't make the ambiguity of the term any more distinct.
In 1953 the Government Information Bureau issued a directive ...[that] whenever the name of the state was mentioned in an English language document, Ireland should be used. If it was necessary to make it clear that the reference was to the area of the twenty‐six counties, for example, in statistical returns, then either “Ireland (exclusive of the Six Counties)” or “Ireland,” with the word followed by an explanatory asterisk or footnote should be used.
This section demonstrates that the ambiguity of the term "Ireland" was recognized by Government itself. Note also how the Bureau, while understandably insisting "Ireland" be used as the name for the state, was quite happy to use a descriptive bracket to distinguish the state from the entire island. This is exactly what is being proposed to deal with the ambiguity here!
The use of Ireland to refer to the state is not universal... Sinn Féin refers to the “26 County State” and the “Six County State,” reserving “Ireland” for the entire island.
Again, an explicit statement that Ireland can refer to different things, which is the meaning of the word "ambiguous". Moreover, in this case it isn't the nasty imperial Brits that is making the distinction, it is Sinn Féin.
So, given this, are you "still waiting for the citation that Ireland is ambiguous"? Rockpocket 01:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rockpocket, quote -You want a source that states, parrot like, "Ireland is ambiguous"? You are probably not going to get one,, that probably irons that one out. Some people want to make it ambiguous for various reasons. What I object to most is, editors who claim to be in the "know", continually repeating ad infinitum that it is ambiguous, when clearly it is not to many people. Entirely subjective, and unnecessary. Tfz 10:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrate for us, please, that the word "Ireland" is not ambiguous. This is not subjective. Ireland is the name of an island. Ireland is the name of a state which occupies much but not all of the island named Ireland. Ireland is a family name. Ireland is the name of an academic scholarship. Ireland is the name of a town in Indianna. Ireland is the name of a town in West Virginia. There are six of statements here. Each of them is verifiable. They do not any of them mean the same thing. A family name is not an island. A town in West Virginia is not a member state of the European Union. This isn't original research, either. So, please, demonstrate for us how the word "Ireland" is not ambiguous. -- Evertype·✆ 11:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make my point quite well, Tfz. The intended meaning of "Ireland" can be entirely subjective (which is, of course, a characteristic of its ambiguity). Whats important is that we can verify that it is subjective, as demonstrated by the sources you asked for. Rockpocket 20:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather leave some of this stuff to the philosophers, my training is economics. Speaking here in relativities and not in absolutes. Ireland is no more ambiguous than Wales (disambiguation), or England (disambiguation), etc etc. Ireland a sovereign country covers 85% of an island called Ireland. There is only one country in the world called Ireland, and there is only one island in the world called Ireland. When talking about countries there is no disambiguation, and when talking about islands there is no disambiguation, when talking about people, there could be hoards of Irelands, or Englands, or Wales. Cannot remember Jimbo Wales being disambiguated with the ancient country of Wales. Most educated people have no problems understanding these things, and even young children too, I can vouch for that. Tfz 21:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I agree with your logic here, and you have also hit upon the key issue in a very succinct way: Ireland a sovereign country covers 85% of an island called Ireland. There is only one country in the world called Ireland, and there is only one island in the world called Ireland. When talking about countries there is no disambiguation, and when talking about islands there is no disambiguation The "problem" (for want of a better term) is this: at Wikipedia generally write articles about islands and the countries on them independently of each other. In doing so, we need to disambiguate for technical reasons (while most educated people may have no problems understanding these things, our database cannot). The alternative is that we don't distinguish between the island and the state in an article title, the result being that we have a single article for two overlapping entities (island and state). Now those are both viable options, and one is no more inherently "correct" than the other. I, personally, favor two articles because its consistent with how we deal with other countries that are on islands (see Hispaniola and Haiti, for example). If that is your preference, then disambiguation is a technical necessity. I appreciate this isn't a perfect solution. If you prefer the second option (i.e. Domer's merge proposal), then the disambiguation is not required. This is also not a perfect solution. Unfortunately deciding between these comes down to balancing Wikipedia's guidelines and policies against each other. There is no right or wrong answer, only interpretations. Unless you are seriously trying to argue that island = state, then demanding references is pointless, it will not resolve this dilemma. All we can do is explain and justify our personal preference and then respect that others may have a differing interpretation. I hope you are able to do that, and I urge you to put forward your preference so that it can be included in the community poll. Rockpocket 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a viable alternate view, which many people hold. That the country of Ireland covers the whole of Ireland, and the country and the island are synonymous with eachother. That's probably the truest logic of all, in that Ireland became divided, and some day unite again, it must. Travelling around Ireland this is not difficult to understand, finding that almost all folk, both North and South, see that as the future. Not today, but that that eventuality will come about. Tfz 01:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly a viable view with regards to the "country" of Ireland (though not currently a verifiable one with regards to the modern sovereign state, at least according to its own Constitution). I don't have an issue with that as a proposal to be put to the community, but we would probably need some definition of what the "country" includes in this sense and also what we would do about the state, which would still need an article and hence a title). What I'm trying to do, though, is get away from the wiki-lawyering of the last few weeks (whether Ireland is "ambiguous" or not) and promote that idea that our moderator has been trying to explain. This is really about different interpretations of how we organize our encyclopaedia. That all of the options on the table are viable, and that none are inherently more or less viable than any other. That demanding sources for every statement of preference is pointless at this point. We tried to resolve this by discussion and compromise, but were unable to form a consensus, so now we are left with an STV. The beauty of of STV is that it will likely provide us with the compromise option. And, in a case where there are no right or wrongs, that is probably the best outcome we can hope for. I hope you will join me in engaging in this process fully, and robustly argue your preferred solution, while also respecting that others have an equally viable alternative that they might prefer. Rockpocket 01:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. -- Evertype·✆ 08:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rock still trying to peddle your WP:SYN. Lets see what you left out: The British government would not use the term “Ireland” in any official document, according to Daly, until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which included an undertaking by the Irish government to delete Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. Britain’s refusal to use the constitutional title of the Irish state, and its efforts to persuade other nations to adopt a similar practice, can be interpreted, Daly says, as an effort to exercise a residual authority over independent Ireland. Britain appeared to have gone to significant lengths, she says, to stop international organizations from using the name Ireland to designate the twenty six county state, and that this was often in response to pressure from the Northern Ireland government.[1] Now I don't need to interpret what Daly says, but you do.
I'm afraid you are going to have to interpret what Daly says, because I have no idea what relevance that quote has to this discussion. As far as I can tell, it informs us that the British Government refused to use "Ireland" to refer to the state. So what? How does that show that the term is not ambiguous (which is what you seem to be arguing). Your second screed is even less relevant to this discussion. Your proposal is of interest to nobody but you, so how about your stop beating that particular dead horse. I'm beginning to wonder if you have a few stock phrases that you cut and paste in a random order in response to every comment, because you really are not making any sense to me. Rockpocket 20:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Peddling his synthesis"? Bosh and tosh. Rockpocket merely shows us that he can use the English language like a person, not like a robit. But never mind that. What is it you think that "Ireland" means, Domer-lad, if it is unambiguous? What is your source that the word "Ireland" is unambiguous? To put it another way, What is your source that the word "Ireland" means only one thing? When you answer this perfectly reasonable question, please respond also to the definition I gave above, from the Oxford English Dictionary, defining "Ireland" as the name of an academic scholarship. Thanks very much. -- Evertype·✆ 08:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You put out the poll over the head of Masem, and the agreement of an unrepresentative group of editors will not change that. You have failed to provide diff's were the poll options were agreed, were the comments under the options were agreed, with no agreement to put it to the whole community, including a warning on sanctions which could not be enforced. Now I've acted in a reasonable and calm manner, despite your POV pushing agenda. You reaction to my reasonable questions, including inane replys and now your bold texting and condensending attitude is the clear sign of an editor unable to support their conduct or opinions. --Domer48'fenian' 12:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This edit summary is call a personal attack and is the result of not having anythng else to offer reasonable discussion.
Please Stop
Can we take a break from arguing, please?
If Evertype has overstepped the mark by starting the poll running in appropriately, then Masem will, no doubt, come along and say so. However, it looked to me as though consensus was emerging for the poll, including from Masem. Perhaps it was imprudent to start it in quite such a hurry, but what's done is done. Domer48, you've now raised the concern that the poll was started inappropriately, you do not need to keep repeating this. I can't imagine it will be many hours until Masem surfaces here — until then, lets take a break for further argument over it. There's nothing to be gained save acrimony from an argument over it.
As to notifying involved parties to the ArbCom case, well Masem did say (in his 13:30 21 June post, above): As for individual users, the only two sets I would use are those that have been named in the ArbCom case and those that are members of this project; attempts to bring in anyone else specifically may seem to be canvasing. All such individuals have now been notified, and, unless I'm mistaken, Evertype has not notified anyone beyond that list. I'm sure he is grateful to you, Domer48, for reminding him about the list of project members.
Finally, I'm sure we don't need reminding that Masem is the only (active) moderator here. We all know that Evertype isn't, nor is Domer48, nor is Tfz, and nor am I for that matter. Obviously Evertype cannot impose a ban on anyone for disrupting the proceedings. However the ArbCom have very clearly ruled that Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process. This very clearly gives Masem authority to ban anyone for up to month if they act disruptively. Clearly I can't speak for Masem, but I find it hard to believe that confirmed sock-puppetry would be seen as anything other than disruption of a degree worthy of (at least) a significant topic ban. It doesn't seem inappropriate to remind people that Masem has been explicitly given the power to do this.
So let's calm down, please. Perhaps things haven't been handled in the most diplomatic or prudent manner, but continued arguing about it certainly isn't helping either.
Way to go, Ras! Fmph (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Way to go, Ras!" Masem responded to this issue almost an hour before Ras's post. They said there was no agreement on the notice, no agreement on the options, no agreement to put it before the whole community, and no sanctions can be placed on editors who take part in this poll. So way to go Ras, you got it wrong on all counts, likewise the cheerleading section. --Domer48'fenian'
08:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I have a diff for that please? Fmph (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh no problem, [59], [60]. See when I'm asked to provide diff's I always do! --Domer48'fenian' 12:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a poll taking place on this matter but do agree it should of been an internal matter. There was no need to flood wikipedia with messages of this mini poll. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Domer, but those diffs do not show what you said. I'd say you got it wrong. Fmph (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But they do show what I said, there was no agreement on any of it. --Domer48'fenian' 13:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with that assertion. There's a big difference between "no agreement" and "Masem didn't say 'Go'", which is what I think those diffs show. Obviously it's a matter of interpretation, which most things are. Fmph (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, to clear up the matter of interpretation, please show us were the agreement was reached on:
the notice
the options
putting it before the whole community
the sanctions
the comments under each option
Diff's for them should clear up matter of interpretation. thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 14:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. If you expect that there should be explicit diffs for each of those, then you living in cloud cuckoo land. However I'll just refer you back to the diff you gave me where Masem quite clearly states " There was some agreement for it, ...". Thats my point. You say there was no agreement, yet the diff you use says there was some. The diff you gave does not show what you are asserting it shows. Fmph (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no Diff's for each of those, so no matter of interpretation thanks. Masem quite clearly states On the Poll and the options:"There was some agreement for it, but I wasn't expecting it to be started as fast as it was... there just needed to be a bit more discussion about it to make sure that's the way to resolve what "(xxx)" choices were to appear" "I suggested (not said) that we end it by the 1st... it wasn't a demand to start the poll right away as I think we were still trying to make sure it made sense." On putting it before the community: "it was only meant to be limited to this project" " the vote wasn't meant to be a community-wide aspect at this point" "(it doesn't have to be me that posts it, but let's make sure everyone agrees abou this). and what that announcement will contain." On the sanctions: "one can't stipulate penalities or the like for socking" "it was meant to be informal and thus issuing warnings about banning and the like was probably out of place." My comments stand, thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 14:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. "So there is no Diff's for each of those, so no matter of interpretation thanks." - Have you got a diff for where I said that. No? It's just your interpretation? That's fine then. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. Fmph (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. Don't worry if you can't find them. I really didn't expect you to. Fmph (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another inane responce, this is becoming the norm. Don't worry though, your inability to support you opinion is shared by a number of editors. --Domer48'fenian' 21:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. I haven't tried and failed like you. Fmph (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. I disagree. I'd call it accurate. Fmph (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please show us were the agreement was reached on:
the notice
the options
putting it before the whole community
the sanctions
the comments under each option
And find out what is ment by indent. --Domer48'fenian' 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an end to this soap-opera, folks? It's getting nauseating. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Just as soon as you show us where ...
Masem responded to this issue almost an hour before Ras's post saying:
there was no agreement on the notice, and
there was no agreement on the options, and
there was no agreement to put it before the whole community, and that
no sanctions can be placed on editors who take part in this poll
And don't use the previous diffs you tried to slip in, cause they don't show that. Fmph (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An absurd responce to a reasonable question. I've said quite clearly there was no agreement, now show us were this agreement was reached. Glad you copped on about the indent! Another inane and absurd responce, will more than confirm for me and everyone else that no such agreement was reached, and illustrates the type of disruptive editing which has been allowed to continue throughout this whole talk page. --Domer48'fenian' 23:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. That clarifies matters a lot. Just to confirm then, you are not saying that Masem said there was no agreement, is that correct? Just that you said it? That's fine then. I'll withdraw my request for diffs. Thanks. Fmph (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN THE FRACKING DIFFS, DOMER. THEY WERE GIVEN TO YOU ABOVE, BY DR KIERNAN. -- Evertype·✆ 08:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You put out the this poll over the head of Masem, with nothing more than the agreement of an unrepresentative group of editors and the diff's above will not change that. You have failed to provide diff's were the poll options were agreed, were the comments under the options were agreed, with no agreement to put it to the whole community, including a warning on sanctions which could not be enforced. Now I've acted in a reasonable and calm manner, despite your POV pushing agenda. You reaction to my reasonable questions, including inane replys, your bold texting, condensending attitude, posting diff's which don't address the questions all over the place and personal attacks is the clear sign of an editor unable to support their conduct or opinions has to resort to this type of actions. --Domer48'fenian' 12:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or in other words, we agree to disagree. Fmph (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ive been away for a day so ive missed what has been happening, but i will say the poll is a very good idea and a great practice run for the main poll which will be happening at some stage in the future. It seems to be going rather well and shows overwhelming support for Ireland (state) being the option in the future poll and not Ireland (country) or Ireland (republic) etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again I suggest that we not obsess about the way the ballot is going. It has six more days, and it would be a bad idea for anyone to be publishing a running tally of what is winning and what is not. Tally for yourself/yourselves if you wish, but please let's avoid listing specifically what has support and what has not, OK? -- Evertype·✆ 09:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt take someone with a calculator to look at the figures to see its clear the overwhelming support is for Ireland (state) being the option in the main vote. The vote isnt going to radically change in the next few days. I see no harm in a running commentary. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about the ongoing tally could look like a form of canvassing. There's a reason exit polls aren't allowed to be published before the election is over. I'm asking you and everyone, please, do not make tallies and publish them. -- Evertype·✆ 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flawed as the poll is, my vote went in. That's no endorsement to the preposterous way the poll was initiated. Tfz 12:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im rather disappointed, i come here saying ur poll was a good idea evertype and that its a great practice for the main poll whilst others are attacking u for setting up the poll in the way you did and yet u moan at me for simply stating an obvious fact. Again there are no rules here about not mentioning the ongoing polling results , theres no rules against talking about it on that poll page either as far as im aware. I dont see how talking about it here can be seen as Canvassing when u have already advertised the poll above and we are all involved in this process. So again.. Its quite clear from the poll so far the majority support is for Ireland (state) to be included in the main vote, ofcourse there may be a second choice aswell, but state has overwhelming support so far. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the poll was a good idea, and I am happy that you do, too. I have said, courteously, that I would like you, and me, and everyone, to refrain from doing a running commentary on what is winning and what is not, for the duration of the poll. The rationale is the same as that of the broadcasters who do not allow exit polls to be published on air until the polls close. I'm looking at the poll. I might even be totting up now and again out of interest. But I'm keeping that to myself because I think it's better practice than to keep shtum. -- Evertype·✆ 14:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you dont want to prejudge the final results, but i cant see the harm in mentioning theres one way ahead of all others right now. The fact the poll shows one option is clearly ahead backs up the fact the poll was a good idea. Anyway we can wait and see what happens, although sarahs question below about how many get included is an important one ive not seen answered BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you see my point. -- Evertype·✆ 14:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updating the main project page
The main IECOLL project page is now seriously out of date. I have updated the timetable to reflect the latest polling activity, but the section on "Agreed procedures and methodologies" needs to be removed. I could do a simple delete, but I think this material should be archived, and I'm not sure how to do that. Can someone do this please?
I also plan to add Evetype's subsidiary poll notice to the main page, unless anyone objects. Hallucegenia (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many of the options in the STV poll are going on to the main poll? (That's how many, not which ones:) Sarah777 (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If theres clear support for a second option that should be included, But if like at the moment we have one way ahead and several lagging behind it should just be the first included in the vote in my opinion. Maybe we could have a poll on that too? ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No way Jose. With BritishWatcher announcing the result I'm rather concerned that Ireland (country) gets through. If places like NI and Wales are "countries" I'd find it difficult to accept that Ireland isn't. To put it mildly. Sarah777 (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unpredictable as the only other location informed of the poll 'outside of Ireland' was the United Kingdom, and BI, same thing. A real insult to Irish sovereignty, in anyone's book. Tfz 14:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of Ireland is understood. Some come cheap, but others put value on themselves. Tfz 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, isn't that gnomic of you. "Some come cheap, but others put value on themselves." Does this sentence have content? By the way, you might wish to learn that "Sovereignty", except in myth, is not a person, and cannot be "insulted". -- Evertype·✆ 15:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relentless tosh, you don't give a ****, do you? Tfz 15:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About what? -- Evertype·✆ 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
e/c Was the IrlProj page not informed? RoI talkpage? Ireland talkpage? Sarah777 (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - my question answered before I asked it! I always said you were a fine fellow Bastun. Sarah777 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(doubletriple e/c) Sarah, I assume Masem will be adding up and announcing the results. Earlier he said he proposed the top three (or four in the event of a tie, which is really quite unlikely with STV) winners will get onto the poll. —ras52 (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - now I can restore my STV vote to something more sensible. Sarah777 (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm i cant see the announcment on the Irish wikipedians noticeboard, someone needs to check all of those places because it says they were told but it doesnt look like its on there. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarah: Um... thanks? :-) In fairness to BW, "calling" the result - especially when everyone can see all the ballots - isn't much different from what RTÉ and all the radio stations do with their exit polls at every election. And one thing's for sure - visible "ballot papers" and the counts are the main reason why electronic voting should never be allowed here. It's the world's greatest bloodsport! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it great fun - I wouldn't trust them anywhere near an unobservable electronic system. As for efficiency - the costs of bailing out Anglo would pay for the paper counts till the year 10,000 - by a conservative estimate. Sarah777 (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier Masem suggested three or four options, which means 9 or 12 additional choices in the main poll. I think that is too many, and I suggest two or three options, which means 6 or 9 additional choices in the poll. I take it both options are on the table. -- Evertype·✆ 15:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all likelihood, only one "(xxx)" needs to be put forward for the main ballot. If "Ireland (a)" tops the poll now then, in all likelihood, it will top the poll of "(xxx)" options in the "BIG" ballot too (regardless of whether it "wins" the full ballot or not). There is a chance that there could be a swing between the votes (e.g. this one favouring "Ireland (a)" and the "BIG" one favouring "Ireland (b)"), but the bigger the gap between 1st and 2nd place in this poll the less likely that will be. Including anything that wasn't a genuine contender for 1st place in this ballot would wasteful. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. I have not looked at the poll results so I don't know if this is the case, but if (a) clearly is the winner without applying the STV process, then it makes to only have (a) on there. If (a) only wins after a few rounds over an option (b) with the numbers being split no better than, say, 60/40, I'd recommend both options. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me to do it that way, Masem (and I haven't checked it today, so I don't know if my option is leading or not :-) ). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that since we started the poll expecting two, perhaps three options in the big poll we should stick to that unless the numbers are so overwhelming that it shows that won't be a runner. I don't like changing the rules mid-ballot. I think that detracts from our credibility. -- Evertype·✆ 18:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do we class as overwhelming, because from where im sitting the front runner has an overwhelming lead. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends (and no, I've not looked nor will look until the 1st) on the overall vote distribution. I would consider that if one option - without resolving STV, got 66% of the votes, while no other option got above 5%, that's overwhelming. But if it was the case that one option got 66% of the votes and a second option - without STV resolution, got the other 33%, that's not overwhelming. But I'm hesitant to call out exact numbers where I believe the line is drawn instead seeing exactly how the poll works. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable, although the main poll willl benefit the most from a single outcome rather than having several choices needing to be placed in the poll. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, you have tough standards. So if you were competing in a quiz of 100 questions, you got 33 questions right and your competitor got 66 questions right, you wouldn't feel "overwhelmingly" beaten? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost count on how many polls I'm participating in on this Collaboration. Anybody have a clue? GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for another post on this, but there seems to be very little comment and agreement above about if there will be statements or not for the vote options. Need more views on this matter thanks otherwise its going to push the date for the poll starting back a few days when we finally get round to debating this. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is very little likelihood of gaining consensus on what should go in each of the statements. As an alternative, perhaps editors could write their own statements in userspace and add a link to each one of them from the statements section. There may be a long list, but it would allow uninvolved voters access to something to read. Fmph (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth at least trying to see if we can get consensus. Above, it was suggested we use the 'Postition argument summaries', and it was further suggested we leave out the summaries. So each option in the final poll would essentially one or two lines saying why it should be used and one or two why it shouldn't be used. We could further refine that so that only "positive" statements (with their counterarguments, of course) were included. So "Cakes are best because they're full of sugar"/"It's been proven that too much sugar is bad for you." rather than "Noone should eat cakes because they're full of sugar, they should eat cereal instead"/"Some people are allergic to cereals." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the members want this, I could write up such statements (I'm neutral to any choice) with any necessary unbiased refinements as seen fit. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great if u have the time Masem thanks, most of the points have already been made on the link provided by Bastun, just a case of weeding out the nonsense. Pros / Cons with no summary so people can make up their own minds. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a list of pros and cons written up by Masem would be ideal. Scolaire (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol ur wasting ur time. Although i think u should of included that he keeps removing comments from pages he claims ownership over despite not being a mod. Damn dictatorship. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, way OTT kiernan, you never edit these pages anyway. Tfz 14:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz, why did you take it upon yourself to delete a word from BritishWatcher's statement? -- Evertype·✆ 14:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DrKieran, well done. -- Evertype·✆ 14:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everytype, why have you removed other editors text, here [72]. Tfz 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not text. It's bait. -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I have to agree with DrKiernan, I'm fed up with the disruption, incivility and POV pushing on this talk page, and I think DrKiernan is right, it's the best thing to do. --Domer48'fenian' 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On this talk page???? Sarah777 (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sad, different opinions aren't welcome. Tfz 16:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Different opinons is what's made this Collaboration necessary. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see some worthy admins still inhabit this website. A sign of hope, no doubt. Tfz 00:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those worthy admins said everyone should just ignore Domer. Very good advice yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's everyone's prerogative to ignore anyone they wish, I assume most here are adults. For example, I totally ignore Bastun. Now, don't ask me why, that'd be another thread. Tfz 22:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz, your accusation here that I am canvassing is unfounded. I posted to Kittybrewster's page because he made a mistake here, and I was explaining his mistake to him. Your hatred of me is misplaced, as should be obvious as Kittybrewster is unlikely to vote for my favoured option of "Ireland (country)". DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur (having looked). DrKiernan was not canvassing. -- Evertype·✆ 09:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BritishWatcher. Despite my zero input so far i would say that ignoring is the best thing you can do for now. If persistence is kept up then you can try again, with the moral high ground.Willski72 (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a wonderful collaboration page. Tfz 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In truth its to be expected. Some people will not compromise, on both sides of the divide. Its the age old problem....Willski72 (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is outrageous. I don't even like DrKiernan's preferred vote (as it's completely different from mine, heh)—but I think that he has a right to make his vote and be counted. He did not canvass. He explained the parameters of the poll to someone. I did the same thing and no one accused me of "canvassing". The accusations were in bad faith. -- Evertype·✆ 12:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (SarekOfVulcan, please do not delete my comment again. -- Evertype·✆ 18:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I don't think it was intentional. Sarek was undoing DrKiernan's removal of his own posts and your comment just sustained collateral damage. BTW, I agree with you 100% but I think it would be better without the bold.Scolaire (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. My sincere apologies, sir: I thought I had properly reviewed my edit to make sure I was only restoring DrKiernan's comments, but I obviously didn't do it properly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I popped in here expecting this collabration to be a few steps on from when last I was here. This thread for example has no real purpose other than to cause disruption and deflect away from proper discussion. I propose that any future arguments of this type be deleted or moved somewhere else for the simple reason that this page is for editors to collaborate. Jack forbes (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Descriptions of the main poll options
Whether or not provide we statements for and against each option, I think we should also provide a fuller description of each option. The current version at
User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/sandbox defines each option in terms of the existing pages, which will be confusing for editors who are not familiar with the ins and outs of the status quo. I think it would be useful to add a table to each option to illustrate what the initial text of each article would become. For instance voiting main poll Option D could appear something like this:
D: The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).
Ireland is an independent state in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign state occupies about five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned on 3 May 1921.
Ireland (island)
Ireland is the third-largest island in Europe, and the twentieth-largest island in the world.
Ireland (disambiguation)
Ireland commonly refers to: ...
This approach also has the advantage in that it illustrates what Options E (Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article) and F (A general "all-Ireland" topic) might actually say in practice.
I have cobbled together a draft of what the description might look like for each main poll option at User_talk:Hallucegenia/sandbox. The intial text for the Option E and Option F articles are taken from Tasmania and China respectively. Would this approach be helpful in the main poll? Hallucegenia (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at this the more I like it. With an STV vote - even for those familiar with STV - there is always a fear that you have voted for the wrong thing, or in the wrong order. This table shows exactly what you will be voting for when you vote for each option. Scolaire (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That method with a table and the start of the intro is very clear and we should use then, although i still feel its very important the arguments for and against must be presented along with that table BritishWatcher (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much less confusing, bravo!Willski72 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BritishWatcher, I think that arguments should not be on the poll page itself. Would we ever be able to agree on the pro- and con-arguments? It could take weeks. Having said that, apart from some small bits of formatting I think that Hallucegenia's draft makes good sense. Should I merge the two? I could do that on my own sandbox or in Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's. -- Evertype·✆ 09:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should do it at Rannṗáirtí's (ar bhosca ghainimh Rannṗáirtí?). Per BRD, if anybody has a problem with it, it can be discussed there. As regards pros and cons, Masem might still come back with a list - see above. We should leave that open for the moment. Scolaire (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, I saw this after I saw Hallucegenia's comment below, and what's done is done. It will be great if Masem comes back with a list... but I still think that arguments should be on a separate page, not on the ballot page itself. Currently I find many or most of the pro/con arguments to be POV (even for options that I happen to prefer myself). -- Evertype·✆ 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments by definition are statements of POV (= points of view). NPOV does not mean absence of POV, it means a balanced statement of differing POVs. The whole purpose of the poll is to ascertain what users think is the best option i.e. which POV they agree with. A statement of pro and con POVs can only help voters to make up their minds, surely! Scolaire (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gets my (virtually valueless) vote!Willski72 (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we're starting to draft out different versions of the main polling page, then can I suggest that sandboxes are probably not the best place? We need to keep track of changes and other contributors need to see what is going on. I hesitate to suggest it, but are we now in a postion to start building the actual polling page? We could build the voting page at, say: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll (Draft), and copy it across to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll when the vote goes live. When the results of the "Ireland (xxx)" poll are known, when we have decided which order the alternatives should be presented, and when we have decided if and where Pro's and Con's should be located, we can add them as we go. Does anyone here dare create the first draft? Hallucegenia (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on this now. -- Evertype·✆ 08:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished this draft. I took care to make sure that things lined up, that spellings were correct and consistent—no "(State)" alongside "(state)" for instance—and that the choices in the informative boxes corresponded to the change option listed. When the Poll on Ireland (xxx) ends and when the decision as to what "(xxx)" options are going to be listed on the poll, I will be happy to add them into the template. I think it will be best if I use the same method for randomizing the entries in this poll as I did for the current one. Is this agreeable? -- Evertype·✆ 09:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What should the name of the poll be? We have Poll on Ireland (xxx), where the choice is just about what Ireland (xxx) will mean. The header I took from Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's page said Poll on Ireland/Republic of Ireland. We can't use that in a URL because of the syntax of "/". How about Poll on Ireland article names? -- Evertype·✆
'Poll on Ireland article names' is clear and concise. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Anyone else? -- Evertype·✆ 11:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The poll has been running for a week now and with just 10 hours to go has attracted the sum total of 50 votes. Now, while this is enough to decide on what two (or three) options qualify for the final poll, for such a "controversial" topic that was advertised here, on all the relevant project pages, on the Ireland articles, and with a note to every participant of this project and at the Arbcom case - it's a less than whelming response. Masem, you said above that you weren't in favour of using a Watchlist hatnote to advertise the final poll. I would ask you to reconsider this (assuming there's consensus), as the last thing we want is for the final poll to take place and then to have the "losing" side claim that a low poll means that there is a lack of community consensus for whatever decision is reached. I really think it's vital that as many as possible participate. Thoughts? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think 50 !votes is pretty spectacular! How many contributors were you hoping for to consider the poll to be not low? Have we ever had 50 previously on an "Ireland" issue? --HighKing (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me a Watchlist hatnote? -- Evertype·✆ 11:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and that would turn up where? In anyone's Watchlist who is watching one of these pages? -- Evertype·✆ 12:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear at the top of very nearly everyone's Watchlist. (AIUI it is possible to opt out of the messages. My guess is that not many editors have.) Mr Stephen (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors will not vote simply because they don't understand the issues and complexities, so 50 'quality' votes is infinitely better than a larger random vote. It's for these reasons, and a few others, that I objected to the poll. Anyway the poll is likely to proceed irrespective. Tfz 11:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mind reading, Tfz? -- Evertype·✆ 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51 votes and counting. Will there really be a claim that a "low poll" is a lack of community consensus? I have never come across this before. What constitutes a low poll anyway? Jack forbes (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. For one thing, the poll wasn't advertised as widely as the next will be. -- Evertype·✆ 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know it seems reasonable, some will of looked at the poll and not bothered to vote because they dont support any option like that one, i wasnt going to bother voting but thought it was a good chance to practice for the real one. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Bastun canvassing for a large turnout of non-Irish editors knowing that he is likely to lose if this is restricted to those who are actually interested in the topic? And extreme results? Really? Which of the slate of options we are voting on would you regard as "extreme"? Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for "low poll"; I'd say a turnout oif 50% of the IrlProj editors would make the poll "high" enough. Sarah777 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as this is about "consensus" (allegedly) and not "majority rule" we could give ordinary editors with no history of editing Ireland-related articles one vote; Irish editors who contribute to Irish articles regularly 5 votes and regular editors of Irish articles who live in the Ireland (country) 10 votes. That seems both fair and consistent with WP:COMMONNAME to me. A "solution" forced through by a majority of non-Irish votes against a clear preference of Irish editors will have no consensus and lack legitimacy. Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's too complicated. I'm confused enough, jumpers I've gotta record my support/oppose choices again. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, take your insinuations and shove them. I'm canvassing for a large turnout because I want this to be a final consensus arrived at by the community, rather than by a handful of editors who haven't yet been driven away by bad-faith accusations. Do you want a low turnout so you can rally a few friends - apparently willing to give their addresses - on to your "side". I deliberately didn't mention the actual votes on those earlier polls, but seeing as we're now throwing mud... the first one had twelve people supporting various (six) moves and thirty-three actively in favour of the status quo. The second link shows thirty-one actively in favour of the status quo and nine supporting "another set up". The interesting thing is a large proportion of the supports for the status quo seem to have come from Irish editors. Certainly more Irish editors appear to favour the status quo than want to change it. So drop the rhetoric. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun; WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL etcetera. I'm not sure where you get the "Irish editors" tally. Are you including British folk living on the island but outside the country that the "RoI" article refers to? "final consensus arrived at by the community" is a myth - this is a vote. It is important that it isn't decided by political bias and that WP:COMMONNAME is accepted "by the community" and that Ireland is called by it's proper name - certainly no title that suggests the name of the country is "Republic of Ireland" can ever get consensus. Sarah777 (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are seeking a "compromise" here; the status quo isn't a compromise. Sarah777 (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no. We are seeking a consensus. All the move requests over the years were considered to be unfair because they required a two-thirds majority to overturn the status quo. Now we finally have a procedure by which it will be changed with a simple majority using proportional representation, if that is the consensus. If the consensus is in favour of the status quo, then the status quo remains. Either way, we all keep our lips buttoned for two years from the day the consensus is enacted. Our concern must be to ensure that the result is a fair reflection of the views of all - Irish, British, American, Australian, African and Asian - not to stack the votes in favour of any one option. Scolaire (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Sarah, you don't get to decide what is and isn't acceptable - the community does. My definition of Irish is as per the Irish constitution, I don't know or care what yours is. But as Scolaire points out, nationality is irrelevant in this anyway. Any editor (with an account older than June 1st) can vote. That's one, unweighted vote. Your apology for breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL above is noted and accepted, though you should have thrown WP:AGF in there too. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Bastun, Bastun, Bastun. You cause me to despair betimes. as Scolaire points out, nationality is irrelevant. Eh, no. Incorrect. Daft, even. I have been trying to explain to folk that, de facto, WP:NPOV or "community consensus" is a myth; a euphemism, for Anglo-Saxon POV. I'm not sure whether yoy don't understand that or whether you pretend not to because you share British (in this case) pov. But any solution imposed against the majority of editors who live in the country of Ireland is not "consensus". It is the imposition of political POV, pure and simple. I'll join the dots for you in greater detail if needs be. Sarah777 (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Draft of main poll
We now have a draft of a possible version of the main poll at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll (Draft). To help structure the discussion about this draft, I have taken the liberty of setting out below the main areas that we will need to discuss. If I've missed anything out, then please just add them to this list.
Unless anyone prefers another approach, I will create a discussion topic thread later today for each of these topics. Hallucegenia (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done this. Most of the comments already in this paragraph seemed to go best into the Pro's and Con's section, so I put them there. Hope that's OK with the various authors; please undo if I've got it wrong.... Hallucegenia (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The poll is looking good, i like the shape / layout etc. Just need agreement on the pros and cons for each of the options as far as i can see. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that having pros and cons on the ballot itself could be considered a kind of canvassing. I would be supportive of a link to a separate page outlining pros and cons, but have yet to see an argument for putting it on the same page. Also I'd like to see Masem's draft before agreeing to anything.... -- Evertype·✆ 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the arguments for and against the options should be on the same page because people who may not be aware of the "controversy" may just come along and vote for 'obviously it should be option x', possibly without even realising that there are issues around the naming of Ireland articles. I'll avoid the stereotypes ;-) But I'm sure you know what I mean. Including the pros and cons on the main page means that there's an increased chance the voter will think about their choice(s) rationally. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with putting them on the main page. But i would suggest that they are put underneath the actual poll with a clear distinction between them so that people do not become confused.Willski72 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no pros and cons, period, the wording of any listing would be problematic in the extreme. Let the poll speak for itself, and possibly link to all previous discussions, for a laugh. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me this is a strong vote not to have pros and cons on the main page, at the very least. -- Evertype·✆ 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My view is this: everybody who's discussing this is intending to vote. I'm guesing that all, or nearly all, know how you're going to vote. But how do you know? Is it because you've been reading the arguments for the last three weeks or three years? I imagine so. Would your vote be more valuable if you hadn't read it? Hardly! So why do some of you not want uninvolved users to read the arguments - on the poll page - before voting? This isn't like sticking a pin in the Grand National field to decide who to back. We're looking for informed opinion here. So let's put the arguments on the top of the page, and let our voters know what it is they're voting for. Scolaire (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. My main concern is that a preponderance of UK !voters that haven't been following this discussion will result in a Status Quo. Don't forget, under current UK legislation, the name of the state is Republic of Ireland, and a lot of UK editors will be used to hearing this on the BBC, etc, because that's OK there. Just not everywhere else... --HighKing (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns are not my concerns. What I want to see is a fair and durable result based on consensus. If that result is Republic of Ireland then so be it. I have no interest in rigging this vote - quite the reverse. Scolaire (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this poll is going to be a vote, not a !vote. Scolaire (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've used Hallucegenia's "embed" option here. Scolaire (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awful! It is already difficult enough for people to work out their preferences using STV, and then with the added box showing the implications of the change. To add in a list of arguments inside the ballot is a very bad idea. The very top italic paragraph can point to a page where there are arguments. People could even open it up in a separate tab or window. But please let the ballot itself be simple. -- Evertype·✆ 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ballot itself is not simple! Probably the great majority of voters have never had experience of STV before. Even those of us who are used to it are accustomed to writing our numbers against a candidate name, party name and photograph, not messing about with curly brackets. More info on the top will make it easier, not more difficult, for all of us. You say: "It is already difficult enough for people to work out their preferences using STV...". but how are people to work out their preferences if not by weighing up the options, the implications and the arguments? Scolaire (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding in these controversial (and as yet unwritten) statements will surely not make the ballot any easier. We've just had a practice round with a format that worked. It's not wise to do what you propose. What I mean that it's difficult enough to work out their preferences means "it's hard enough to make sure that A is A and B is B -- without adding in lines of contentious text making each of the paragraphs even longer. As it is we're likely to be adding a whole set of options under "(xxx)". I object to having this material put onto the ballot itself. I do not object to making it available to voters via a prominent wikilink at the top of the ballot, but just like in a REAL election, the arguments need to be in a separate place from the ballot. On this point you won't find me compromising. Ill help to improve the pros/cons, as neutrally as possible. I'll be as accommodating as anything. But I will oppose strenuously putting the arguments on the actual ballot itself, because I believe it's fundamentally wrong to do that. -- Evertype·✆ 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Evertype. They should be on another page and linked to if necessary.MITH 20:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have every right to oppose it, strenously or otherwise. But please remember that, however much work you have put into this lately, you have no authority and you cannot dictate how things will be done. You can only suggest like the rest of us. I have stated my case and I am going to let it rest at that. I suggest you do the same. Scolaire (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything about dictating. Hyperbole! But I don't believe there will be consensus to mix arguments into the ballot. I suppose the next thing to do is try to wrestle with some sort of neutral description of pros and cons. I hope Masem has been able to work on that. -- Evertype·✆ 21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my considerable ignorance but is the ballot classed as the whole voting page or just a part of the whole voting page?Willski72 (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a tally and put the results here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My tally looks identical for IRV. Well done. Fmph (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of Ireland (xxx) Poll results and implications for the final poll
So we have three options.
As Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid has said, the runaway winner is F, Ireland (state). We could just go with that. On the other hand, we did enter into this assuming that we would take two options, possibly three.
In the run-off for two candidates, we saw F, Ireland (state), get elected on the first count and it took till the fifth count before A, Ireland (country) was elected.
In the run-off for three candidates, we saw F, Ireland (state), get elected on the first count; A, Ireland (country) was elected on the second count, and it took till the sixth count to elect C, Ireland (Republic of).
Personally I'd be happiest with F only as this makes the ballot easier for voters. Failing that we should go with F and A. I don't believe the support for C was strong enough to warrant putting all three on the ballot. -- Evertype·✆ 08:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My 2¢ is to go with just F since it get three times as many votes as A or C. I know some editors will be very eager for A to be included, and I would be interested in knowing if there would be a swing from "state" to "country" when we advertise the main ballot to *everyone* - but aside from that I don't see any merit in including A or C. So, "F" or "F and A", but would argue for just "F". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Evertype and Rannpháirtí. F had an overall majority of first preferences i.e. more than all the others put together. Realistically, all options containing A and/or C will be eliminated early on in the big poll, and not all of them will transfer. Including them will make the poll more complex, with zero gain for anybody. Scolaire (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree - including Ireland (country) and Ireland (Republic of) seems pointless. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all the tables and pros / cons that are going to have to be included, it makes sense just to include Ireland (state) it is the clear winner. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what would we actually be polling if only one option is included? Mooretwin (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We would be polling the six options currently listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names (Draft), as opposed to the nine options that would be required if "Ireland (country)" were included as well as "Ireland (state)", or the twelve that would be necessary if "Ireland (Republic of)" were also included. Scolaire (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how will this poll resolve the issue of how to refer to the 26 counties in the hundreds of WP articles in which it is currently referenced? How will it resolve the issue of how to name articles like Economy of the Republic of Ireland? It seems to me that any vote to change the status quo will exacerbate rather than solve these problems. I've been saying this all along, only to be ignored, and the fact that the suggestion of a comprehensive compromise gained significant support on the Task Force has been completely disregarded. Mooretwin (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your comment first, most of those who supported the compromise on the Task Force withdrew their support very soon afterwards when the arbitration began. That's part of life and we just have to move on. To answer your question, this poll will not resolve the issue of how to refer to the 26 counties in articles; that will have to be dealt with separately. How we deal with it will to some extent depend on the result of the poll. Remember that the status quo is one of the options. Scolaire (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall anyone withdrawing their support soon after arbitration began. And no - this poll will not resolve the issue. Worse, there will be no incentive for the "winners" of this poll to compromise on the other issue, having already got one result in the bag they can use the result to "win" on the other issue. It is very disappointing and unfortunate that a comprehensive approach (in order to encourage compromise) has not been facilitated, and that changes are to be pushed through piecemeal by voting. Mooretwin (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For my part I hope for Good Faith on the part of whoever are perceived to be the "winners". In any case, the question now is which of the (xxx) options go on the poll. So far I hear strong support for F only, weak support for F and A as acceptable, and no support for F and A and C. However, people keep wanting to talk about OTHER things than focus on the question now. -- Evertype·✆ 13:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mooretwin, when I said "withdrew their support" I didn't mean that they made a formal declaration of withdrawal of support. The fact is that arbitration began, almost everybody retreated to their previous entrenched positions and discussion on the Task Force page stopped. That is a withdrawal of support in my book. Anyway, that is water under the bridge now. The poll is going to happen. Hopefully it is going to produce a clear-cut result. At that point discussion of article names will end, and discussion of article contents can be resumed. Scolaire (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a poll on how many options we should include? Fmph (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please. That's not helpful. Do you have a preference? Please express it now. One option: Go with F Ireland (state) only in the poll because it got the overwhelming majority of support. One option: go with F Ireland (state) and A Ireland (country). It does seem that there is no real rationale for going with three, given its weak support in the poll. (Anyway Ireland (Republic of) is very close to Republic of Ireland which is already in the poll.) -- Evertype·✆ 13:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Do you really think that my expression of a preference will in some way lessen any objection that is made no matter what solution is chosen? It won't. I didn't vote. I don't want any of the options in that ballot, so it makes no difference. It's a decision for MAsem and the uninvolved Mods (if they are still around). Whatever they choose someone will object. Fmph (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hear a bit of yelling from people who seem to be worried about their POV. I have a preferred scenario for the disposition of the Ireland article names, but I have accepted the consensus to hold a poll in order to decide what configuration will be used for the next two years. So I for my part am trying to be neutral; not defending my POV nor even talking about what my preference is at this point. You say you didn't want "any of the options on the ballot"—what does that mean? That you didn't want there to be an "Ireland (xxx)" on the ballot? Well, can't help you there, because there was consensus that there would be one (or two or three) and the poll we held was to decide what the (xxx) should be in the Main Poll. We know there will be (state) now; whether there will be anything else hasn't been determined, though so far it seems as though only (state) will go through. To change the subject a bit, if you look through the past couple of years of edits you will find me and Scoláire often disagreeing with one another rather bitterly. Yet now we are working together. I am sure we can't make everyone happy, but I am confident that working within the project as we are, we are nearing the end of this long road. -- Evertype·✆ 16:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no problem with there being 1, 2 or 3 Ireland (xxx) options in the main poll. I won't vote for any of them. And there will still be objections. Fmph (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with just one. Out of "(state)" "(country)", "(nation)" and (independent xxx), we have a clear favourite. As you say the two "Republic of" options are two similar - which is why I changed to "(republic)" as sufficiently different. I don't think we need both, especially as that would involve a mucj more complicated ballot.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to throw my perspective in this, it's clear that the majority want "(state)" and only "(nation)" and "(country)" were next and tied, so we'd either have to go with 1 option or with three. For sake of making this as simple as possible (as noted the STV could be confusing to some) I'd would suggest that one option is best since it was a clear winner without having to process any further on the vote. Mind you, the STV poll should encourage discussion on the poll's talk page and mention that nation and country were the next possible choices in discussing the merits of "Ireland (state)". --MASEM (t) 18:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no. "Country" and "nation" were very far from being tied. In fact, "nation" was eliminated after the second count with zero votes, by which time "country" was already elected. "Republic of" came third and a long way behind "country"; see here. I agree with your conclusion. It's only the facts that are a little bit shaky :-) Scolaire (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking Masem's view now into account, and seeing really no one advocating for more than one option, I suggest we close this issue with the decision "1 option (F, Ireland (state) only". If that's fine, at noon tomorrow I will do the randomization on the options using the same procedure I used for the other poll. -- Evertype·✆ 18:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another way of looking at it: The poll arose, if I remember correctly, because it was felt that there were people who would not vote for Ireland (state) but who might vote for Ireland (something else). It was suggested that some people would vote for Republic of Ireland unless there was an alternative Ireland (xxxx) offered. Well, looking at the poll results, Ireland (country) (A) got ten first preference votes, of whom six gave their second preference to Ireland (state) (F), one to Ireland (Republic of) (C), and the remainder to neither or to none at all. Assuming the people who voted reflected the wider electorate, I think it's clear that nobody loses by only having the one option: Ireland (state). Scolaire (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pros and Cons
For my sins I have written a set of what I believe to be neutral points regarding the pro and con arguments. PLEASE DO NOT FLAME ME. This is a thankless task. Please see the Poll_on_Ireland_article_names_(Draft). For what it is worth, everybody, I think that the Poll on Ireland (xxx) went well, and I am willing to do the same work (including notifying the communities) to finalize the Big Poll, if you are willing to have me do it. (I don't see much point in saddling Masem with the task as he is here to moderate, not to draft and process documents.). With regard to the pro/con arguments I have given, when you review them, please do so with some things in mind.
The goal is not to prove anything, merely to state what is believed by some factions.
The goal is not to be encyclopaedic or utterly exhaustive. It is to summarize.
My intent has not been to piss anybody off. I have genuinely tried to be neutral. If you have suggested edits to any of the bullet points, please make them. And make them nicely.
Thanks to those who have expressed their happiness with the way the Ireland (xxx) poll went.-- Evertype·✆ 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First impressions: the arguments are fair and they are well written, but for me they are a little too general as a guide to ranking the options below them. Ideally, I would have specific pro and con arguments for each of the options A to F (or A to I or A to L as applicable). Failing that I would at least divide the arguments into "names for the island article" and "names for the political entity article" sections. Scolaire (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too general? Look, people are going to have to do some homework (just as they do in a real election). I don't see how giving specific pro and con arguments for each specific configuration will do anything but double or triple the size of the page. I see what you mean, maybe "positive implications of scenario A, negative implications of scenario A" and so on down to F (or I or L), but honestly I think it would be impossible to get all of those written in a neutral fashion acceptable to everyone. (A general argument is farrrrr easier to make neutral.) It seems to me that dividing the arguments into "names for the island" and "names for the political entity" will just duplicate things, won't it? -- Evertype·✆ 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks ok, although i dont like this bit for the Ireland option. "Some people believe that this term is ambiguous"... ARBCOM accepted its ambiguous, the only one who strongly refuses to accept this is the person admins told us to ignore a few days ago. Ireland is ambiguous, this is not in dispute. I agree it should be neutral pros/cons, but lets not go too far. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't helpful to say "I don't like this" unless you offer a suggestion as to what would make you more comfortable.
I attempted to respond to your point by changing that item to: The word Ireland is arguably ambiguous and can refer to more than one entity with none of them having verifiable primacy. I don't want to refer to an ArbCom ruling on an argument that most voters won't know about. I have changed from "some people believe". -- Evertype·✆ 13:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a fact. Ireland is ambiguous The consensus on this talk page is thats the case, Arbcoms ruling stated it was the case, there is no justification for saying, "Some people believe that this term is ambiguous" It should either say, "Ireland is ambiguous" or at the very least say, "Most see Ireland as ambiguous" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] The problem is that even though you think it is an obvious fact (and I happen to agree) there are people who have worked very hard to "prove" that either the island or the state is the primary topic. -- Evertype·✆ 13:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept and understand people thinking the state or the island is the primary topic there for belongs at the article, its just the crazy idea that Ireland isnt ambiguous that bothers me. I didnt like the "some".. bit in the sentence because thats whats used for all the other arguments made so it made it look like that point was equally disputed, when its not been. Anyway the change in wording is better for me, i dont know what others think. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that change seems more reasonable than the original wording.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I would prefer arguments to be presented as statements of fact rather than "some people believe". Also, I think you overestimate the difficulty of getting arguments that are acceptable to everybody. First of all, the arguments are not meant to be neutral, they are meant to be opposing. Second, people who are in favour of any given option all agree on the arguments in favour, and those who oppose it all agree on the arguments against. Those who are in favour should not bother themselves with the arguments against, and vice-versa. At this stage of the game, it's unlikely that any off-the-wall arguments will be put forward. Making them concise is the major thing. I'm working on something myself now. Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this ISN'T intended to be a battleground—there are HUNDREDS of pages of actual argument going back some years, and no way to capture that for the voters now. In my view, there are no "facts" to state that aren't contentious to someone. Are you working on the something in your own sandbox? Please do not make changes to the draft poll until we have consensus. -- Evertype·✆ 13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to believe that the opposite of "neutral" is "aggressive"; it's not. The supporters and opponents of each option support and oppose it for good and valid reasons, which can be stated as fact without joining battle. A neutral person can present arguments for and against, or an involved person like you or me can present arguments in a neutral (i.e. balanced) way, but an individual argument cannot be neutral. Otherwise it's not an argument. I am working on something. I will decide later how to present it. I will not spoil your draft, don't worry. You asked other people not to flame you. Please don't you flame me for entering into dialogue with you. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'm not flaming you. I sure wish people weren't all playing their cards so close to their chest though. ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 13:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Scolaire: "At this stage of the game, it's unlikely that any off-the-wall arguments will be put forward." You'd be surprised. Check the most recent additions to the Position argument summaries sections above and then check the original text of the insertions. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun, if you haven't the cojones to say something to someone's face (or the e-equivalent), it's probably better if you say nothing at all. If you found my argument a little off-the-wall, you could have let me know rather than inserting snide remarks into discussions that I might never see. Although I fail to see what was off-the-wall about the argument I put forward. --HighKing (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm pretty sure it was somebody else's argument that Bastun was referring to. Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except Bastun used the plural - recent additions, and he also editted the argument I added on, hence the comment of check the original text of the insertions. --HighKing (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see now. Looks like it was the "so what" he was referring to. I personally wouldn't be inclined to include that in a balanced summary of arguments. Scolaire (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, mo liathróidí are just fine, thanks. My objection to the original phraseology on your contribution was both the "So what", but also that the 'against' argument seemed disingenuous - it implied British imposition of the term RoI on Ireland - when the reality is that it was coined by us ourselves. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still out of order on your part to call my contribution off-the-wall if it was merely the phrasing, or if you disagreed with the argument. And you're not my English teacher, so you don't get to critize that aspect. And BTW, there's nothing implied about the British imposition. If the 1949 Ireland Act had named this country "Southern Ireland", then we'd be having this discussion about the COMMONNAME being Southern Ireland. The 1948 description is a red herring, attempting to provide legitimacy to the British imposition as you call it. --HighKing (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly I can't find the section you are talking about, though I did see some recent additions that were, well, off-the-wall. What I'm hearing (at least, so far) is that the two people who have offered an opinion have said that in general "the arguments are fair" and "Looks OK". Scoláire prefers a more argumentative presentation. But ... so far... I see that what's there is something that people could live with. Believe me I'd rather start the new poll than wrangle on about this text. Or we can take all arguments RIGHT OUT of the ballot and put them somewhere else where they don't have to be careful or sane. ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 13:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't prefer a more "argumentative" presentation. I simply prefer to leave out "some people believe", and address the actual options - the text itself is just fine! Please give me time to show you what I am talking about. You might actually like it! Scolaire (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is what Bastun is referring to. And yes, I guess I should have said, "we should be able to keep any off-the-wall arguments out of the final draft." :-) Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I see this point as more "on-the-ball" than "off-the-wall". Sarah777 (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the draft poll, where I have changed "Some people believe" to "It can be argued" which is (at least) better. -- Evertype·✆ 13:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no arguments on the poll page. This debate is only going to become a farce. For example, in the 'pro' argument for ROI, someone could justifiably simply add, '(Some people believe/An argument is/Fact:) ROI is an acceptable COMMON NAME of the state if Ireland cannot be used', but then that will just trigger the addition of an opposing con argument probably citing NPOV, or WP:DAB. Then there will be the inevitable call for sources, and accusations of bad faith. This is the same, whether they are statements of fact, or statements of arguments. Where does it end? Pretty soon, the pro-and con list will simply resemble this godforsaken page, but just in very tiny tiny writing. End it now, and save the time. Maybe use that time to collate a list of Further Reading links to all the previous pages, where all the arguments have been rehashed a million times. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC) We also have knocking about some statments pages, which are eseentially pro and con lists, without the endless bickering attached. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are the general summaries which I gave offensive to you, or untrue? I think that most of them are unproblematic. -- Evertype·✆ 13:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can be argued that this term is condescending and disrespectful of (for instance) the Constitution of Ireland. It can be demonstrated that the intent of the Republic of Ireland Act was specifically to give a description, not a name. to
It can be argued that as well as not being an official nor the most common name, some people believe that the term ignores the Constitution of Ireland where Ireland is declared as the only name of the State. It is also maintained that the Republic of Ireland Act specifically gives a description and is not meant to be a name.
It's verbose. It contains stuff I wouldn't like to see, like "the term ignores" (terms are not agents); it begs the question of "most common name" which was mentioned above. -- Evertype·✆ 13:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the slight feeling you feel you own that page. How about "ignores" is changed to "does not comply with"? Even though that probably breaks your rule of being too verbose. The current wording of its "condescending and disrespectful " is waffle.MITH 13:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am, yes, exercising responsibility for that page because the formatting is not trivial and this is not the place for a free-for-all. You can boldly edit an article about the plot of The Lord of the Rings; this is a poll near the end of an excruciatingly difficult negotiation process where such boldness isn't actually going to help us. Please let me continue. Thanks! -- Evertype·✆ 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case I am now completely against this being included in the poll and will strive to make sure it is not included. One person who is not a moderator controlling the page and putting down everyone else's edits is farcical.
Please assume good faith. This is not farcical. We are attempting to achieve a successful and sensitive poll. Discussion and editing of the individual items should happen here, not by "bold edits" as you have done. Perhaps I should bring them here. But there's no call for blanket-condemning this process, or me within it, as you have done. I do not have to be a moderator to exercise editorship over a page that we are developing collectively. Nor do you have to withhold respect for my efforts simply because I am NOT a moderator. We have just had a successful poll. Now we need to move on, without needless dispute, toward the final one. -- Evertype·✆ 14:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of the arguments. They are more problematic than they are helpful and some of them are ridiculous (like the "condescending" one). Mooretwin (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, originally I had put emotive words like "condescending and disrespectful" in because I felt that this was the root of the argument against Republic of Ireland. My version is more concise in that "being official" is encapsulated in the Constutution. An article title isn't subject to "compliance" with an article in a constitution, though. Declared as the only name of the State is false, because TWO names are specified there (langage-specific or not). The changes you made to the second sentence don't seem to improve it or alter it much, though it raises questions as to what was "meant". -- Evertype·✆ 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mooretwin, the condescension text has been changed. -- Evertype·✆ 14:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have now put up my draft at User:Scolaire/Poll on Ireland article names (draft). The text is the same as Evertype's for the most part, with a couple of little additions of my own, but (a) the arguments are presented as statements of fact, with the removal of "It can be argued that"; and (b) it is divided into "political entity" and "island" arguments, with a minimum of duplication. I am now painting concentric circles on my chest and am available for people to take pot-shots at. Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a ballot over what colour the concentric circles should be? Skinsmoke (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Green, white, gold, red, white, and blue, of course. -- Evertype·✆ 14:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed Scoláire's contribution and find that, with the exception of the "condescension" clause taken from my original list, his formulations are improvements on mine. I have further redacted these (formatting mostly), and have replaced the previous text at the Poll_on_Ireland_article_names_(Draft). Maith an fear! -- Evertype·✆
Good man, you too, Evertype! Who says consensus can't be achieved by discussion? ;-) Scolaire (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pints all round! Seriously though, at this stage I don't see what will keep the poll from going out quite soon. We've heard no strong insistence on more than F going out (quite the opposite); we've heard no serious quibble with the text of the Pros/Cons ("this statement is wrong because....")—and you will remember last night I was vociferously opposing any Pro/Con text in the ballot at all. Yet now, I am quite comfortable with what is there. What time zone is Masem in? -- Evertype·✆ 15:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that a link to the Position argument summaries (or perhaps create a cleaner page) should be included on the ballot so that editors that wish to read further or get a deeper understanding may do so. --HighKing (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of those are of pretty poor quality. I'm not really interested in trying to edit them (though a cleaner page would be indicated. If we linked to them… we'd surely need a disclaimer. Do you really think they add to the matter? -- Evertype·✆ 15:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they (or something like them that attempts to encapsulate all aspects of the argument, good or bad, off-the-wall, tongue-in-cheek, humorous or humorless) should be made available to voters - otherwise all they'll see is the summaries (if that's agreed to put on the poll page) and the summaries don't even come close to capturing what, for some editors, might be the primary motive for requesting a change. For example, I believe that RoI shouldn't be used as it is the correct name under UK legislation and therefore is common in British media, etc, but isn't internationally correct and using it here somehow gives RoI added status and weight as a name, leading to confusion. Even using it as a disambig is a problem to be honest. Equally, other editors will have their own arguments that might seem small to some people, but be important to others. So yeah, how can we make it easy for voters to access the full list of arguments? --HighKing (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, have a look at this statement in my sandbox and see if it comes close to what you are saying here. Scolaire (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scolaire. It comes closer. Do you think it OOT to mention that (related to this) it is commonly used in British media and that this helps to explain the amount of material that uses the the term? --HighKing (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, "it is commonly used in British media" (or "it is the correct name under UK legislation") is a statement in favour of the term. If I was an outsider, I would consider it very unconvincing as an argument against. That's my 2½d anyway. Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken that text and added (not replaced) it to the relevant section in the draft. -- Evertype·✆ 17:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, HighKing, I would say that there is no way for voters to access the full list of arguments, because there has never been a full list drawn up. The arguments have been recycled countless hundreds of times over several years, and some of the better ones have got lost among the repitition of the sillier ones. The list that you are pointing to is no less selective than the list we are trying to draft - it is very far from encapsulating all aspects of the argument. My problem with that list is that most of the so-called "summaries" are not summaries in any sense, but an endorsement of one of the sides. I would be bold and remove them, but I know somebody else would quickly revert. So, I favoured it when there was no alternative, but now there is an alternative, so why not work on it? Scolaire (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everytpe and Scolaire, please do not declare that there is consensus on the wording of the pros and cons, when some of us just an hour ago were under the seemingly wrong impression that we were still discussing whether there was a consensus to even have them at all. I for one haven't even particularly looked at them yet. Am I on a clock here? Should I start simply adding my ideas for what are the basic For/Against arguments now or what?. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take time now to read them. Please read them all through, then read each one individually. Remember that they are not there to fight battles; most of the Wikipedia community will not be drawn into nor understand the deep-seated feelings that many people in this project have about them. It's impossible to convey that. All that can be done is to summarize the basic issue. No, you do not need to "add" your ideas for what are the basic arguments. What will help us is if you can review what is there and indicate if each of them (individually) is appropriate and neiher false nor misleading. There could be dozens of additional arguments; it's not the task to pad the list with dozens more arguments. -- Evertype·✆ 15:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, I didn't mean to "declare" that there was a community consensus for the wording, only that Evertype and I were able to resolve our differences by discussion. Note the smiley! We should all continue to discuss until we have a consensus on whether to have arguments, and how to phrase them. Please feel free to edit my sandbox if you want to add or edit arguments. Scolaire (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And sorry for mis-spelling your name in my edit summary. Purely a typo. Scolaire (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick read of that Sandbox, there are a couple I would like to change - e.g., I'd like something more "all-Ireland"y in place of the Lough Neagh argument... is that best done there or here? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here please. And please explain why you want to make the change. Personally I think that Lough Neagh is a key argument (at least for some) but a second example might be added. Do you mean something like "Gaelic games are played throughout Ireland"? -- Evertype·✆ 17:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can edit my sandbox, rather than the Wikiproject one, and link to it here. As far as I'm concerned, the more editing the better. Scolaire (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the discussion in plain text here. -- Evertype·✆ 17:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can do both, I guess. Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the draft in the Wikipedia namespace before seeing that you also had one, Scolaire. The changes I made there were:
a minor update to how the balloting template works
to place an note in the arguments summary area that "Ireland (country)" had been discounted in favour of "Ireland (state)" in a preliminary round of voting
to specify - for the sake of all our heads - that the method to be used will be instant-runoff voting (to avoid any confusing later)
I also had a question regarding the "12 month block" - Masem has this been signed off by ArbCom (also: has ArbCom yet given the blessing to the concept of a vote yet?)?
Scolaire, can you summaries for me that the difference between your version and Evertypes version are? Everytype's version was fine by me - I expect yours will be too. (Here is the diff of my edit.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My sandbox is only for playing with arguments. I have edited it to make that a bit more apparent. Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid: I reverted some changes you made. Mostly cosmetic -- but the last poll and its instructions succeeded quite well, so there's no reason to change the cosmetics. -- Evertype·✆ 23:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Morning. More specifically I put back the asterisk. I think it's no bad thing to avoid an actual count of votes during the ballot. What I did was to globally convert * in to # as I was closing the poll. In any case, I think that 50 editors did a great job last time selecting from the asterisk to the second curly bracket, and in fact if the template magically inserts anything what we'll end up with is multiple asterisks or *# — so please can you revert that one? -- Evertype·✆ 08:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments in several places above, I am totally opposed to the "summary of the two summaries", none of which are enlightening and most of which are biased towards one or other argument. Can we not please delete them, since that will no longer affect this page. Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this isn't clear. I really don't know what you're trying to say here. I created that page with content from this page. What is it you want? -- Evertype·✆ 12:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see now what you meant (since you went ahead and did it). Good edit. Well done. -- Evertype·✆ 14:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you like it, but that still doesn't mean someone else won't revert. Also, note that there are still comments in there on the lines of "this argument needs to be rephrased". Somebody would need to do the rephrasing before polling day. Scolaire (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now updated My sandbox to include arguments for and against the remaining two options - the "China" option and the "Britannica" option.(diff) Like all the other arguments, they are only one person's idea and can be modified or completely rewritten. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second of the two is OK. The first of the two... I think the rationales need work for them to work. -- Evertype·✆ 12:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland (state)
In favour: "Ireland (state)" works as a disambiguation term because its use is formal and precise; from the 1937 Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". See also Sovereign state.
Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the political entity article should be named "Ireland (state)", one against ("This is why the political entity article should not' be named "Ireland (state)"). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆ 15:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "wrong" with either statement. I have a vague feeling that a better "against" argument could be made - but I can't think of one :-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the argument which has been put forward. We just reported it. -- Evertype·✆ 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
State very 'poorly' done by at Wikipedia, interesting how the term may be changing with the passing of years. Tfz 00:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing no objections, I would like to suggest that we have consensus on the text for Ireland (state) and close this item. -- Evertype·✆ 08:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do have an objection. See the following section. Scolaire (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking... -- Evertype·✆ 09:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of dab terms in parentheses are an ugly solution that should be reserved for instances where there is no other option. Fmph (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland (island)
In favour: "Ireland (island) works as a disambiguation term where either "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" is used as the title of the article on the political entity.
Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the island article should be named "Ireland (island)", one against ("This is why the island article should not' be named "Ireland (island)"). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆ 08:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I agree with Bastun. There is no strong argument in favour of either term. "x works as a disambiguation term" is at best a week argument and at worst a shrugging acceptance. I suggest we change the wording of both by inserting:
In favour: The article title needs a disambiguator because "Ireland" is ambiguous.
I would further edit this statement by replacing the current text with:
"Ireland (island)" works as a disambiguation term because it is neutral and factual.
See my sandbox (sorry, I didn't do it in a separate edit so I can't show a diff). Scolaire (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of dab terms in parentheses are an ugly solution that should be reserved for instances where there is no other option.Fmph (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Ireland
In favour: "Republic of Ireland" is a valid alternative name for the state, per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.".
Against: The intent of the Republic of Ireland Act was specifically to give a description, not a name; the only name of the political entity is specified in the Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". While "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949, that Act does not apply anywhere else in the world.
Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the political entity article should be named "Republic of Ireland", one against ("This is why the political entity article should not be named "Republic of Ireland")). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆ 13:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that MusicInTheHouse objected the the third part of the Against argument here. As far as I know, this IS one of the arguments against. It's not a question of whether you or I or anyone likes or dislikes the argument. It's a question of it being an argument. HighKing pointed out that this argument was missing. -- Evertype·✆ 12:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While Scolaire pointed out its not an argument against, as have I. That does not mean it has consensus for inclusion. You are not the moderator to decide what goes in! If there is clear consensus then fine, but there is not for this.MITH 12:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quit complaining about whether I am a moderator or not, please. Moderators don't decide anything either. I am managing the editing of that page as a (thankless?) service to this process. I added the text in because it made sense, because Scoláire authored it, and because HighKing thought that it went some way towards meeting his requirement. The thing you are citing Scoláire as saying has to do with an additional comment HighKing proposed, which would be to talk about how the UK media uses the term Republic of Ireland. Scoláire and I both think that's OTT. However, I think we both think that the clause here about the UK's Ireland Act 1949 is a reasonable addition to this part. If you disagree, please explain why. -- Evertype·✆ 13:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we would all be willing to manage actions taking place here, the fact that you have jumped ahead and taken control is not a thankless service. You are misintrepating Scolaire's text. "To my mind, "it is commonly used in British media" (or "it is the correct name under UK legislation") is a statement in favour of the term." It's pretty clear he agrees with me that it's an argument for. I agree that it's not an argument against. I don't mind it being included somewhere, but it is not an argument against. And besides the GFA has nulled the Act somewhat as an argument in any way shape or form.MITH 13:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, MITH, it is you who are misinterpreting me. I said that "it is commonly used in British media" is a statement in favour of the term. I did not say it was a good argument. I'm not bothered whether it's used as a 'pro' or not, I just think it would be daft to include it as a 'con'. "While it is the official name...", on the other hand, is fine by me as a 'con'. Scolaire (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for discussing it here. Somebody has to manage the draft page. I'm trying to do a good job. Anyway I see your point. Would the following not be better, then?
In favour: "Republic of Ireland" is a valid alternative name for the state, per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.". Also, "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949.
Against: The intent of the Republic of Ireland Act was specifically to give a description, not a name; the only name of the political entity is specified in the Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Although "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949, that Act does not apply anywhere else in the world.
I think that balances it, right? The "although" and the underlined refutation should address your concern. -- Evertype·✆ 13:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are to mention it you'll have to mention the Good Friday Agreement too. You can't pick and choose!MITH 13:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, can't you simply make a case for what you think should go there? You've not made a case. In fact, you inserted this Good Friday Agreement stuff in the wrong section of the Draft Poll. That's disruptive and unhelpful. This isn't about your "rights" to edit anything you want on the Wikipedia. We're trying to solve a real problem here. -- Evertype·✆ 14:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And where's the case for all the text you inserted? Oh wait you just put in what you wanted according to what you thought was best. I do the same and I'm disruptive? Please.MITH 14:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a breath and be calm. -- Evertype·✆ 14:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing and Scoláire discussed the fact that one of the arguments for RoI being used was UK legislation from 1949. That's true. Scoláire wrote a draft. It seemed OK, I put it in. You just deleted it without saying why. Now we've had a discussion and I understood your comment, and I made edits, proposed above. That dealt with your concern. Now, you want to make the explanations MORE encyclopaedic by adding "something" about the Good Friday Agreement. You haven't said what or why. You tried to dump some text in the Draft, but it was in the wrong place and it was also POV, and not neutral. I'm not your enemy for not wanting you to do that. Please stop making this into a fight. -- Evertype·✆ 14:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You put it in. I reverted it. You should have accepted that and waited until the discussion was over before putting in new text. Instead you felt to revert and edit first and discuss later.MITH 14:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the text it without discussion. Without offering an actual rationale there or here. Then you began an edit war. You haven't been content to discuss the matter here; you've continued to make disruptive edits to the Draft Poll, and as far as I can tell you're doing your best to ensure that the Draft Poll doesn't get put together in a careful or neutral fashion. I don't believe that is in the spirit of this collaborative project. -- Evertype·✆ 14:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You inserted the text without proper discussion. It is the same thing. The fact that you won't stop reverting is not in the spirit of this project either.MITH 14:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See below, O wise and careful editor. I make a formal proposal for text. -- Evertype·✆ 14:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, I see your suggestion above about mentioning the UK media, and while I most definitely understand your point of view (given the ongoing fiasco of the Irish media's use of euro and cent as plurals) I sort of do think it's a bit OTT—this one is already getting long. I know it's emotive, but I think the reference to the 1949 Act covers subsequent media. What do you think? -- Evertype·✆ 12:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer "Republic of Ireland" is a valid name for the article on the state, per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.". We are deciding on article names, after all, not names of entities. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've tried to keep that kind of edit throughout the draft. (There's been some disruption there recently as you may gather.) -- Evertype·✆ 14:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus wept. I propose the following text:
In favour: "Republic of Ireland" is a valid alternative name for the state, per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.". Also, "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949.
Against: The intent of the Republic of Ireland Act was specifically to give a description, not a name; the only name of the political entity is specified in the Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Although "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949, that Act does not apply anywhere else in the world.
Please discuss. -- Evertype·✆ 14:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am against the proposed text. Stating that it is the correct name under UK legislation is a statement in favour of the term" and therefore should not be included in the against section. Stating the Ireland Act 1949 as a reason for is also futile to the overall argument as the Good Friday Agreement, a more recent political development acts in contrast to it, accepting the name of the state as Ireland. Besides this, no reason has been identified to as why British use of terms can be seen as a positive or a negative, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, would suggest that the points made a particular Act are not necessarily desirable as main points.MITH 15:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It is a fact, that RoI is given in the UK Act cited. So, "in favour" of the argument that the article should be at Republic of Ireland one of the arguments given is that it's in the UK Act so it's kosher. You might not like the argument. I might not. But that's the argument. (2) The counter-argument which responds to that argument is the "so what?" argument -- it says "ALTHOUGH the UK has this Act, that Act does not apply anywhere else". So that is a refutation, which is part of the "against" argument. Why is that sentence there? It is there in response to HighKing's concern. I don't beiieve that your WP:UNDUEWEIGHT applies here. Therefore your deletions from the text should be reverted. -- Evertype·✆ 15:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's deemed unnecessary and adding complications, I am happy to withdraw the point. I seem to be the only one that attachs any weight or significance to it in any case...not sure why that is either... --HighKing (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moot, as this text won't be on the ballot itself now. -- Evertype·✆ 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland (as a name for the political entity)
In favour: The primary meaning of the word "Ireland" is the sovereign entity, per the 1937 Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland".
Against: Either the primary meaning of the word "Ireland" is the island as a whole, for example, as shown in the statement "Lough Neagh is in Ireland" (The lake is in Northern Ireland); or the word "Ireland" is ambiguous and can refer to more than one entity with none of them having verifiable primacy.
Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the political entity article should be named "Ireland", one against ("This is why the political entity article should not be named "Ireland"). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆ 13:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland (as a name for the island)
In favour: The primary meaning of the word "Ireland" is the island as a whole, for example, as shown in the statement "Lough Neagh is in Ireland" (The lake is in Northern Ireland.)
Against: Either the primary meaning of the word "Ireland" is the sovereign entity, per the 1937 Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". or the word "Ireland" is ambiguous and can refer to more than one entity with none of them having verifiable primacy.
Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the island article should be named "Ireland", one against ("This is why the island article should not be named "Ireland"). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆ 13:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation of method to calculate votes
I don't think this was ever nailed down precisely, but can we please get community sign-off on the method we are going to use to calculate the vote. There were a couple of debates that veered towards consensus but I don't recall anyone every saying exactly, "Yip, that's what we're doing."
In the off-chance that no options reaches 50%+1 the option with a plurality will be declared the winner
b) No additional requirements for a binding decision
Is that right? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest 50%+1 be used to select the winner. We'll still process all the STVs to see how options are eliminated. --MASEM (t) 11:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Id still like to see a system that does take into account if a certain option has strong opposition to ensure we get a moderate option that the majority of people can live with. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we attached a rider saying that the winner had to exceed a certain minimum then "not voting for something" would be a vote against it winning. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was going to be STV? 50%+1 sits uncomfortably with consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and the point with STV is that you keep transferring votes via preference until one option hits the "win" threshold. We're saying that's 50%+1. --MASEM (t) 11:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that wasn't made clear. Under STV, the "win" threshold (i.e. the quota) is the total number of votes divided by the total number of seats plus one. Why should this be any different (except for "seats" substitute "solution")? Mooretwin (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this "fun with maths"? Please could someone explain (simply) what the differences are, and whether or how this differs from the poll we just took, so we can understand what is being asked? I understand that we just took a poll without specifying in advance which method would be used. I thought that in some sense the en result would be the same. Can't STV can yield a winner (with a majority) even though 50%+1 might not be achieved? -- Evertype·✆ 11:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The exact method of STV doesn't matter because we will only have on winner. Therefore, we are using instant-runoff voting. That's a no brainer - there is *nothing* to argue about there. The only question remaining is this:
There is a slim chance that the "winner" according to STV (or technically IRV) could be elected without exceeding 50%+1 of the vote (after all transfers have been made). In such a circumstance, are we going to accept the result as binding?
The percent of first preferences (or the percent at any time before all transfers have not been made) should *not* be taken into consideration because that defeats the purpose of having an STV in the first place. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. Thank you. If we do NOT accept the result as binding (if 50%+1 is not achieved) then I think the only alternative would be to run a second poll with losing options removed. -- Evertype·✆ 12:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
French presidential elections are conducted via run-off voting which ensures that the elected President always obtains a majority: if no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round of voting, the two highest-scoring candidates arrive at a run-off. After the president is elected, he goes through a solemn investiture ceremony called a "passation des pouvoirs" ("handing over of powers").
There would be no point except to artificially create the appearance of 50%+1 support.
When there's only on candidate to be elected, STV becomes "instant run-off voting". It "simulates" the process holding multiple rounds but you only have to vote the once. If no candidate achieved 50%+1 in a IRV poll then holding another round with just the top two candidates, and asking the same people to vote on them, would produce the same result as just taking the candidate with the plurlity from the IRV vote. Example:
IRV ends with Apple 40%, Pear:35%, Orange: 25% (i.e. there are no transfers between them). Another round of voting is held with just Apple and Pear. Apple people vote for Apple. Pear people vote for Pear. Orange people don't vote at all because they don't want or care which of Apple or Pear wins. The result of the second round will then be: Apple: 54%, Pear 46%. Meanwhile 55% of people (i.e. Pear voters and Orange voters) still didn't vote for Apple.
Normal IRV is that if all transfers are exhausted then the person with the most votes wins, but that may not be 50%+1. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wisdom of including arguments/proposal they be removed
In my draft ballot I first included a summaries of arguments for or against each proposal. It was pointed out to me that doing so ay not be wise. It was said that editors here would get bogged down in arguing over the minor details of them. At the time I agreed and removed them.
When I saw that Evertype had included again, I said nothing because I think that it is important for those who have not participated in this page to see a summary of arguments before casting their vote. Edits like this however have convinced me again of the earlier warning against them. Surely the purpose of presenting the arguments is to present fairly both sides for the benefit of the community - and not an opportunity to water down arguments we don't agree with?
I propose that all of the pro/anti arguments be removed unless editors stop bickering over them and stop trying to sabotage arguments they don't find appealing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you for saying this. When I posted the Draft Poll I asked people NOT TO FLAME ME for doing it. Mostly I would say that editors have been fairly mature about what was offered; I am in particular grateful to Scoláire for taking my draft and revising it thoroughly, making the arguments both more accurate and more useful to the voters. From mid-day today things took a decided downturn. I think that what Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid says, the controversy has centred on editors "trying to sabotage arguments they don't find appealing" is spot-on, though the arguments have ended up being about "ownership" of the Draft document and ones "right" to edit whatever or wherever one pleases without regard to actual quality or consensus. (I make a lot of edits to the Draft Poll, and I have asked people to try to respect the need to be careful with it. Other editors have also edited there—but only a few editors have done so out of a desire to push their POV.
I believe that we've got a good set of reasonably accurate arguments on the Draft Poll now. I don't believe that any of the entries are trying to either downplay or give undue weight to the arguments. I hope that we can proceed to keep this section and move forward to the actual poll. For my part I am sure I am impatient to have it start, so it can be over! With hand on heart I don't believe that anything in the draft poll genuinely disadvantages any of the factions in this long-standing dispute. I hope the Pros and Cons stay in the polling document.
I am, however, willing to axe the section entirely. It comes down to this: we can have the poll without this material (which gets us a poll soon!), or we can try to behave like a mature and sensible community and agree that arguments which we dislike are the genuine arguments of those with whom we disagree, and their arguments deserve to be summarized just as fairly as our arguments do.
I'd like to see everybody give their opinion here. Do you support the attempt to put Pros/Cons on the ballot or do you oppose the attempt? -- Evertype·✆ 18:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rannpháirtí, I don't know if it's your intention, but you sound as though you're threatening to take away our sweets unless we agree to share them. Personally, I'm not in favour of a parent-child approach to conflict resolution. I think that it is not just important, but essential for those who have not participated in this page to see a summary of arguments before casting their vote. I also think the arguments should be the best they can be, and that can only be arrived at by collaboration (remember that word) between participants, whether through BRD or through discussion on this page. If the discussion gets too heated, it's up to the cooler heads to try to take the heat out of the situation. We won't get agreement on anything by bandying words like "bickering". At the end of the day, everybody has to feel they have been listened to, or there is no chance on agreement on procedures. Scolaire (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion: A definition statement for each of the choices
Remember that most people that we expect to respond to the poll will likely not care or want to know the history of the arguments, but will want a quick understanding of the debate. I will suggest a slightly different approach:
The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous between many possibilities but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland" and the country that occupies the majority of it and contains 26 counties, "Ireland". Both uses are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules, leading to long debates about the issues. Other naming conflicts that involve countries do not provide consistent advice (for example, Luxembourg, Georgia, and People's Republic of China). There is also conflict with the United Kingdom country of Northern Ireland, which occupies the northern part of the island, and impreciseness in naming may lead to misstatements (such as, "Lough Neagh is in Ireland", which may be true or not depending on how the word "Ireland" is taken) As this also affects where the disambiguation page for the term "Ireland" will fall, it is considered part of the naming conflict resolution issue. As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus the issue, the parties have agreed to use the results of a poll to all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter.
The six most likely options from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below. All involve what content will be at the "Ireland" article, in addition to other articles that may be affected by it. This primarily impacts what the article that the 26-county country of "Ireland", should it not be listed at the article "Ireland". There are two choices for this:
"Ireland (state)", a disambiguation name, based on the fact that the country is a sovereign state and that the 1937 Constitution of Ireland sets forth that "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."
"Republic of Ireland", the current location of information relating to the country, as "Republic of Ireland" is a valid descriptor (but not name) for the country, as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."
Two other options consider a solution like China, in which the article at "Ireland" would discuss the geographical and political aspects; one option would further have separate articles to give more detail about the island and the country.
Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the 26-county country of Ireland will be referred to in the text of other articles.
Then there need not be any other position statements - this covers everything for all practical matters in a nice soundbite. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm good with this and will be happy to put it in the Draft Poll. Shall I, Masem? -- Evertype·✆ 19:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm offering it as a suggestion, let's make sure no one has any major qualms (I feel I hit all the major talking points without necessarily negating any option from another, which is important here). --MASEM (t) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this does the job nicely. Rockpocket 20:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This works - and avoids what could be a very long drawn out process otherwise (especially if editors who despite saying they're not participating here come along and make surreptitious edits to the pros and cons, as pointed out above). It does need some copyediting, though ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this certainly doesn't expose my arguments to the wider audience. I really feel that while there may only be 6 different options, there are actually thousands of reasons for choosing one over another. What is being attempted here is to coalesce all these reasons into a community conventional wisdom. It can only end in tears, and I'm not sure that it passes WP:NPOV. If it did, then we wouldn't need a poll. I also don't believe that Masem can possibly write these arguments, given his role as a neutral. Arguments in favour of a Option X should have a POV, otherwise they won't be good arguments. I still believe that we should allow a multitude of "Arguments in favour of Option X" in userspace, all linked from the ballot page, all written by people who really believe in that particular option. Fmph (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I largely agree. If we could get the summary pro/anti statement on the draft pages agreed to then I think they should accompany a "backgrounder" like this. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will tell you right now that the average person drawn to this poll from outside the project is not going to want to read reams of arguments; they want to know what they are voting for and be done with it. That's not to see that a person may want to know more, and linking to this project, to the previous statements, or the like, will be helpful, but the point is, by having this poll with these limited options, we've reduced the problem down that we don't need to reopen the discussions discourse at this time. Again, the talk page should be left open for vote comment. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could move what's on the Draft Poll now to the Summary arguments page I made today, where there are also other, less "well-edited" statements. -- Evertype·✆ 21:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. I can support that text (without sabotaging edits) or Masem's text above. -- Evertype·✆ 21:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but... I would remove the sentence beginning "There is also conflict with the United Kingdom country of Northern Ireland..." Foremost because while everything else sounds entirely accurate, that statement sounds more speculative. I also think it is redundant: everything it tries to say has already been said. If it is to stay there are some issues I have with it:
"...the United Kingdom country of Northern Ireland..." To avoid the consternation of calling NI a "country", could we have it changed to "Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, ..." if we are going to keep that sentence in there.
"...impreciseness in naming may lead to misstatements..." I think "impreciseness" should be changed to "ambiguity" and I don't know what to change "misstatements" to.
To repeat though, I think the whole thing could happily survive without that sentence. Aside form that sentence a minor bugbear I would have is "...the country that occupies the majority of it..." Could we change "country" to "state". Though it is only a minor bugbear of mine.
Otherwise, it sounds good. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Propose: "There is also conflict with Northern Ireland, a constituent country of the United Kingdom", which occupies the northern part of the island, and imprecision in naming may lead to equivocal statements (such as "Lough Neagh is in Ireland", which may be true or not depending on how the word "Ireland" is taken)." -- Evertype·✆ 21:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think too that the Lough Neagh example is weak. To me at least "Lough Neagh is in Ireland" doesn't sound truly equivocal. Would a statement like "Dublin is the capital of Ireland" or "Ireland has been independent of the United Kingdom since 1922" cut more to the heart of the matter? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Dublin is the capital of Ireland" is what most voters will understand (few of them will know about 1922). -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your "could we change 'country' to 'state', I'd say, either to that or to 'political entity'. -- Evertype·✆ 21:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - either is better than "country", which can have different meanings... "state" would be my preference. Also agree that the Lough Neagh statement is possibly not the best example. Maybe "There are thirty-two counties in Ireland"? (Even though, being a pedant, I know there are 35 ;-) ) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ireland owns 85% of the island, so the island and the state are "85% mutally inclusive". Unfortunately, the moderator is convulsed in the mish-mash too, and who can blame him with so many pov-pushing elements bearing down. Tfz 01:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does "mutually inclusive" matter to anything? It's considered as one of the options, if you are getting at what I think you are. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because this whole page is placating an Anti-Irish agenda, fair and square. Ireland isn't ambiguous, no more than England (disambiguation) is. Tfz 02:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish! Utter rubbish, Tfz. Are you accusing me (for instance) of supporting an "anti-Irish agenda"? I remember being in court one morning nearly a decade ago, swearing loyalty to the Nation and fidelity to the State. Agus do rinne mé é sin inár dteanga náisiúnta. Kindly keep such childish accusations to yourself. This endless dispute is not serving anything but people's egos. It doesn't serve Ireland. It doesn't serve Northern Ireland or Her Majesty the Queen either. It sure as sugar doesn't serve the Wikipedia. Have you anything constructive and collaborative to offer, or are you just here to exercise your passions by decrying "No! No! I might not get my way!"? We're up for a vote. There are three propositions:
Have no explanatory text at the top of the ballot — in my judgement the majority of rational editors does not support this, as it fails to offer guidance to the voters who have not rolled around in this muck for years as some of us have. Nor does our moderator think that an unadorned ballot is the best option.
Have a careful and neutrally redacted set of individual arguments such as is on the current Draft Poll. Attentive readers will observe that rational contributions to that redaction have been taken on board, in an attempt to refine the arguments fairly. In my judgement a number of editors on both "sides" have attempted to make positive contribution to the text there, and it is suitable for ordinary voters to understand.
Have a single definitive statement based on text which Masem has proposed — while it needs a little bit of editing (possibly to include a mention of "85%", lest you in your passion think nobody tries to parse your accusations for content) it is also something that can be considered useful to the Wikipedia Community of voters.
It is difficult to assess your comment above as anything but a statement that you want your own POV to prevail at the end of the vote, and that you don't want the other "side"'s arguments to be put forward because you fear you might "lose". Scoláire and Rannṗáirtí and I have tried to set out each of the pro and con arguments; we have taken serious input on board and yet been faced with unhelpful edits from two editors (you being one of them; the arguments are is/is not not can be). Here we see Masem trying a different tack, and you oppose—why? Because the text says "the majority" rather than "85%"? Because Masem is "placating" (how?) an "anti-Irish agenda"? It will be "Conspiracy! Conspiracy!" next. Rubbish. -- Evertype·✆ 08:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to apply some of the discussed edits to Masem's draft here; the diff is here. -- Evertype·✆ 08:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The idea of a comprehensive summary makes sense, and this one seems balanced. Few prospective voters will have the stomach for wading through the archives. If editors feel strongly that (minor) additional info. needs to be included to assist the uninitiated, thats fine by me too. RashersTierney (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I think there needs to be a reference to alert editors to the multiple controversies over the name, not only on WIkipedia but at Government level. There is no need to go into them, but this should not be portrayed as some minor issue. The fact that it went to Arbcom following multiple edit wars should at least be mentioned --SnowdedTALK 10:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Surely whatever "controversy" there may be on Government level is outside the scope of our activity, as we (and this poll) can have no affect on it. As always, if you have suggestions for text, please offer it. -- Evertype·✆ 11:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sounds good, although a few sentences could be improved. ie, Lough Neagh, Northern Ireland and I agree with Snowded that edit warring took place should be mentioned.MITH 11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Zounds, people, saying "it could be improved" doesn't get it improved! I have attempted to apply some of the discussed edits to Masem's draft here; the diff is here. -- Evertype·✆ 11:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can accept this method of explaining the situation although i do have some concerns about how clear such a huge block of text is going to be, some people just skip such text where as a bullet point for pro / against for each other isnt heavy on reading. I agree with the above comments about the UK and Northern Ireland bit. Under no circumstances should we describe Northern Ireland as a country in the description because it will just lead to alot of confusion for people who dont understand the make up of the United Kingdom. Saying "Northern Ireland that is part of the United Kingdom" seems the simplest solution. I also think some people will be concerned about the statement pushing for certain arguments where as all 6 no matter how silly some of them are should be treated equally.
Where it is talking of the article name it should be put in bold not "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" / "Republic of Ireland". Only place where i think ""s should be used is for bits like "Lough Neagh is in Ireland". I dont know if the fact there has been edit wars needs to be included in this description, wont there already be a general intro to the poll itself where we can say there has been endless edit wars so this was set up to resolve the dispute?
Also this bit "Two other options consider a solution like China, in which the article at "Ireland" would discuss the geographical and political aspects; " doesnt say of what, it needs to say of the whole island or something like that covering both NI/ROI - BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You saying you don't like "Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom"? I thought that was the precise version, and that the link could educate the teeming millions who think that Wales is in England.... The intent of Masem's text is that it be the general intro. -- Evertype·✆ 08:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there would be a general intro before that statement, if there isnt going to be then it first needs to explain there is a actual vote and edit wars have taken place etc. Constituent country is less of a problem and i dont object to it but lets try to avoid the complicated make up of the United Kingdom here, this is about the island of Ireland and NI being called a province, country etc doesnt really make any diference, as long as it doesnt just say country im ok with it because that would confuse alot of people. BritishWatcher (talk)
Strong Oppose - this summary does not give any indication of why using a "description" rather than a name is objectionable. The fact that in modern times "RoI" is essentially a British usage while in Ireland and internationally "Ireland" is the overwhelming usage. This summary is a travesty; if this is the only guidance the vast "community" of uninvolved and uninterested voters that supporters of the status quo wish to attract then they are being informed that there is not problem at all with the "RoI". Why, they will wonder, has this been continuously contested since the beginning of the article? Sarah777 (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just Brits who use "the Republic" or "the Republic of Ireland". As I've noted before, within the six-counties I've never heard/seen the twentysix-counties being referred to as "Ireland". It's the same no matter who I've talked to, the papers I've read, the news programmes I've watched, or the radio stations I've listened to. It's the same whether they be republican, nationalist, unionist or loyalist. If someone said "I'm going to Ireland tomorrow" there'd be confused faces all round. ~Asarlaí 16:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in Irish it was traditional for islanders (on Clear Island for instance) to say "Táim ag dul go hÉireann amárach" 'I'm going to Ireland tomorrow'. An island-to-island thing. -- Evertype·✆ 17:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter a whole lot what names local people use, whether it be 'pet names', or colloquialisms. For example, the people in Germany use the word Deutschland, and in the United States of America, "States" was used quite lot in my time there. Neither do we see any debate about the United Kingdom of "Great Britain" and Northern Ireland not including the Isle of Wight, because the 'IoW' is a different island than the island of Great Britain. Ireland is being subjected to a higher standard of 'proof' than any of its neighbours, and it's quite extraordinary. Tfz 20:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Ireland is being subjected to a higher standard of 'proof' than any of its neighbours..." Proof of what? One or two people posted comments (a long time ago) initially believing that 'Republic of Ireland' was the official name of the state. When it was pointed out to them that in fact 'Ireland' is the official name (as well as being the common name) of the state, they very quickly agreed and admitted their error.
The matter is how do we handle the two entities commonly called Ireland. While it's true that extremists of both colours (Irish and British) have reason to deny that the 26-county state is called Ireland, reasonably-minded people from time-to-time have reason to call it by a different name also. For that reason, 'Republic of Ireland' is a very common name used to distinguish one 'Ireland' from the other. On the other hand, I never before encountered people that so vehemently demanded that the state be called 'Ireland' - and nothing else. (Correction: Actually, I have. Some unionist commentators from Northern Ireland - none I've met on WP - insist on it as means to reinforce that "Ireland" and "Irish" is what is south of the border, while "Britain" and "British" is what is north of it.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well see Tfz's inappropriate accusations above. This isn't the crucible in which The Truth will be handed down. SEVEN YEARS of argument we've had about this, the worst of it from people who simply don't wish to exercise their ability to be "reasonably-minded".
I see more support for a version of Masem's more generic explanative proposal than I do for the proposal to put specific arguments on the Poll. -- Evertype·✆ 21:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agressive again ET? No need to 'shout'. And it is not 'well' in that context, it is "we'll".) I never us the term RoI, and none of my circle use it either. Rannpháirtíit, it is not "common" as you claim it is, unless you reside in the UK of course. It's quite extraordinary the the 'Republic of Ireland' is being presented again, when Wikipedia:Verifiability, reliable source, Wikipedia:No original research, reliability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view would suggest that it should not be presented at all. Tfz 21:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
123 hits and most about soccer. Sounds though you move in UK circles since you disagree with me so strongly, but that's OR. Flat Earth Society got many more hits with Google-Scholar. Tfz 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the soccer related, using ""Republic of Ireland" location:ireland -football -soccer -"Premier League" -"league of Ireland" -"world cup" -site:eleven-a-side.com -uefa -Trapattoni -goalkeeper", gets it down to 34. And looking at what's left, a lot of the time "Republic of Ireland" appears as part of a quote. Not sure what significance, if any, to the google search. Interestingly, or not, removing using -"northern ireland" as well (crude attempt to see where it might have been used as a disambig" gets it down to 24. --HighKing (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested info box - if there is to be one
The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous between many possibilities but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland" and the country that occupies the majority of it whose capital city is Dublin, "Ireland". Both uses are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules, leading to long debates about the issues. Other naming conflicts that involve countries do not provide consistent advice (for example, Luxembourg, Georgia, and People's Republic of China). There is also conflict with the United Kingdom country of Northern Ireland, which occupies a portion of the northern part of the island. As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus the issue, the parties have agreed to use the results of a poll to all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter.
The six most likely options from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below. All involve what content will be at the "Ireland" article, in addition to other articles that may be affected by it. This primarily impacts what the article about the country of "Ireland" will be called, if it is not to appear at the article "Ireland". There are three choices for this:
Ireland to be a disambiguation page.
"Ireland (state)", a disambiguation name, based on the fact that the country is a sovereign state and that the 1937 Constitution of Ireland sets forth that "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."
"Republic of Ireland", the current location of information relating to the country, is a description (but not name) for the country.
Two other options consider a solution like China, in which the article at "Ireland" would discuss the geographical and political aspects; one option would further have separate articles to give more detail about the island and the country.
Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the sovereign country of Ireland will be referred to in the text of other articles.
There is no way to know what diffs you made from Masem's original. Nor did you address my attempt to take comments into account. -- Evertype·✆ 10:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And when/how was the decision taken to being forward just one option from the sub-vote to the main vote taken? I strongly oppose that too. Sarah777 (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem made that recommendation based on the numbers in the (xxx) poll, and everyone who has weighed in has agreed. Discussion is here. Ireland (state) got 3 times more votes than Ireland (country) and Ireland (Republic of). You're the only one who has complained (without giving a reason). Masem says that the STV is complex enough without adding six more configurations and consensus seems to be to go with that. -- Evertype·✆ 10:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, your insertion of the dab is formally incorrect in terms of the text as presented. It says that if the article about the State is not moved to "Ireland" it will be either at "Ireland (state)" or "Republic of Ireland". The article about the State would not be moved to the dab page, so it's not correct to put it in the bulleted list. -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like most of the changes you made Evertype, mentioning sovereign country or whose capital is dublin is far better than "26 counties". However i do think its important we say that the "Republic of Ireland" is an official description given by the Irish government, ignoring this fact is unacceptable because some people would like to have others believe this whole ROI was dreamed up by the British, when it clearly was not. The Irish government saw a need for a description for obvious reasons.
I also dont like this bit from the original ". This primarily impacts what the article about the country of "Ireland" will be called" That is wrong, it impacts equally of the island of Ireland article, and by suggesting the country article is impacted most, we are saying it is more important than the island.. again unacceptable in my view. This impacts on the country / island articles equally. The island has the prime position right now, it has the most to lose from this process. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is everyone ignoring the elephant in the room that is the 1949 Ireland Act (UK)? That is the main reason we are called RoI, and it has nothing to do with the 1948 act (Ireland). Trying to blow smoke in everyone's eyes about the reasons why the British use RoI is not acceptable. Using the 1948 act as justification is a red herring, especially since the 1949 act is still in force. --HighKing (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're not ignoring it. It is now part of the current infobox. -- Evertype·✆ 15:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm editing some more, trying to balance. So we're saying both 26/6 counties, we're saying both 83/17% of the island, I've made article names bold as you requested. I don't want to belabour it with "sovereign" anything at this stage; that's not a battle we are fighting. So I'm saying "26-county state named 'Ireland'" because this is precise (and the voters will know what we are talking about), not because it is "perfect" or "POV" or anything. Should I keep my draft in my sandbox or move it here? -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like not to get stuck on "primarily" here. Yes, if the article State gets moved to Ireland it will impact on the position of the island, but "losing" is not really applicable as the articles are not people and cannot win or lose. The question is, "Can you live with the infobox going out, warts and all?" I have tried to accommodate every comment made. It cannot be made "perfect" and need not be, since most people will move on quickly enough to the ballot. -- Evertype·✆ 11:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to be a pain, but Ireland (island) is a country too. It is not a sovereign state, which is the meaning I presume these boxes intend to convey, but "country" has a broader meaning. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly, "country" is ambiguous. So are "state" and "nation". We're trying to strike the right balance.... will look at it again. -- Evertype·✆ 15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bot moving "Date in Ireland" to "Date in Republic of Ireland"
Please see this and this. Surely this is proscribed by this project? -- Evertype·✆ 18:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proscription is against moving article pagenames, but that's certainly a breach of the spirit of the Arbcom ruling (however, it may be an unwitting breach - I haven't checked). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes such things should not of been changed until, he probably wasnt aware of this project. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea, so I will wait till whatever poll you're going to hold before creating the rest of the years. Tim! (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to go?
Final agreement on ballot page?
Evertype has moved a version of the summary into the draft ballot page. I've made one edit, which I hope will be OK. The only other issue I have is with the line, "The use of this description has been a source of controversy for seven years." Whilst true, I think it tips the balance of fairness slightly.
If we agreed to this draft then are we all set to go ahead with the vote? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the "source of controversy" to a more generic position, though part of me feels that this masks the core issue somewhat. Nevertheless, we'll have to assume that voters will try to do some homework. Since your edit I took some more comments from you and Scoláire and Tfz into account as you can see and also did a close copy-edit, here. At this stage I think we should really go ahead. It's been a fair number of days since the (xxx) poll closed, and the 50 voters who took part have certainly had time to take a look at the results. -- Evertype·✆ 08:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the ballot text to go out -- I think that the best should not be the enemy of the good, and what we have is better than just good in terms of balance. (The only change I might make is to push for a note at the ROI option in the intro text to say "(This, the status quo, has long been a source of contention.)" but otherwise I would let it go as-is. As I said last week, I think that the Poll on Ireland (xxx) went well, and I am willing to do the same work (including notifying the communities) to finalize and launch the Big Poll, if you are willing to have me do it. (I don't see much point in saddling Masem with the task as he is here to moderate, not to draft and process documents.). I could start the poll tonight at 18:00 to 20:00 UTC, if that is acceptable. -- Evertype·✆ 08:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the ballot text to go out - I think a lot of good work - from all sides and none - has gone into making this happen. The ballot page looks good to me now too. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only change I might make is for a note at the ROI option to say "This, the status quo, has long been a stable compromise." Fmph (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A weeping and gnashing of teeth. "Unstable compromise" is more like it. That's why we're in this process! -- Evertype·✆ 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd remove that part altogether (but I wouldn't be a show stopper for me as it stands). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, this is the diff from your version. -- Evertype·✆ 10:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm behind the text as it stands now. (And support Scolaire's comments below.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with proviso: I don't see any need to lock the text until the moment the poll begins. Constructive suggestions are still being made and it's pointless not to edit for improvement while we still can. If an edit-war develops we simply revert to the last stable version. NB the last stable version is the one before the controversial edit, no matter how reasonable or even necessary we believe that edit to be. Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a technical point, we plan to 1. move the current "ballot page" to somewhere else, 2. lock that page, 3. pull that page in as a template to where ever the real ballot is taking place? That sounds good to me. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Can you help me set up the template? And who will do the locking? I can do other prep, but haven't that power. -- Evertype·✆ 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a comment for you on the Ballot paper's Talk page. Other than that it looks good. Are you getting the unchangeable template sorted? We didn't have that on the (xxx) poll but then the poll was not community wide and did not attract any vandalism. -- Evertype·✆ 13:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave a message on Masem's talk. Might as well have him do all adminy stuff as anyone. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made one edit to reword the piece about the UK legislation. The previous revision could be interpreted to mean that Republic of Ireland has some legal standing outside of the UK IMHO. --HighKing (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted that edit. Should be discussed here. I think certainly that saying it is "THE legal name in the UK" rather than "A legal name in the UK" is probably wrong. I tried to reword it though. -- Evertype·✆ 15:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HighKing, why should the UK legislation be mentioned at all? Why not introduce French legislation? Bizarre and perplexing. Tfz 16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The statement is in need of a rewrite. I find it difficult to understand, and unless an editor has prior knowledge of the facts, it will be completely lost. No disrespect to the original author, but many of these types of texts have to be rewritten and reviewed several times just to get them right. Tfz 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ballot text as it stands. Tfz's objections do not seem to me strong enough to be grounds for another rewrite.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons stated.Sarah777 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing my opposition but not with any great enthusiasm. The latest version is much better but still skirts the reason so many feel "RoI" is a political imposition. Sarah777 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Final agreement on method used to select the winner?
Another issue was the exact method for calculating the result of the final vote. There was discussion of this above. What I think was agreed there was the following:
In order to be binding the "winner" must get greater than 50% the vote (after all but the final two options have been eliminated)
ArbCom or Masem will adjudicate the vote
This means the vote will be decided as follows:
1. We will count the vote using instant-runoff voting (a simple version of STV used when there is only one winner).
2. We will count the ballot, eliminating options and transferring their preferences, until only two options remain.
3. At that stage we will have:
a) a stack of votes for option X
b) a stack of vote for option Y
c) a stack of "exhausted" ballots.
(The total number of a), b) and c) will add up to 100% of the vote.)
4. If X or Y is to be elected then it must have >50% of the vote. In the unlikely event that neither do then we have stalemate once again.
Are we in agreement? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're actually looking for votes, then I'll agree. Scolaire (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is what I'm looking for :) Also, as a note, the above can be calculated unambiguously using OpenSTV software - but counting by hand is also straightforward, and other software would do exactly the same thing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I can certainly support this, I do question whether we should require the winner to get greater than 50% of the vote for it to be accepted. Supposing I feel passionately that one option is far more better than all that others. With a 50%+1 requirement, I can exert the most influence by voting for that one option and only that option. This means that as soon as my chosen option has been removed, my vote is added to the exhausted pile where it will stay threatening to veto any compromise solutions. By contrast, without the 50%+1 requirement, I'm strongly encouraged to order all possible choices as the only way for me to try to veto a truly unpalatable choice is by prefering a less unpalatable choice. In this situation, I'm implicitly supporting compromise solutions by listing them ahead of the last choices. In other words, removing the 50%+1 requirement encourages voters to compromise, and I feel that can only be a good thing. —ras52 (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a correct analysis. The advantage, to give the other side of the coin, is that the requirement would safeguard against the possibility of >50% of voters disagreeing with the result. (In honesty though, all of this is unlikely as we saw with the "xxx" vote where the final count was 73% to 27% with no exhausted ballots.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So AIUI, if we have the most popular with 55 votes, second with 45, and 10 votes in the junk pile, the whole process stalls? Mr Stephen (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No: 55/(55+45+10) = 50.9%. But add another three votes to the junk pile and/or for the second place option and what you say is true according to what Rannṗáirtí has actually written. D'oh. I can't add up. Yes, you're right. However, while not wanting to put words into his mouth, I suspect that what he has written isn't quite what he meant. I was assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that what he actually meant was that you would continue to do remove the least popular options until only one option remained, plus a pile of exhausted votes. Assuming the unexhausted votes exceeds 50%, you declare that option a winner. The effect here is that for X to be a winner, more than 50% of voters have to have ranked X somewhere albeit perhaps in last place. While this could certainly result in a draw too, I think it is far less likely to than the procedure was written by Rannṗáirtí above. However, I would be like to know from Rannṗáirtí whether he really did intend the procedure as he has written it. —ras52 (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the procedure as Mr Stephen understood it. So, X with 55 votes, Y with 45 and 10 in the junk pile means the process stalls. Carrying on the "Ras52 way" (i.e. making the last transfers from Y, some of which would go to the junk pile and some of which would go to X) is an another way we could do it.
The "Rannpháirtí way" increases the odds of a stalemate. Stopping at that point simulates an ordinary two candiate poll, where the winning candidate must have 50% support of the vote (i.e. explicit approval by 50% of all those who voted). A reason you not want to continue making the last transfer is because there is a sense of unfairness if one option gets elected at the expense of another only because it "sucked up" every last preferences. The "Rannpháirtí way" doesn't punish a person for filling out preferences and so may discourage "bullet voting". It comes down to the question of, when there are only two options remaining, whether a "preference" is meaningful: since if Y is eliminated then the preference can only go to only X at that point. This is why stopping at that point may discourage "bullet voting" - because a supporter of Y may feel disheartened at the thought that they might end up being "forced" to vote for X and so not fill in any preferences just to make sure their vote would fall into the junk pile at that point. In all, it's purpose is to increase a sense of "fairness" and to discourage bullet voting.
The reason I put in any "50%+1 clause" was because Masem is particularly in favour of it. (I can see the advantage of it.) Are you particularly against it, Ras52? (I'm agnostic at this stage.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general I think that the less possibility there is that the vote will stalemate, the better. This is for two reasons. First, I don't think we have any clear idea what we will do in the event that the vote doesn't produce an answer. We've tried and failed to build a consensus through reasoned debate. Now we're trying a vote, and if that fails, I don't see what options we have left. It seems clear the ArbCom won't make a decision for us, and I would be surprised if Masem were willing to unilaterally impose one (though I would support such an action as a last resort if he felt it appropriate). So what options are left? Yet another vote? If we want input from the wider community (and I think we're all in agreement that we do), outside people are, I think, unlikely to devote time to more than one vote, RFC or similar process. After all, we're hoping that people will turn up and take their time reading about the options and their advantages and disadvantages rather than jumping in with the first thing that comes to mind. If I had devoted time to doing this and a month later there was another vote, I would probably decide the whole exercise was futile and ignore it. I don't think that's what we want.
So while I will support any of these proposals, I would prefer to drop the 50%+1 clause in toto; failing that, I'd rather see it interpreted with as I suggested with the final level of run-offs so that a 55/43/10 split still had a very good chance of yielding a result. But I'm certainly not going to dig my heels in and be awkward if the consensus is against me. —ras52 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's see if we can drop the 50%+1 clause first. See below. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this means of counting - What Ras52 says is true enough, but most people will find more than one alternative to vote for; very few in the (xxx) poll voted for only one (5 out of 52) and as did those who voted for only two (5 out of 52). So I agree. -- Evertype·✆ 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not continuing your preferences is a valid and honest way of voting, and is used effectively by many people in elections in Ireland (both parts). I was one of the five that did it in the preliminary poll. Personally, if my own first choice failed because users who opposed it had used this tactic, I wouldn't want it to be adopted because I wouldn't feel it had a clear consensus. Scolaire (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but honestly, we are crystal-balling here. There is no way to predict what the vote will yield, so there is no way to decide what to do if one choice does not get 50%+1. Is there? -- Evertype·✆ 11:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely why we have to decide now. I do believe there will be one clear winner, but if there is not there are two options: (1) change the method of counting to produce an "unclear" winner, on the basis that anything is better than nothing; or (2) admit that the poll has failed despite our best efforts and start again. Which we do will have to be decided in advance, and I believ (2) to be the more honest option. Scolaire (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hell. I can't help you decide "what method of counting" should be chosen. So recommend something. Either support Rannṗáirtí's recommendation or propose something else. -- Evertype·✆ 11:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have supported Rannṗáirtí's recommendation. In fact I was the first! I'm only saying that we can't support it, and then say "there is no way to decide what to do if one choice does not get 50%+1". We support it 100% or not at all. You're barking at me again. I'm going to go away now. Scolaire (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility of tacking on a rider of the necessity for 50%+1 support for an option in order for it to be binding has been brought up many times. I proposed it above mainly because Masem is for it - or at least was. There is a (slim) possibility that the outcome of a STV vote will result in the winner having less that 50% of votes. If we attach a rider saying that 50%+1 is required then we may end up with no outcome to the vote. If we don't attach this rider then we are guaranteed to get a result ... one way or the other. In all probability the result winner will get >50% but there is an outside chance.
Can we have a show of hand expressing For or Against attaching a "50%+1 rider" to the ballot? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Against --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Against per Ras52. -- Evertype·✆ 16:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Against: we need an outcome of some sort here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For per my comments above, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. Scolaire (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Final agreement on method used to select the winner? (redux)
This has been moved down in order to attract more attention. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How long is the poll to be?
I think previous consensus was for 21 days. Support or Oppose please, with rationale if the latter. -- Evertype·✆ 10:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 21 days. -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 21 days. (But I think this has been well agreed to already.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but let's just make sure the t's are crossed. -- Evertype·✆ 11:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the ts be crossed (and the is dotted) before the 21 days begin? Scolaire (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
That's why I asked this question. -- Evertype·✆ 11:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is that for a draft? -- Evertype·✆ 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly good actually. At least we can't say you aren't trying. I'm collecting the toys and putting them back in the pram. (In case I need to toss them out again). Sarah777 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My 2¢: After the sentence beginning "This is a formal..." say a) the result will be binding, b) it arose from b1) the ArbCom process and b2) WP:IECOLL. Then put a line break before the sentence beginning "The order that..." Finally move the sentence about the closing date up to be the last sentence in the (new) first paragraph. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 27 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST).
Says everything. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd hold on for the green light from Masem before announcing anything. Let's not have a false start.--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Waitin'. Waitin'. -- Evertype·✆ 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ballot page has gone more than an hour without being edited.... -- Evertype·✆ 19:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm obssessively refreshing or anything.... -- Evertype·✆ 19:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made one change to balance it, as currently phrased the ROI option is unbalanced, suggesting that the term is official in both Ireland and the UK. Personally I think both options should be a simple statement without elaboration. However another editor has reversed that simplification so I have expanded it. --SnowdedTALK 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this hours ago, and then I seem to have removed it again with what was supposed to be a minor edit, but I think it's impotant, so:
Do we absolutely have to include "non-trivial sanctions for being naughty"? All the naughty boys and girls are following this page, and they know there will be non-trivial sanctions. It's also written on the ballot paper in case some new mischief-makers come along. The announcement should be "selling" the poll to the masses. Chrysler don't advertise their latest model by saying "driving under the influence will result in imprisonment or a fine. Scolaire (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point. But that would make your minor edit important.... ;-) Good night. Woof! -- Evertype·✆ 23:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid my sense of humour is far, far less when there's only 30 minutes to the opening of the poll! Are you proposing to threaten voters with hell-fire or not? Scolaire (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're not opening the poll tonight, Some time tomorrow. But the text is fixed. No, no hellfire in the announcement. -- Evertype·✆ 23:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against scaring folk off in any fundamentalist sense. I'm a pragmatist; if you are scaring off the people who support the status quo, that's OK with me:) Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scare off the neutrals, you mean - yes, that would make sense from your point of view ;-) Evertype, thank you for your prompt response. I can sleep easy tonight. Sweet dreams, all. Scolaire (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the following sentence included in the intro text?
Many editors are in particular dissatisfied with the current location of the article on the state.
This seems completely unnecessary and, if it is to be included, should be balanced by the equivalent statement that Many editors are satisfied with the current location of the article on the state.Mooretwin (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with ur concerns on that bit of the wording, it is very one sided. Rather than saying something like many editors are satisied with the current location, i think it should be balanced out by also mentioning that the country article being at Ireland is strongly opposed by many editors as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the naming of that article which has been the source of this years-long dispute. That is why the text is there. -- Evertype·✆ 13:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text should be balanced by noting that many editors are satisfied with the current location of the article. As drafted, the text is unbalanced. Please either remove the offending sentence or add in the suggested additional sentence. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mooretwin the text really should be balanced either as Mooretwin suggests by saying many are satisfied with the current location or at the very least, mentioning others strongly oppose some of the other options.. especially the Ireland at Ireland one because that is far far worse than the current setup of the articles and people need to know many have a problem with that change. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem deleted that sentence. -- Evertype·✆ 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just archived the first 200K of text here. I hope that I didn't archive any active discussions: if I did, my apologies. This only brought it down from 800K to 600K -- any objection to losing another 200K or so? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you archived all those summaries. -- Evertype·✆ 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, saw them go by, but I figured they were safe, since we were most of the way to the final ballot. I can put a link to the archive page right in the text here, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved another 100K. After that, we're starting to get into discussion of the final poll, so I don't think I'll be moving anything else until afterward.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poll starting tonight?
Since everything seems to be in order, to the point we know how the poll will be executed, etc., I recommend we open the poll tonight (at least, after GMT 0:00). I have no problem if others want to announce the poll to the talk pages previously agreed to. --MASEM (t) 19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just hold a minute please. The current description of the ROI option is unbalanced. As worded its says the the term is the law in the UK and quotes in full the 1948 act. In fact the Irish state does not use the name and the UK government agreed to cease using it in the Good Friday Agreement. Both descriptions should be short and not provide selective presentation of facts. I would hope we can resolve this quickly but it is important --SnowdedTALK 19:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've waited this long, I suppose another few minutes won't hurt. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a longer explanation why on the talk page. I agree with your edit by and large. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unhappy about this being sprung on us by Snowded as though we'd done something wrong. We've been trying to balance this section ALL DAY and I would like that acknowledged. Anyway further discussion on the Ballot talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 20:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Snowded. BigDuncTalk 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded's edit is correct and should be inserted.MITH 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype some of us have been working all day and have only just got home with a chance to review. Please don't use phrases like "Sprung on" or suggest that you are being accused of doing anything wrong. Its a simple proposal to improve things --SnowdedTALK 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are trying to balance YOUR valid concerns with the valid concerns of OTHERS. Not react to a posse. :-) Please assume good faith on my part. -- Evertype·✆ 20:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith Evertype, please do the same and stop accusing me of springing things on you and leading a posse. I've raised a legitimate concern at the first available time. If other editors agree with me then I'm happy, but I haven't walked into the bar, stuck stars on them and ridden off in to the sunset --SnowdedTALK 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement ... but we really need sign off on the method for calculating the results (above), just a few "yeses" will do. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with that --SnowdedTALK 20:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that the method of calculating the results need not be determined prior to the start of the poll (that 1) should not influence how people vote 2) nor interfere with how people vote) but should be determined before the poll goes for too long to have the initial results of the poll available to skew the discussion. But at the same time, I offer the possibilty of leaving the method of determining the results until all is said and done, running the various scenarios to determine what the outcomes would be for various cases up through full elimination of all but 2 options, and then discussion from there. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has moved forward with frenetic haste, and that's when things can go wrong. It needs the 'long look over' at this stage. Agree with Snowded's concerns. Tfz 20:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I am still concerned, despite the improvement in the summary it is not as good as my version and this "clueless" Wiki editor we are seeking to attract to the vote will be presented with a summary that says that (a) RoI is defined in Irish legislation as a "description" and (b) it is what the UK legally calls it; this still misses the key point, that "RoI" is essentially a British usage; and "Ireland" is both the Irish and international usage and the WP:COMMONNAME as well as the legal name of the country. Why not point that out? It misses the political implications of calling the State "RoI" - essentially an endorsement of the British position by Wiki, contra normal modern global usage. Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current statement does make these points without adding the biased statement that endorsing ROI is endorsing a British POV. The statement does explain there are political issues behind this enough issue, and does point out that ROI is only recognized as the official name from the UK, but stating any further biases the statement. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, obviously you are a lot more intelligent person than I am, for I think those parts are a load of rubbish. Tfz 00:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should start it in the morning UTC when we are fresh. Good night, all. -- Evertype·✆ 00:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What time zone are you in? I'm fresh as a daisy. Sarah777 (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I think that not determining how the results of vote are to be counted before the vote begins is an exceptionally bad idea. How people vote will often depend on the mechanism for counting the votes. By all means take another day or two over it, but please make a decision before starting. To do otherwise is not fair on uninvolved people who come in early to vote, and it leaves those who eventually decide on the mechanism open to charges of bias depending on what outcome the selected process favours. Let's not go there. —ras52 (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me propose this as a starting point:
If, during any round of voting, an option gets 50%+1 of all votes (including those that may have been discounted for not specifying more options), it will be considered the winner.
If, during any round of voting, the total number of discounted votes due to be eliminated in subsequent rounds exceeds 50%+1 of the total number of votes, we go back to the drawing board. (this number we may want to consider a notch lower, no lower than 33%, implying there's a significant fraction of people that don't like any of winning options. However, I don't believe this solution will be reached given the options we've got).
Otherwise, considering only all non-eliminated votes, once one option gets 50%+1 of those, it is considered the winner. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good, Masem. If all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed, perhaps the poll can begin today. -- Evertype·✆ 08:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this urgency in starting the poll today or even tomorrow, The text has only just been agreed to by some editors, we should not rush into this so quickly. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of this thread you will see that yesterday at 19:44 UTC Masem recommended that the poll begin today after 00:01 UTC. It's now 10:15 UTC. I'd like the poll to begin no later than 21:00 UTC tonight, frankly. The text has been agreed; what is it you want to wait for? -- Evertype·✆ 10:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im ok with the wording of the statement and the poll itself, but it seems there is still debate below about the wording of the advert for it and is the final list of locations that will be canvassed the one made some time ago on this talk page which some peopled were adding and removing things from? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the advert has been wordsmithed; there is no debate there, I think. As far as I know the list of locations to be canvassed has not changed since the (xxx) poll went out. The list of locations to be polled is a superset of the list which was polled on (xxx). -- Evertype·✆ 10:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we need to publish the list of all locations that will be sent the message first, its still just a proposal in the section above and i am unsure about Masems comments relating to Europe/Western european countries in response to concerns about the USA being listed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See below. It omits needlessly informing all the European and Western European countries and omits the USA. -- Evertype·✆ 10:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, what Evertype wants is irrelevant. The poll will be published when it is good and ready. It is not up to any of the participants to start setting artificial deadlines. On the substantial points, the advert proposed by Scolaire was welcomed by 2 editors (which around here seems to count as 'consensus'). I see no reason to change it. It is actually Evertype who has proposed a change, which no one else has responded to. So IMHO, it is Evertype who is delaying things by suggesting changes instead of accepting the 'consensus' view. Personally I prefer Scolaire's version. But now we need to get consensus again. WRT the venues for advertising, it seems that a few extraneous locations have slipped onto the new venue list, again proposed by Evertype, so we will need to agree if that represents the consensus view or not. And given that 2100 tonight is an artificial deadline, and that some of us have lives to lead and work to do, I'd suggest that the poll won't be ready to go today. Fmph (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain your assertion that I "slipped in" anything. I pasted that text down from the previous one (to which the (xxx) poll was announced). Kindly note, as well, that Masem suggested that we try to get the poll out last night at midnight. -- Evertype·✆ 11:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem/ras52, the method for counting votes is being discussed above. Masem, ras52 has pointed out some very good reasons not to reject a solution if it does not reach 50%. Please let's keep discussion all in one place. The *exact* method to be used is *very* important. If we are not agreed to it then there is no point in beginning the vote. The consequence of running a vote for three weeks and then realsing that we are not agreed on how to calculate the result is too great to even consider risking. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. The way the vote is to be counted and its consequences must be decided before it starts. We vote like on this like this; the votes will be counted like this; then this will happen. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last-minute thoughts on the announcements
Unless I'm much mistaken, this poll is unique (apart from the last one, obviously) in that it's not being run under the standard (e.g. RM or AfD) format: (a) it's real voting not !voting and (b) it's STV. I think it's worth saying this clearly in the announcements, so that we don't get a "WTF" reaction from newbies when they see the procedure. It might even pique people's curiosity enough to get them to look at the ballot, and thus vote. The most recent version of the announcement (I think) goes:
This poll differs from normal polls such as RMs and AfDs in that (a) it is a popular vote, and thus an exception to WP:POLLS; and (b) there are multiple options, from which the winner will be chosen using the Single transferable vote system. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly.
Voting will end at XX:00 (UTC) on 28 July 2009 (that is YY:00 IST and BST).
it is a popular vote, and thus an exception to the usual Wikipedia guideline on polling; and
there are multiple options, from which the winner will be chosen using the Single transferable vote system.
The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at XX:00 (UTC) on 28 July 2009 (that is YY:00 IST and BST).
I think that's slightly friendlier as it avoids WP:ACRONYM. ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 08:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fmph, please explain why you prefer the acronyms RMs and AfDs to the clearer plain-text requested moves and articles for deletion. Please explain why you think that [WP:POLLS]] is superior to guideline on polling. In my view the acronyms should not be used in a community-wide poll as not all editors may be familar with them. -- Evertype·✆ 11:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that Fmph is objecting, not to the expansion of the acronyms, but to the extra line-breaks and/or the changing of (a) and (b) to 1 and 2. I myself am neutral between the two. I want the one that most people think looks best. Scolaire (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second glance, one change I would revert is the introduction of the word "usual". It is an exception to the guideline, not the one that is usually used out of a selection of guidelines. Scolaire (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about "usual". I think that since the poll is unusual it is better to call them out with a numbered (or bulleted) list, to emphasize that. -- Evertype·✆ 12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that I prefer Scolaire's original to Evertype's changed version is purely and simply that the original has what could legitimately be described as a consensus and so moves the project forwards. By contributing the slightly revised version, which to me made no discernable difference, Evertype was actually delaying agreement. In the end the further delay in agreeing the statements means that we can agree any number of changes we like. Personally I see no need to change Scolaire's version, but if others feel they want to agree 'improvements' I am quite happy for them to do so. Fmph (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we must notify everyone who was notified of the "Ireland (xxx)". I also believe that the other locations listed above should be notified. -- Evertype·✆ 10:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks if that's the final list then its ok with me, need to make sure its put on all the talk pages of the projects because it wasnt originally put there on the ireland project talk page, just the project page itself which could lead to some people missing the notification. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get the right talk pages linked. I am not sure where to post it at the Village Pump or Centralized discussion. Any thoughts on the matter? -- Evertype·✆ 11:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about the village pump, but what about Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe as well as the EU wikiproject already listed or just like the Europe one rather than EU? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{ec} Talk pages linked. Still would like advice on Village Pump and Centralized Discussion. -- Evertype·✆ 11:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pointers to discussion on the Pump and CENT go on their respective main page (their talk pages is used for other details). --MASEM (t) 12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the point is where will the Poll anouncement be pasted on those two pages? -- Evertype·✆ 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the individual talk:WikiProject pages of all the countries of the EU, have direct interest. Tfz 13:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that this is true. Malta has a "direct interest" in this dispute? I doubt it. Feel free to make a case, though. -- Evertype·✆ 13:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe should be added to the list rather than just the EU one, but i certainly oppose advertising on other country articles. This matter only involves the UK and the Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:VPP, you just add it to the main page like another talk section. For CENT, it needs to be added to the template {{cent}} as a one-sentence summary. As for adding other countries, it's a slippery slope to add any other countries besides Ireland and UK, and becomes too much troulbe to include. We should include all general European Union and Europe-region WP and noticeboards, but no other countries. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Europe project per you. -- Evertype·✆ 17:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Placing things on pause to think this out a bit more
Given some good points raised on the ballot page, let's pause a second. After rereading what the current text states on the poll (after edits were done after I drafted the above) there's some points that are almost impossible discuss without biasing it. There still needs to be an introductory text, and some of what's there is fine, but given what has been suggested, let me propose the following:
For each of the six options, one editor that believes that's the best option should write a short, 250-word-ish opinion statement to explain the rationale of why this option is best. This should be focused on only that opinion, not in comparison to others, though I think the ROI issue is one factor. We can then review these and make sure there's nothing glaringly out of line with the piece (it should be POV-ish, but not over the top POV). Once these pieces are reviewed, then we can rewrite the ballot page and go from there.
This gives the advantage that there's not too many hands trying to manipulate text that really is a POV (eg detractors of option X should not be fighting on the wording for the statement of option X which was happening before). --MASEM (t) 19:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only read your reply to my earlier objection just now. My objections remain intact. The fact is that "RoI" is unacceptable but there are several alternatives more acceptable - not because of any intrinsic merit but because they avoid the political POV that makes "RoI" unacceptable. This formula, like the proposed text misses that and hence overwhealmingly biases this process towards the status quo. It needs to be explained to the community that several of the solutions on offer (and some of those arbitrarily dropped) address the core cause of the conflict and that "RoI" does not. Sarah777 (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this suggestion, especially the fact we are slowing down and taking more time on sorting everything before the vote starts. I dont know about others but i still would like to see Arguments AGAINST for each of the options, which could be written by those who feel strongly against it and go through the same sort of review as the pro statements. Should a list be drawn up where editors can sign next to the option if they want to try and make a statement so we can choose which is the best statement for that option rather than all the pressure just being on one editor from the start?BritishWatcher (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Masem for reasons stated here--SnowdedTALK 19:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If people are strongly against an option (that is, if by choice, they would not be able to live with that option, as opposed, "I don't want this option because I rather have this other option"), then I think that's appropriate too. It may be there may not be an anti- statement for some options, simply because it's not disagreeable as great a degree. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this suggestion. How many more weeks and months is this going to go on? People have known for a long time that a poll was coming. No one was worried about this then; no one was prepping their POV arguments. Rannṗáirtí and I worked hard to try to write a set of Pros and Cons out that fairly represented both POVs. You, Masem, came in and suggested we switch to a generic intro. That was fine too; we worked on that and polished it and polished it. Imperfect? Sure. So is a presidential debate. So is the pamphlet on the Lisbon treaty. Now you're going to open it up to not two short sentences pro and con for each of the six options, but to a mini essay for each instead? Who is going to choose the six (or is it twelve) editors who will work on each mini-essay? What if some of them write well, and others write badly? What happens when Snowded writes something and Scoláire objects to it? Because that's where we are now with the generic intro. It's only going to be worse if we go this route here. Masem, please do not let the best be the enemy of the good. There's no perfect way of prepping this poll that will satisfy everyone. I don't think there are any real deal-breakers in what we have; we have dealt with all the deal-breakers as they have come up. Now the only argument is "My POV isn't captured on the ballot" and that ought to be out of scope. I urge you to call for the poll to begin. -- Evertype·✆ 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than a couple people shouting "wait!" and have brought up a valid point for discussion. Given the severity of the results, a short pause to catch our breaths and figure out any last minute issues is better than racing ahead. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the giant point? Can you explain this? You saw all the work that went into trying to make the Pro/Con discussions acceptable. They were acceptable to most, but not some who held a strong POV. You proposed generic text, and you saw all the work that went into trying to make that text acceptable. Last night we saw a bloc of strong POV-holders yell about that too. Now what? Are you really going to hold an essay contest for more POV statements to be attached to the ballot? For me, I would consider that to be a deal-breaker, because there is no way of guaranteeing a balanced presentation of the arguments, and that will prejudice the poll. -- Evertype·✆ 20:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote up my lede summary when I saw that there was editing warring on the pros and cons. Now, someone (Snowded I believe) suggested a slightly better approach to remove the editing warring but still provide these and in a reasonable time frame but in a way that strips out edit warning. It makes sense to pursue those for a few days particularly in light of the issues of trying to balance the overall lede edited since my version. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that, but removing the addition of any balancing comments is POV. For each of the six options, one editor that believes that it's not the best option should write a short, 250-word-ish opinion statement to explain the rationale of why this option is not the best. That would be informative IMHO. --Domer48'fenian' 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look on the bright side. When this 'final vote' is finally held? there'll be peace in the Middle-East. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict And what happens when people object to what they have written? We can't even get agreement on the wording of a generic intro. This is a dark hole we don't want to go down. -- Evertype·✆ 19:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Press the pause button, agree with the Moderator. BigDuncTalk 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down Evertype, we just want to get this right. There are only a few things to sort out, the options are now defined we just need to summarise positions then it can open up. The different parties know their positions and there is agreement within the advocates of different positions so getting those statements will not be hard. Saying that only argument is "My POV ...." is harmful, it does not assume good faith. Pushing forward on partial or incomplete or disputed statements without an attempt to properly summarise would lead to the result being questioned. --SnowdedTALK 20:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is it you want to sort out? Above, you linked to text expressing your unhappiness that text didn't say "the law has not been repealed" but that is outside our scope -- it is unacceptably POV to imply that it should be or will be repealed because that is a matter for a sovereign legislature. So what is it that's wrong? I don't understand it. There's no way that Masem's mini-essays of 250 words are going to be uncontroversial. You think they won't be POV? Come on! We've got Tfz accusing "this whole page is placating an Anti-Irish agenda". What if he decides not to like one of the essays? What if I do? What if you do? You say the Pro/Con statements (an earlier version here). A lot of good-faith work went in to trying to put forward the arguments fairly and soberly. That didn't make everyone happy. I can promise that a whole set of POV mini-essays (position arguments if you will) on the ballot is going to be controversial. Or do you expect moderates like me to just take what's given, and not to propose improvements to that text too? I'm calm, Snowded. I have tried about as hard as anybody could to act in good faith and to assume good faith. Haven't had a lot of positive feedback for the work either. But I am rapidly losing confidence in this Project. -- Evertype·✆ 21:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing pov into an intro to a poll is not making for a 'level playing field'. Trying to give priority to RoI is and anti_Irish agenda IMO, it's a bit like calling the UK the 'Kingdom of Britain' here on WP, and Evertype you choose to admonish me when I spelt your name wrong, remember. It's one of the highest insults to give anyone is to get their name deliberately wrong, and Wikipedia is insulting to Ireland by giving preeminence to RoI in the lede of the poll page. In your eyes I'm one of the biggest pov-pushers on Wikipedia because I want the name of Ireland to be handled properly here at Wikipedia. I'm sure I would like your essay. Tfz 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TFZ didnt u leave this process at one stage? Why did u come back if all u are going to do is make rubbish claims like that. FACT: The IRISH government chose to make REPUBLIC OF IRELAND the description of their state BEFORE the British Act which used that as their title. If ROI is soooooooo hated by everyone in the republic of Ireland WHY does the Republic of Irelands football team play under the name REPUBLIC OF IRELAND? ROI is a reasonable title although i dont think its the best one. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love the description 'Republic of Ireland', because it means all people and their privileges are equal in the eyes of the state. No lords or barons to push their weight hither and thither. It describes the system that is used in the country of Ireland. That's all. Tfz 22:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so proud of a Republic (bucket please), u should celebrate the fact its in the article title. As for no lords and barons, so u just have a rich elites without titles? does it make that much difference lol? If ROI is so unacceptable and just the description of the type of government u have, why does the Republic of Irelands football team play under that title? People wonder why many British people use the term Republic of Ireland when talking about the state, im sure its because they all read the 1949 Ireland Act by the British government where it recognized the name of the state as ROI or see it as a way of annoying Irish people and its not because they hear "Republic of Ireland", every time the football results are announced. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the link for more information on the football team. There is a book that goes into more detail that I read some time back, but the title now eludes me. And I do celebrate the fact that there will be a proper 'Republic of Ireland' article here on Wikipedia very shortly, and I look forward to that, and may even crack open a bottle of champaigne. Hope you join the celebrations.) Tfz 23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol " The current name was adopted after a FIFA ruling to disambiguate it from the Ireland team run by the IFA, which is now commonly known asNorthern Ireland." - Hmm so it appears that FIFA do what wikipedia currently does, using the term ROI to disambiguate it from the island of Ireland, do you send in complaints to them all the time about this outrageous attack on the Irish people? lol. As for the celebrations im pretty sure the outcome will be something we can both accept so maybe we can share? :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I'll correct the article. Don't understand how I missed that - I'd corrected the text below to (correctly) read FIFA decreed that the FAI team be officially called the Republic of Ireland while the IFA team was to be named Northern Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drink to that.) Tfz 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Outdent] Snowded, with all due respect, before we put in the generic text, we had worked on this evaluation of pros and cons. Can you say what's wrong with that, and what's wrong with the current introductory text, and how you see these problems fixed in a way which will also find (for instance) me being able to support it? -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some advise, its never good to start a request with "all due request" but I won't take offence. The problem with that statement is that it completely fails to provide the political context which made the use of ROI controversial. I have been around conflict resolution cases for long enough to know that there will not be an agreed neutral statement that is not biased. You've done a great job of making progress here, but you have also been an antagonist in the debates and it shows in what you consider to be neutral. Its far better for a simple 250 word statement to be prepared by the different groups so that editors can look at the arguments in summary form. I'm not sure that is for each of the voting options, it may be better for one on For-ROU and another Anti-ROI and then a series of smaller ones on IF-NOT-ROI-then-XXX but I don't feel strongly on that and suggest we leave it to the moderator. --SnowdedTALK 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some history: The controversy, to the extent that one existed, was not "Republic of Ireland", it was "Ireland". The substance of the controversy was that the UK (in the main) would not call the Irish state by that name (and was alone in the world in doing so). The reason why is fairly obvious, "Ireland" was ambigious with another entity that overlapped with the UK's territory - a part of the UK's territory that the Irish state also claimed sovereignty over. With the Good Friday Agreement, the Irish state relinquished it's claim over that territory and the UK accepcted "Ireland" as the Irish states name. "Republic of Ireland" didn't enter into it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Good summary up to your statement that ROI did not come into it --SnowdedTALK 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then to what extent did it enter into it, would you say?--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
"Wait" is fine. The sudden rush of discussion is to be expected. Despite the fact that we have been collaborating on the poll for weeks now, when people realise, "OMG! It's really going to happen!", then suddenly things they never mentioned before become VERY important. But if we are going to pause, we need to an hard date for go live of the vote - otherwise we will be "pausing" for ever.
With regard to the "250-word" proposal, I think that is a *bad idea*. It was bullet points before, then it was an itroduction text, now it's 250 words, next time it will be something else. What we have now is fine. Of course it could always be better. Of course some will always say we could do something else. But scrapping what we have for something else and starting all over again together would be craziness. Remember, the reason we are having a vote is because we cannot agree in the first place.
So, I suggest we leave the intro text as is, and deal with suggestions for edits as they come. I also suggest that we begin the poll at 21:00 UTC on the 9th of July. (00:00 UTC is an impractical time, I think, for most editors here since it is 01:00 in Ireland and the UK.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Id be prepared to try for the intro text to be made as neutral as possible but its going to be very difficult, i think pros/cons statement for each of the options is going to be easier to get agreement on that a single text, which both sides seem to have problems with. I also oppose any attempt to put a deadline on when we must start the vote, such a rush is just going to create more problems. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... i think pros/cons statement for each of the options is going to be easier to get agreement..." Given the historical fantasy land that some editors live in with regards to the names of the Irish states, I don't think so.
"I also oppose any attempt to put a deadline on when we must start the vote..." Then you must accept that we will never have a vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well i am still not quite sure why the process of pros and cons was changed and we went down the path of the single statement. If there is meant to be a statement that is PRO an option then its not going to be opposed by people for the sake of it, where as any sentence in the single statement that isnt totally neutral causes problems. On the time scale, i agree this cant go on for ever, but id rather we just say if this attempt fails the vote goes live without any statements or pros / cons, rather than setting a date in a couple of days we all must rush to meet. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... a statement that is PRO an option then its not going to be opposed by people for the sake of it..." What? Have you not been here for the past six months? That's exactly what going to happen. A list of pro/cons will descend into a POV fest. It's an insane road to go down. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If all the statements were referenced and supported by sources it should cut down the POV. Anyone trying to push a POV would have to back it up. If the Pro and Anti statements have conflicting views all the better, because the reader will be able to balance the quality and quantity of the sources for themselves. This might just lend some credibility to the process. --Domer48'fenian' 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god not again, sources would be helpful and certainly help make the case but lets not demand such things (with the exception of allowing mods to remove clear POV). Otherwise we are going to get into a dispute where certain editors challange the source or claim and seek its removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two statements, Pro and Anti, both sources and the reader makes up their mind! If one statement wants to rely on unreferenced POV that's fine by me.--Domer48'fenian' 21:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, its not going to be possible to get a fully non-POC summary so lets have a couple of short partisan positions that other editors can read and decide. Much simpler and allows us to make progress. As I said earlier those are clearly for and against ROI (which has always been the contention). There is a case for some statements on the alternatives, but that is the main debate --SnowdedTALK 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a recurring issue with sources during this whole debate: people citing sources that they believe back up their statement, but that, in fact, don't even refer to it. In particular (but by no means limited to this) are sources produced that purportedly show that "Republic of Ireland" has a UK bias, but when examined these sources only refer to the UK's issue with "Ireland" as a name for the Irish state, and no don't demonstrate that "Republic of Ireland" has a UK bias. Throwing sources at an argument doesn't make it true, those sources have to actually support the argument being made.
But ultimately, there is little *need* for sources. We all know the facts: "Ireland" is the name of the state, "Republic of Ireland" is the official description. That's is not the question. There is no source in the world that can answer where two articles on Wikipedia should be located. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for Masem's suggestion Fmph (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would prefer one single introductory statement, and I think the one already drafted does the job just fine. I can also see the advantages of writing short statements in support of each of the options. There are good reasons in policy why each of these are suitable potential options, and these reasons can be explained relatively neutrally. There is not, however, good reasons why any of these are invalid (If they were invalid then they should not be on the ballot for polling in the first place). So an anti- statement is going to reflect the particular biases and preferences of the statement writer, which may or may not be reasonable, and may not be shared with others who dislike that particular option. I therefore strongly disagree with writing both pro- and anti-POV statements for each options for the simple reason that it gives undue weight to one lucky editor's personal opinion. Rockpocket 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you think that there are good reasons in policy why each of these are suitable potential options, is a matter of opinion, namely yours. Likewise there are good reasons in policy why each of these are not suitable potential options. Each statement should provide a rational to support the reasons, and let the reader decide based on the points raised. That you only see advantages of writing short statements in support of each of the options can not be explained relatively neutrally, as it gives undue weight to only one lucky editor's personal opinion and in this case yours. Who could possibly object to balanced statements? --Domer48'fenian' 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only way they could be balanced would be if all significant opinions are offered, not just the lucky one or two. The reason why you oppose one option is not necessarily the same reason I - or anyone else - opposes it. This is why a single, neutral introductory statement is my preference (and not one written by me, as you imply, but one written by the Moderator). I have no desire to impose my personal opinion as a guide for others, and I don't believe we should represent anyone else's personal opinion as such either. If you wish to write a critique of each option, then I suggest you do so in your own user space and we allow editors to provide a link to their rationale along with their vote. That way if someone wants to read your reasoning they can, without it being presented as anything more than your personal opinion. Rockpocket 01:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rock, if we are to have pro statements for each of the options we must atleast display the negative reasons as well for the ones people have a real problem with, not trival reasons. For example i cant think of any real reason why Ireland (state) is going to be strongly opposed unless u have concerns about people thinking state is like a US or American state. But on keeping the country at Republic of Ireland or moving it to Ireland there are very big problems with those options. I would say the country article being at Ireland is an invalid option becayse it totally ignores the fact there is an island called Ireland which has more right to the Ireland spot. We cant just allow people to see the pros so they are convinced into voting for something without knowing the true implications. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For editors to write a concise, focussed, fact-based (and indeed sourced) statement in favour of each option is an excellent idea. I proposed that very thing—on 18 October 2008!! We all know how much water has gone under the bridge since then, and still very, very few people have shown either the will or the ability to write such a statement. The probability of a few hand-picked editors being able to do it in a week is infinitessimal. God knows, the probability of even being able to agree which editors are picked is infinitessimal! I have great admiration for Masem and the way he has kept the thing together until now. Like Evertype, I bit my tongue each time something I had broken my back on for two or three days was unceremoniously flushed down the toilet. But this current proposal is just a very bad idea. It can only lead to complete anarchy (again!). Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Scoláire. I have had great admiration for Masem as well. I did not complain when he proposed not to use the Pro/Con statements that Rannṗáirtí and Scoláire and I worked so very hard on. Masem proposed a single intro, and a number of us worked very hard on that. Even the last day, when a bloc of (evidently) anti-RoI editors complained about some of the text in it, we worked very hard and we ended up with something that succeeded (the one that added Belfast Agreement to both clauses). There was agreement on that text. Then Masem comes in and on foot of a lot of POV bleating from four editors, he has jettisoned all of that work in order to begin some sort of as-yet undefined process for writing POV mini-essays. Masem, I guarantee you I will oppose putting such essays on the ballot paper. So where are you going to put them? What is your plan for selecting editors to write each one? What are you going to do when other editors want to redact those mini-essays? I regret to say, as a moderate who has tried to toe the line and tried to accommodate everyone as much as is possible, that you are in danger of scuppering this entire project with your new plan. Scoláire is right: some of us have "broken our backs" working on text to get this process moving on, and we had your support as of 21:00 two days ago, when you hoped we could start a poll by midnight that day. Now I feel that the efforts we made no longer have your support and that you are supporting some of the more shrill and obviously POV voices here. That is unbalanced, and not behaviour worthy of an effective moderator. Please reconsider your recent decisions. -- Evertype·✆ 10:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that none of the vociferous voices are drafting and proposing text which is focussed on the goal here (which is to get a ballot that is mature enough for the entire Wikipedia community to review and act upon -- which, one hopes, will not make us all look like a troop of baboons. -- Evertype·✆ 10:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You also have to realise that editors were being totally dismissed and it looked like a qwango running the operation. I think these editors were not as vociferous as is claimed, and there is more support than is realised. But any problems have to be looked upon as challenges, and that's OK. A suggestion, why not keep all POVs away from the ballot paper/page and set up links from each option to a discussion page, and allow editors here (all, none, or one, whoever wants to), to start them off with inputs of no more than 250 words as proposed. Tfz 11:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to make it clear that I agree with Tfz about editors "being totally dismissed". I may have been seen as part of a "quango", but I never approved of edits and reverts that came across as controlling behaviour, and I said so privately on a number of occasions. However, I don't see that as a reason to throw everything up in the air again. We should be working towards a solution based on one of the mechanisms we already had. Scolaire (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)On the surface, Masem's idea to produce mini-essays is a good one. But it's unworkable, and I believe if Masem thinks about the reality of implementing it, he'll reach the same conclusion. How do we select the authors for each essay? How do we approve each essay? (Wow - think of the fighting that'll create!) And the fundamental question - are the essays really necessary? I believe not. We should create a simple section with some links for "More reading". Anybody who is interested enough to want to read more on the debate should be given some links to debates on this page, or the relevant Talk pages or the naming dispute, or editors can write a private essay on their Talk page and include the link, etc. I don't see why this process needs to be delayed any longer though - God knows there's been enough discussions and debates over the years... --HighKing (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me restate what I see happening here and why a brief pause to catch our breath is necessary:
The poll options have all been fixed with the completion of the "Ireland (xxx)" poll.
It is apparent that we need some statement to familiarize outside editors to the nature and background of this poll without making them read volumes of works.
It was first envisioned to have pros/cons for each of the options, but this quickly descending into edit wars because editors against a certain option were trying to influence the writing of its pros, and vice versa.
This led me to suggest a single summary paragraph (eliminating the pros/cons), which my initial version maybe not word-perfect but acceptable.
This then began to be edit warred over because some felt it wasn't addressing every point correctly or with all the details one needs to understand it (namely issues with the UK Ireland Act and the Belfast Agreement)
It was suggested by one editor that it might be good to have pros/cons but written only by a single editor to help fix this. This is a point I agree with because trying to address the details without slipping in a POV-like statement is very difficult.
I stress the need that this poll needs on its page appropriate statements as other editors are not going to go fishing to read about the history of the dispute - some might but most won't. Also, I think that in light of other comments, I think it's fair that under each pro or con, that we can provide links to other users' stances or a more detailed thought, but we want to keep what is shown on the polling page simple. This should not take much time to complete: for at least four of the options, I'm pretty sure there are editors that are willing to write a short summary of the pro position and few on the con side. This would then be in addition to a portion of the original introductory text to explain why this poll is being held. This is the best way I think that we can present the poll and a quick position statement for each argument without endless edit warring and get us to actually doing the poll faster. We could do it now, but there's enough people a bit distressed on the current language that they may not accept the final results unless we get it right first. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing unreasonable in what you say, but I don't think it answers any of the questions we have raised:
Who are these "editors that are willing to write a short summary of the pro position and few on the con side"?
Why do you think their summaries will not "be edit warred over because some feel it isn't addressing every point correctly"?
How will this "not take much time to complete", when none of the three previous attempts were able to be completed?
and most importantly:
What is the logic in saying that taking time out to get the current (or either of the previous) wording right is more difficult than taking time out to do something completely different?
The very fact that there are a number of choices indicates that with each option there are both pro’s and con’s. This is common sense really, and that is why there should be statements which address what they are. My preference is for fact based and informed statements, which do not conflict with our long standing policies, that are free from personal comment, opinion and POV. Readers should be provided with the opportunity to reach an informed opinion, and be enabled to evaluate the options based on the strength of the arguments, and not the strength of numbers. --Domer48'fenian' 18:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, in general I agree with what you stated. Let me pick up on one or two things. I stress the need that this poll needs on its page appropriate statements as other editors are not going to go fishing to read about the history of the dispute - some might but most won't - mega agree. that under each pro or con, that we can provide links to other users' stances or a more detailed thought - what about the idea that the poll contains a section of links where each editor who writes a private essay can also provide a link here (and could also provide the link when they vote). That way, each essay can be viewed as a single POV, can be as long or as short as individual editors like, and can chose to highlight any issue they like rather than be dependent on an individual editor (with, in all probability, different ideas and issues). --HighKing (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant; even if we don't use pros/cons, links to user essays couldn't hurt being included here, they'd be like position statements in a normal election. As long as the ballot page itself is not weighted down on POV arguments, that's important. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that something similar has been suggested below as well. Perhaps this is the way forward. Allow a number of days for people to construct their private essay, and agree a simply was for voters to access the various arguments and rationale. It would be lightweight, and give each POV an opportunity to be heard, unedited and uncensored. More importantly, it would prevent any future arguments that the voting public wasn't properly informed or that certain arguments were censored. --HighKing (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halt; need a summary that does not de facto support the status quo
Everytype, I'm repeating comments I made above in the jungle of comments to Masem because I think we are missing the central issue here. The fact is that "RoI" is unacceptable but there are several alternatives more acceptable - not because of any intrinsic merit but because they avoid the political POV that makes "RoI" unacceptable. This formula, like the proposed text, misses that and hence overwhealmingly biases this process in favour of the status quo. It needs to be explained to the community that several of the solutions on offer (and some of those arbitrarily dropped) address the core cause of the conflict and that "RoI" does not. Sarah777 (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have the floor, I must add that I'm doubtful about the list of projects being invited to vote here. Why UK project and not Germany? If one of the problems is British usage then we need to involve projects that might have a broader international perspective. Throughout Europe the country is known simply as "Ireland" (and the other place is "Northern Ireland"). Sarah777 (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Masden said something on that issue here [74]. - Tfz 10:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if I required validation of my fears about the predisposition of the current formula, Scolaire above and others provide it. Leaving aside the Admins, those in a hurry to proceed with the current mess appear to be nearly all supporters of the status quo. Sarah777 (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well balanced comments sarah, no POV there at all lmao. First of all ROI is a perfectly acceptable location for the article title and the fact it has remained there for a few years shows its not totally unacceptable in most peoples minds. There is one alternative that is more acceptable, that would be Ireland (state). Sadly some people have refused to allow us to remove the core problem titles which are unacceptable to each side (the country at Republic of Ireland and the country at Ireland, i think the second is FAR worse than the first but i see problems with both). Had we removed those two we could of had a nice sensible debate about a compromise location for the articles, but sadly no.
As for the comments about UK wikipedians being informed, the difference between the UK and Germany is the UK shares the island of Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. Does Germany? People who live in Northern Ireland are United Kingdom citizens, there for UK wikipedians and must be informed.
As for the final comment that is just crazy, "those in a hurry to proceed with the current mess appear to be nearly all supporters of the status quo.". That would be pretty silly, slowing down the process means the status quo lasts for longer, speeding up this process is far more likely to result in a change to the articles than for it to remain in the same place. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have hit on something, and I have said this before much earlier on, "keep it simple". The poll has got very complicated with all these options. My preference was that the RoI article be "fixed", and leave Ireland as the island article, status quo. Then there wouldn't be so much debate. Tfz 10:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both Sarah and BW are missing one vital fact: on English Wikipedia the German, Spanish, Azerbijani and Nepalese WikiProjects are populated by British and American editors in more or less the same proportion as this one; they're just British and American editors who aren't that interested in Ireland! Sarah has also called it wrong on me on two counts: I am not in a hurry to proceed and I am not in favour of anything that could conceivably be construed as de facto support for the status quo - what I am upset about is the return to the kind of free-for-all that will see the likes of Sarah and Bastun slugging it out for another six months before anything else is done. Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah. The fact is that you find Republic of Ireland to be unacceptable. Other people find it acceptable. That's a fact. You don't have to like the fact, but it is a fact. I am not saying I find it to be acceptable. I'm saying that it's not true to say that it is unacceptable. You have accused me of favouring the status quo. As it happens I do not favour it. Indeed I have never favoured it. That does not prevent me, however, from working on a set of Pros/Cons and a general intro to the poll which attempts to balance the different views. I DON"T CARE if you can't stand Republic of Ireland being on the poll as a possible name for the article on the state. It's there. I DON'T CARE if someone on the other side can't stand Ireland being on the poll as a possible name for the article on the state. I can express my opinions on the poll. When trying to put the ballot together, however, I and Scoláire and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid have tried to be even-handed not to make Republicans or Unionists happy or unhappy, but because that's how one is supposed to do it. I am willing to allow the ballot to make statements that are true, without trying to make the ballot into a propaganda exercise — and that is what your arguments, and those of Tfz, and Domer48, and BigDunc, seem to me (that's my opinion) be leading toward. You want the ballot to argue for your POV because you're afraid that you'll "lose". Personally I doubt that the status quo will stand. But I agreed, as did you, to let the wider community to decide. That's the risk I agree to take because we have not been able to come to agreement in some other way. -- Evertype·✆ 11:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think some people are still at the Denial phase while most are at Bargaining (to be followed by Anger/Depression and finally Acceptance). Or something like that... --HighKing (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I don't think delaying is going to make things any better. You have poll wording that appears to have rough consensus, and the reason we're having the poll is that we can't get a clear consensus here. Why do you think we're going to come up with a poll that everyone can live with if we wait a few more days. Go for it and see what the community says.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested that we provide Pro and Con statements which are fully supported by referenced sources in an effort to inform readers. That it should be described as "a propaganda exercise" is very unhelpful. I'd like it to stop. Is there any reasonable or rational suggestions as to why we should not try to have an informed set of statements? --Domer48'fenian' 18:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed below (and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid proposed something similar on the ballot Talk) that we allow each voter to link to another location with the uniform phrase "(my rationale here). Then anyone who wants to give an explanation and rationale and referenced sources on the Poll's talk page or below the ballot area can do so -- without the ballot area itself becoming a battleground. -- Evertype·✆ 19:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Method to calculate result
I know this isn't sexy but it *really* has to be sorted. Without agreeing in advance exactly how we are going to decide the result of the vote, we risk wasting our entire efforts. We are going to invite the entire Wikipedia community to participate in a three-week poll using what, to most of them, will look like some super fandangly voting system. If, at the end of those three weeks, we are left arguing over what was the actual outcome was, we will be the laughing stock of Wikipedia.
It is *crucial* that we agree in advance how we are going to do this. So, whatever your opinion, if you don't support, object or comment on the below, you risk your vote counting for nothing.
We currently have two proposed methods. Please cast your !vote below each one. The difference between the two is as follows:
Method 1 guarantees a result, but the "winner" may have less than 50% explicit support
Method 2, the winner must have >50% explicit support, but risks not giving a "result"
(Masem, I have summarised yours below, reducing mathematical redundancies from your description above. Rockpocket, Scolaire, GoodDay, I have copied-and-pasted your votes from the on-going poll above, which I have moved down here - I hope I am right in doing so.)
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the number of exhausted ballots exceed 50% of the total vote, the vote is void (i.e. back to the drawing board)
ArbCom or Masem will adjudicate the vote
Support (also): Encourages consensus and compromise to get a result. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The "Ireland (xxx)" poll was fine; the mistake was deciding without any consultation to forward only the top two options when there were three outstanding. Bad decision by someone which I intend to challange. I have previously asked how/when/where that decision was made and have had no explanation after 2 days. Sarah777 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sarah, the decision was taken to forward only the top option because it had an overwhelming majority compared to the other two options and since that was the case it was decided (by consensus) that it was better to keep the ballot simpler rather than needlessly complex in terms of the options offered. -- Evertype·✆ 11:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sarah, the (xxx) poll resulted in an overwhelming majority for one option, but I agree with you that this has essentially resulted in a sub-election before the main event. Not uncommon though in the real world. Think of it as an election for the best candidate to stand in the primary. I have no problem with extending it from 2 to 3, but where would we draw the line? Why not 4 or 5? And, I'm puzzled. The 2nd placed result was Ireland (country), and the 3rd place was Ireland (Republic of). Is it your intention to include Ireland (Republic of) in the poll?? --HighKing (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a mathematician but I'd be very slow to buy a formula from the other side. Sarah777 (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do not want us to go back to the drawing board. -- Evertype·✆ 11:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like not to either, but if, out of 100 votes, 20 provide their preference for various options, but the other 80 leave their ballot blank, stating they don't agree to any of the options. That's not a good situation to accept as a binding result for 2 years. Mind you, I don't think we'll need to take this route, but we need to have some type of "no confidence" aspect to use here. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about including a "none of the above" option instead? And if "none of the above" gets >50% of 1st pref votes, then it's back to the drawing board. --HighKing (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that is a credible scenario, Masem. We had no such troubles with the Ireland (xxx) poll. We should not worry ourselves into paralysis. I would also oppose a "none of the above" solution. -- Evertype·✆ 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the method of calculating votes had already been agreed to above? ive stayed out of that debate, the maths gave me a headache. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem made a comment here that was contrary to what seemed to be the consensus above. In any case, it's better that as many people as possible explicity state their agreement that way we can be *certain* what we are doing. Absolute *certainty* is crucial. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the vote is void" as in we have to come back to the drawing board again? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've put an explanation of the difference above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes up your mind? Whatca mean? GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That ill vote for method one which gets a result for sure, rather than method two which could lead back to stage one. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A question on Method 1: so that there is no ambiguity: If I vote #1 "Ireland" and #2 "Ireland (something else)" and #3 "Ireland State" - if "Ireland" is eliminated then my vote is added (100%) to "Ireland (something else)". If "Ireland (something else)" is then eliminated and "Ireland (state) is still in the frame my vote gets added (100%) to "Ireland (state)". But if I don't vote "Ireland (state)" #1 there is a risk that by the time "Ireland (something else)" is eliminated then "Ireland (state)" may also be gone and with it my anti-RoI vote? Sarah777 (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let the poll begin
Let's take a poll on taking the poll. Do you support the poll starting sooner, rather than after a protracted new argument process? If you do, sign support. If you prefer to wait and work through writing another set of arguments, sign oppose.
Support -- it's not going to get any more agreeable to everyone than it is now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I can not support the current proposed wording of a statement and i dont see it ever getting consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you don't see any statement getting unanimity (which is different from consensus) then what are you doing? Delaying for a week to improve a statement you don't see ever getting consensus? Because that's just a blocking tactic. If you really don't see a possibility of getting a perfect statement, one option is to say "Frak it, it can't be perfect, but I'll hold my nose and overlook it because it's the poll itself that's important." -- Evertype·✆ 19:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't believe I am voting in a poll on a poll ah sure the wonderful world of wiki. BigDuncTalk 18:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither he nor you gave a rationale. -- Evertype·✆ 19:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as I believe there's a potential for this whole Collaboration (up to now) falling apart (over something insignificant). GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and object to this petulant act. The delay is not for "protracted argument" its to allow proper statements to be made. We are probably not going to get a much better agreed statement, but we can get statements in support of the different positions that inform other editors.--SnowdedTALK 19:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A poll to judge whether there is rough or fine consensus is not a petulant act, thanks. -- Evertype·✆ 19:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the combination of
(1) inviting hordes of uninterested and uninvolved members of "the community" while
(2) failing to explain that the dispute centers around the fact that the "RoI" is a political imposition of British pov
leads to a de facto argument in favour of the status quo.
I accept what Scolaire says re the En:Wiki Germany editors being from the US/UK like all the others; but I'd think the chances of them having a wider perspective is better than on Projects that by their nature attract British nationalists or Anglo-Saxonistas. Short of asking non-English Wiki editors to vote it seems the best chance of getting out of the parochial rut. Sarah777 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake how can you say " fact that the "RoI" is a political imposition of British pov", when it was the Irish government that first introduced the term.. not the British one. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was 1948, this is 2009. And the Irish Government went to some trouble to explain that "RoI" was a dab, not a name. Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
". And the Irish Government went to some trouble to explain that "RoI" was a dab" Thank you Sarah, that is exactly why we use the title Republic of Ireland on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - having a poll about whether to have a poll is silly Fmph (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to determine what needs to be fixed
Yes, I want to push the poll forward, but I want to make sure people are satisfied. The problem is that there is so much noise that it is very difficult to follow (I suspect these are the reasons the other moderators quit).
Please review Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Ballot paper, and I would like to know that, if you have any misgivings on its set up , what those are, whether its in the lead statement or in the instructions, this includes if you are feeling there is a big necessary fact that non-involved editors must be aware of. Please don't respond to others; I need to assess if we're talking wording or procedural fixes that are easy to fix, or if we need a bit more effort (like the pro and con statements), and arguing over specific points won't help to fix it. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its totally unbalanced if you ask me. The poll notionally has 5 options for how to solve the conflict, yet 80% of the explanatory infobox concentrates on the case for moving the ROI article intact to Ireland (state) or not. MickMacNee (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's as balanced as it can get. Regarding the intro: It isn't a perfect summary of everyone's argument and it doesn't take into account every person's deep-felt feelings. But it can't. It also tries to be fair on all sides, and I think it is clear that there is some unhappiness on both of the sides, which is a sign that we did a good job. Extending the essays isn't going to make any difference at all to the non-involved editors who are going to be asked to make a choice. We've spent the last two or three weeks getting to here. Regarding the poll: One option on the poll offers the status quo. The other options on the poll are other options. I think it was wise to limit the options to one "(xxx)" choice. Regarding the rules: Amazingly it looks as though we have broad consensus on those, apart from the ban on discussions in the poll. I think that should be changed to allow each voter to link to another location with the uniform phrase "(my rationale here). -- Evertype·✆ 19:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few problems, i wasnt strongly against the text itself though (with the exception of the suggested wording about the troubles, which i strongly oppose)
# First this bit " All involve what content will be at the article titled 'Ireland', in addition to other articles that may be affected by it. This impacts what the name of the article on the 26-county state "Ireland" will be," Why is the fact this impacts on the state mentioned but totally ignores to point out it equally impacts on the island?
# There is no mention of how long the ROI article has been at Republic of Ireland, ignoring this fact that it has been there for years ever since the birth of wikipedia basically is clearly anti the ROI option.
# There is no mention of the fact that the ISLAND of Ireland has had the name IRELAND for alot longer than the Sovereign state which only adopted it just over 70 years ago.
# On the section that mentions why it should be at ROI it could point out more clearly it was the IRISH government that introduced the Republic of Ireland Act, some may be confused and think it was the British government. It should be clear Irelands own government created the term Republic of Ireland, not the nasty British.
# A mention of the fact the Irish football team plays under the title Republic of Ireland because Ireland is ambiguous, so it isnt "Ireland" in all international organisations shows the Irish government isnt as anti ROI as some of the people here on wikipedia, if they were theyd refuse to field a team under that name.
# "in which the article at 'Ireland' would discuss the geographical and political aspects;" - of what? this needs to be more clear.
# I also am a bit concerned about the format of it, the summary is not neutral when it clearly promotes a couple of options over others. (in truth options i prefer), but it is unbalanced in that regard. All should be listed in bullet points like ROI and Ireland (state) really.
# One other point, I have never been too happy about the way we describe the ROI / Northern Ireland by talking of "26 of 32 counties" and "6 of the remaining counties" because i think describing the two with their capitals (dublin/belfast) along with the share of the island is the simplest method rather than getting into county numbers. However after taking another look at the Names of the Irish State, i see this statement there..
"Irish republicans, and other opponents of Partition, often refer to the state as the "Twenty-Six Counties" (with Northern Ireland as the "Six Counties") or even the "Free State" (a reference to the pre-1937 state - see above). These names are pejorative and are intended to call into question the legitimacy of the state."
If any such terms about the counties have been used in the past with political motivations, perhaps its best we stay clear of talking about the counties? It really is not needed if we talk about share of the island and names of their capitals, i dont have a big problem with this point, just thought id mention it as u want feedback on everything. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just my first thoughts on the matter, i do think it would be easier with a pro/con statement for each of the options rather than a single statement which is going to be hard to get agreement on BritishWatcher (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My misgiving is that RoI is being offered at all, but I compromised on that. But secondly, the RoI term is getting preeminence again in the main statement, and even quoting the UK's 1948 Ireland Act. What in hell has the "1948 UK Ireland Act" to do with Wikipedia-2009. It's quite patently there to add legitimacy to the use of RoI term for the name of Ireland. It's pretty offensive stuff, and I'm not afraid to say that. Evertype, an American, may not have the same reservations, and I'll spare everyone the history lesson, only to say the the 1948-UK act is part of that same history. Why should Wikipedia demur to anything else but the Constitution of Ireland. Tfz 19:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, reference to the 1949 Act (not 1948 Act) was included at the request of HighKing as an argument against ROI. I'm not aware of any pro-ROI editor fighting for its inclusion. Scolaire (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BW, all of those points could as you say be handled in argument statements for each of the options. Its not going to be possible to get a fully agreed single statement so lets get on with those statements per the moderators proposal of 250 words. Tfz, I think you have to let the pro ROI group make their argument, several editors just feel that it makes more sense to use ROI in part because they don't see a valid reason to object to it. Others of us feel that the history of use of the term means that it is a POV position. We just write the statements, link the Balot to them and let it get started. --SnowdedTALK 19:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My brain will need fixing, when things are finally settled. Jumpers, ya'll are way ahead of me. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is: User:Rockpocket/Ballot. In short, it does not display any preference for any of the options, but instead describes the dispute and leaves editors to do their own research and make up their own mind. Anything beyond this is going to be POV fodder. Rockpocket 19:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, if it'll help get things moving. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone froze Names of the Irish state and all editors were encouraged to read that then I would be sympathetic to Rockpocket's proposal. --SnowdedTALK 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with suggestion by Snowded and would endorse RP then. BigDuncTalk 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - I can only support this suggestion as a last option if everything else fails. This vote has HUGE implications, people need to be warned about the problems of certain options, the article on the names of the Irish state do not go into detail about such things and we should only go into the vote blind if we can not get agreement on wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (if) the phrase This impacts what the name of the article on the 26-county state "Ireland" will be is changed to This impacts what the name of the article on the sovereign state "Ireland" will be. Sarah777 (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, make that - This impacts what the name of the article on the sovereign country of Ireland will be. We can argue about what the "country" of Ireland includes but there is clearly only one sovereign country of Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm sure that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of republicans who wiew the 32-county virtual Irish Republic as a sovereign country. Scolaire (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, the text says the 26-county state as a way of making it clear to Wikipedian editors who really don't know about the issues what the configuration of the entity is. The text does not say this for any nefarious reasons. Your edit makes the text less precise in terms of helping people who are not involved in the dispute. -- Evertype·✆ 12:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sovereign country is much clearer to the average uninvolved person than "26 county state"; Scolaire, there are thousands of people who believe in Utopia too. As an Irish Republican I believe there should be an Irish 32 county sovereign country. That would be the "wouldn't it be great if Utopia existed" position. Very different from thinking it actually does exist. Sarah777 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, Sarah. "Sovereign country" might be the 32-county United Ireland that some people might want or might fancy exists. (Remember, some people know very little about Ireland". So in the context of the intro to the poll, simply saying 83% and 17% and numbering the counties gives extra information. It's not harmful to anybody. -- Evertype·✆ 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It is unfortunate that we cannot get agreement on the POV issues, but we can at least get agreement on introducing the poll and it's background to the voters. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules, which has led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues.”
I disagree with this statement, based on standard naming convention rules. The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name per standard naming convention rules. So this contradicts the statement on the section Ireland (state).
“Imprecision in naming may lead to equivocal statements (compare "Belfast is the second-largest city in Ireland" and "Cork is the second-largest city in Ireland", either of which may be true or not depending on how the word "Ireland" is taken).”
This is a red herring! Belfast is the second largest city on the island of Ireland, and is situated in Northern Ireland. Cork is the second largest city in the Irish State, however, Belfast, in Northern Ireland is the second largest city in the island of Ireland. All it takes is a little care with wording and the problem can be over come, we can deal with this if and when the situation arises. A little good faith editing, that’s all it needs, so the statement should be removed.
“As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, the parties have agreed to use the results of a poll to all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter.”
Some editors have agreed to a poll, others would like to use conventional measures i.e. policies so this should be reflected in the statement.
On the comments attached to Ireland (state) and Republic of Ireland, they are currently being discussed re adding statements.
On the other option, it lists China, but does not mention the alternative option I offered?
On the ballot options, the fact that “The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name” per standard naming convention rules raises valid questions as to why there are other options being considered? The fact that option F is still on the ballot paper, also raises questions. RoI is not “the state's internationally-recognized name” runs counter to standard naming convention rules and negates the whole purpose of Wikipedia not to mention going against neutral point of view when we view the number of sources which expressly state that it should not be used in this way.This is an international Encyclopaedia, why is it being reduced to British and Irish politics? --Domer48'fenian' 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem said opening this tread "Please don't respond to others; I need to assess if we're talking wording or procedural fixes that are easy to fix, or if we need a bit more effort (like the pro and con statements), and arguing over specific points won't help to fix it. Can editors not follow simple instructions? --Domer48'fenian' 20:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post my response as bullet points for ease of reading:
First, I think it is about as good as we can get. Yes, everyone is unhappy with it, but no matter what we go with, nobody is going to be entirely satisfied. So simply measure the number of people that are unhappy with one or two bits is no good. We have to measure the number of people that are more or less happy with it all, regardless of whether there are one or two bits that get their goat. I think what we have satisfies that.
Two, a pro/con summary would be practically impossible to write, never mind get agreement on. What most people have issue with right now is the pro/con summary of "Ireland (state)" vs. "Republic of Ireland". Imagine what it would be like trying to get agreement if it was only that kind of text we were trying to get a consensus on.
Three, there are also some good points raised about too great a focus on the state article. Yes, it is to a great extent the name of the article on the state that we are arguing over. But, if it was only the state article that we had to decide on it would be easy - just put it at "Ireland", It would be a non-issue. The real issue we have it how to organise the two articles. There is a very good points, IMHO, that some have made that point needs to be the guts of what we want to get across. Giving too much attention to the names of the Irish states distracts from that.
I think Rockpocket hits the nail on the head. Putting the arguments pro/anti the Ireland/Republic of Ireland in there overwhelms the thing with the "controversy" of what to call the Irish state. This does two thing 1) it distracts from the real issue (i.e. how will we organise two pages on Wikipedia, only one of which is about the Irish state) and 2) it is the main focus of our acrimony. Take it out, it will put more balance in there for what we really want to focus on and it will remove what we are now arguing over.
MickMacNee: Its totally unbalanced if you ask me. The poll notionally has 5 options for how to solve the conflict, yet 80% of the explanatory infobox concentrates on the case for moving the ROI article intact to Ireland (state) or not. The problem is, I believe this ROI issue to be the core of the entire conflict. If it were simply that there was never the term ROI, and the decision was between whether the island, the country, or the disambig page was at Ireland, we've been done with this a long time ago. The existence and debate over ROI is core to this issue and pretty much is the monkey wrench in the works. It needs to be explained in depth why it potentially could be bad but also why it is potentially correct.
Domer: on your disagreement with Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules, which has led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues. This is referring to the island and the country, not to Ireland (the country) and Republic of Ireland. In the same vein as I mentioned above, if there was no island Ireland, the clear answer would of course be that "Ireland" would be the country article, ROI probably mentioned somewhere in that, per naming convention. Unfortunately, that's not the situation, so one of the two (or both) have to give on that point.
I will also note that just now, I considered trying to write down pros and cons for each choice, and each time, I got hung up on how to describe the choice between Ireland (state) and ROI without running into problems and keeping a POV. This keeps telling me that the initial statement of the problem seems to be the best solution and let editors read further if they want more details, as covering the pros/cons of Ireland (state) and ROI in one shot makes a clear statement of why both options are on the ballot. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ur point in response to Domer and Mick about the problems with Republic of Ireland and the fact its a core problem and i dont mind ROI being singled out as very problematic, but the country at Ireland is even worse and far more offensive so must have equal warnings to it if not greater ones.
On how to handle the choice between Republic of Ireland and Ireland (state) do you need to? I thought the idea was pros and cons for each option, not getting into a "this one is better than that one because". We simply need to say choose ROI because its.. Dont chose it because... Choose Ireland (state) because... Dont choose it because.. etc like....
Pro ROI = Republic of Ireland is the official description of the state as stated in the..
Anti ROI = The name of the state is not Republic of Ireland.
Pro Ireland (state) = Its a neutral disam and used in other cases like (Georgia)
Anti Ireland (state) = People may confuse it with a state like in Australia or Canada.
along those lines, rather than "ROI is better than (state) because"BritishWatcher (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BW: I don't agree that the sovereign country located at "Ireland" is 'much more problematic' than having it at RoI. That is why I was under the impression that what we were seeking was a compromise, between two versions unacceptable to a large number of editors. A compromise between my favoured solution and the best fit to WP:COMMONNAME, (Ireland), and the status quo, the British pov (RoI). Sarah777 (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it is possible to write an NPOV statement around the poll. The options all have their own POV, and we shouldn't pretend they haven't. Just list the options and the instructions and leave it at that. Those interested can find their own info or ask for 'guidance' here. Fmph (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to some of Domer48's comments:
Standard naming conventions allow "Ireland" to be used for the island article, or "Ireland" to be used for the state article. Either is found in reliable sources and either is easily recognised by English speakers. "Ireland (state)" gives a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
'Belfast and Cork' is used only as an example, not as an instance of an actual problem. Here is an actual instance from the Rosemary Clooney article: "In later years, Clooney would often appear with Crosby on television...and the two friends made a concert tour of Ireland together." Was Belfast included in the tour? The sources don't say. So which "Ireland" is meant?
"Some editors have agreed to a poll, others would like to use conventional measures i.e. policies". Undoubtedly true. I suggest changing that particular statement to: "..it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter." No need to argue about how it was decided or how many dissentors there were.
"On the other option, it lists China, but does not mention the alternative option I offered." I agree. There are two options that involve something other than just renaming. China is a suitable example for the "extra article" option proposed by MickMacNee. For the "merge articles" option I think Cyprus is a far better example.
Wikipedia determines the recognisability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. Many verifiable reliable sources call the 26-county state the "Republic of Ireland", therefore it is recognisable, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. If over 50% of all users taking part in the poll favour this name, then it cannot be considered as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts or political or ideological struggle.
Masem, it says quite clearly "The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name." Now per Standard naming conventions article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize and should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Optimized for readers with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, Ireland is referring to the name of the Nation, State, and internationally-recognized sovereign country. Editors are not a general audience, and inflating a reasonable minimum of ambiguity over the island is to move the reader from the general to the specialists audience. Ireland can refer to the island in a purely geographical sense, but internationally it’s recognized as referring to the Nation, State, and sovereign country. --Domer48'fenian' 10:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What crap, Ireland is equally well known as the name of the island, not just the state. There for its ambiguous, i know u have never accepted this.. its pathetic really because everyone else knows its obviously the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, one of the people you are holding the poll for is Domer48. But look what he is writing. Basically he is arguing for us all to accept his reasoning after all and change the article name because that fits with his interpretation of the "Standard naming conventions". Well, that's not helping you with your mini-essays, is it? And that is what we are on hold for. And Domer's arguments are moot; we have agreed to have a community-wide poll. So what is it you are doing? -- Evertype·✆ 12:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If over 50% of all users taking part in the poll favour this name, then it cannot be considered as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts or political or ideological struggle. What complete tosh Scolaire. You obviously have not been reading up on the problem of systemic cultural bias on En:Wiki. It is precisely what leads to situations like sovereign country being called "RoI" rather than it's actual name. Sarah777 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I see Scolaire beating the RoI drum I just get a little speechless. Maybe he should write to the EU and to the Council of Europe to point out their erring ways. There is little hope on this 'collaboration page' for any satisfactory solution at this rate. Fast losing interest(. Tfz 15:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You left once, nobody forced you to come back. You know where the exit is. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BW, WP:CIVIL please. I sometimes think blocking, banning and driving away the opposition is how the British status quo is maintained here. I thought you were one of the more reasonable folk. Sarah777 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was perfectly civil. TFZ made a big fanfare when he left this project, he then came back almost instantly. Now he is saying hes losing interest, i simply reminded him he chooses to be here and he knows what to do if he doesnt like it.
Hello again Sarah by the way, i notice you didnt reply to my comment yesterday in response to your statement that " the Irish Government went to some trouble to explain that "RoI" was a dab, not a name." Can you not see that is exactly why we use the title Republic of Ireland here on wikipedia. You said yourself, the government made the description to act as a dab, we simply use it the way they intended. Im sure the Irish government would be proud =) BritishWatcher (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BW; the fact that Irl Gov supplied a dab in 1948 when the state still claimed the whole island is totally irrelevant. Since 1998 (most of) NI Republicans and the Irish Government have abandoned that claim. It is time we abandoned the "dab" aka "the description". Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I wanted to "beat the ROI drum" I could make a much louder noise than that ;-) No, I just want to make it clear why it is not against What Wikipedia is for or any other principle to have it as an option on the ballot paper. BTW, even I don't know which way I'm going to vote yet. Scolaire (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoopeeeee! Collaboration decends once again into point-scoring. -- Evertype·✆ 17:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make comments above as if you are an innocent bystander you contribute to what you call point-scoring with your comments above about Domer along with BW. Trying to get Masem to disregard his statements,. Domer has his own style of doing thinks and editors who have been around a while are familiar to it, he uses sources and facts for everything he posts as can be seen by the weighty edits he has made. Domer is a very knowledgeable editor on Irish history and can't just be blown off because his style annoys you. BigDuncTalk 18:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to score points; I was suggesting that Domer (however knowledgeable assiduous an editor he may be) is not making comments which are within the current goal of this Project, which are to get a ballot out so that a solution to this problem can be found. Since this Project has taken the decision to go to a poll, his arguments have the wrong focus. Those arguments are about coming to consensus about the naming of the article. But members of this project have agreed that they are unable to come to that consensus, so he's beating a dead horse. I even look reasonably favourably on some of his arguments. But that's not relevant now, since the Project has taken a decision to seek a solution through polling. -- Evertype·✆ 18:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but Sarahs comment was a total own goal. When ever there is a chance to mention "the Irish Government went to some trouble to explain that "RoI" was a dab, not a name." i must get it in, even if i get accused of point scoring lol. She basically admitted the Irish government created a description that could be used as a dab, we find ourselves in this problem because Ireland is ambiguous.. thankfully the Irish government thought ahead and gave us a dab, and that is the Republic of Ireland! BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get too excited BW. The Irish Gov used RoI to distinguish it from the national territory which was to be restored as it was an intrinsic part of the Irish State. The context was that NI was illegally occupied by the British. As part of the settlement of 1998 the Irish State abandoned that claim and said that Ireland (the nation) now consists of only the soverign part until such time (if ever) a majority in NI vote to join Ireland and leave the UK. The 1948 Act is, post Good Friday, utterly irrelevant. Sarah777 (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lordy lordy! It doesnt frakking matter what she was arguing. Or whether she "own goaled". It doesn't get us nearer to a poll. Do you want a poll or not? Some of us have worked like demons to try to get something that can be polled. Now nobody's talking about the poll at all. It's just descended into chaos. -- Evertype·✆ 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol but i am waiting to find out what happens next, Masem asked for feedback, i gave quite a few bullet points and got no response so im waiting for the next stage be that the pros/con statements or the attempt to do a single message again. I dont see why we cant all have a little fun to pass the time. In reality my first vote isnt even going to ROI anyway, i just cant stand the way people are obsessed with talking it down and making it out like its an evil British invention to insult the people of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with you. A number of your bullet points were interesting. I would be prepared to try to revisit the points in the intro with respect to them, but as of right now I feel that anything I do will be a waste of time, because we have no idea what it is that Masem is doing. It's two days now since he had is bright idea about the mini-essays. And that's four days on from when he said he hoped we'd get to poll by midnight. I feel really jerked around. I'd like to edit the poll and help to get it out, but there is so little good faith and good will out there it is most disheartening. -- Evertype·✆ 18:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more reasonable and logical my comments, the more irrational, desperate and personalised are the opinions I get in return. Now Masem asked for comments on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Ballot paper because they are trying to determine what needs to be fixed. I’ve pointed to a glaring contradiction between the Lead and the statements on the options. In the Lead it says “Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules” however in the statement attached to Ireland (state) it states that “The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name.” Both statements cannot be true, and based on all the available sources, the state's internationally-recognized name is the most common per standard naming convention rules as opposed to the strictly geographical use of the name. I perfectly willing to listen to counter arguments, but to try to establish that the strictly geographical use of the name is the most common per standard naming convention rules above that of the state's internationally-recognized name will require more than just the opinions of Editors because according to ArbCom, "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." --Domer48'fenian' 18:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your logic. In the lede it does say "both uses of the name "Ireland" are equally valid". What does this mean? It means that people are justified in calling the state "Ireland", and people are justified in calling the island "Ireland". Both statements are true. The state is named Ireland. And the island is named Ireland. There is nothing wrong with saying that both uses are equally valid. They are. (If they are not, then what are the names, respectively, of the state and of the island?). Now to your secong point. It's true that the international community recognizes the state's name as "Ireland". ISO 639 does. The UN does. Etc. So... Domer... it is incorrect for you to say that both statements cannot be true. Both statements are true. Entirely true.
Then you move on to a different plane of argument. You start arguing that on foot of the naming conventions we are obliged to name the state article "Ireland". Well, the logic may lead there. I may even agree with you. But it doesn't matter, because the people who dislike the idea of calling the state "Ireland" are vociferous and will not agree with you. Nothing you can do about it. They're not agreeing with you. Even if they are wrong they are not agreeing with you. And they won't. So we have decided to have a poll. A community-wide poll. So what are you doing to help make that happen? You're just stamping your foot and saying "But my logic is right!" Well, it might be, but that doesn't send out a poll. -- Evertype·✆ 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I personally don't see a contradiction there. "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name. "Ireland" is also the name of the land-mass that the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. Both statements can be and are true. "Turkey" is the state's internationally-recognized name. It is also the name of the fowl that the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. Scolaire (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype, can I plead with you once again to comment on the edit and not on the editor. Every single time you accuse another editor of "stamping his foot" it retards the process further. Do you want agreement on holding the poll or do you not? Scolaire (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, relax, Scoláire. He's just gone and called everyone who disagrees with his logic "irrational, desperate", and beset with "personalized opinions". I was talking to him, in the second person singular, and yes, I want him to know that it looks like foot-stamping to me, and that that isn't doing his case any good and it sure isn't getting us to a poll. I want him to realize that what he's doing is off-target. -- Evertype·✆ 18:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am already. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 19:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summing up comment
Ok, based on input (and before this become discussion wars again), here's the biggest thing I see as a problem (plus or minus a few small fixes to the intro text on the ballot). It is the fact that ROI is being proposed as a solution but it's "cons" are not being presented. Now, for sake of simplicity, when you consider every single other solution and name (including disamb names), there's no real "cons" to these - the terms aren't loaded, they're appropriate per WP standards with whatever disamb stubs; the question between all these is just which one seems to be best. What this all comes down to is the fact that ROI is seen as a very negative term by some, while others see it as a completely appropriate term. I'm not going to go into who's right or wrong - there's no answer there, but I do consider my own entire experience with this moderation, at the start having no idea why "ROI" was being contested. After a few months, I know much better, but that's after a few months of getting very involved and reading the backhistories and the like. We're asking voters, who likely will not spend that time or have that time, to do the same.
Thus, what I need needs to be done is, in the summary, to clearly outline that this issue is primarily complicated by the term ROI, explaining that it is a proper descriptor of the country (and thus could be read to be positive in that light) but also brings back a history of UK-nationalism due to it being how the UK called from 1949 up to 1998 (after the Belfest Agreement), despite it not being the internationally recognized name. Here's what I propose changing that text to:
Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration Project
The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it and comprising 26 of 32 counties, also named "Ireland". (Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining 6 counties and 17% of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid, and attempts to determine which is most comment per standard naming convention rules has led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues. Other naming conflicts that involve countries do not provide consistent advice for resolution of this issue (compare, for example, Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China). Imprecision in naming may lead to equivocal statements (compare "Belfast is the second-largest city in Ireland" and "Cork is the second-largest city in Ireland", either of which may be true or not depending on how the word "Ireland" is taken). Since this also affects where the disambiguation page for the term "Ireland" will fall, that too is considered part of the naming conflict resolution issue.
The major component of the issue is the phrase "Republic of Ireland", which is presently the current location of information for the 26-county state. "Republic of Ireland" is an official descriptor for the state, as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, though the name of the state by both this Act and the international community is "Ireland". However, at the same time, "Republic of Ireland" was considered to be the name of the state by the United Kingdom in their 1949 Ireland Act, and remained such until the 1998 Belfast Agreement, upon which UK recognized the state's name as only "Ireland". The political disagreements between the UK and Ireland between 1949 and 1998 have led some to view the term "Republic of Ireland" as supporting UK nationalism and a negative term upon the state of Ireland, leading to lengthy debates with both wikilawyering and politically-charged discussion about the use of the term as the state's article name on Wikipedia. (For more information see Names of the Irish state.)
As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, the parties have agreed to use the results of a poll to all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below, presented in no particular or preferential order. Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the 26-county state named "Ireland" will be referred to in the text of other articles.
This attempts to cover the ROI issue (which is truly the core of it - without it, either being completely acceptable or completely unacceptable, the solution would have been easy) in "quick readership" depth, enough to point people if they want to know more. This, along with linked-in userspace essays for those that want to supply them, I think will make the ballot as fair as it can ever possibly be. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i just feel i must make a quick comment (ive not fully read everything yet) but i totally reject this idea that " Now, for sake of simplicity, when you consider every single other solution and name (including disamb names), there's no real "cons" to these" ... The State at Ireland is totally unacceptable to many people because it disgracefully ignores the fact there is an ISLAND called Ireland and a state called Ireland.. i dont understand how you can think the only problem is the ROI option. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We already know that "the State at Ireland is "totally unacceptable" to some people. We also know that "the State not at Ireland is "totally unacceptable" to some other people. And, indeed, we know that "the State at Republic of Ireland is "totally unacceptable" to some people. That's why we're having a binding poll, asking uninvolved editors to help us since we cannot help ourselves. -- Evertype·✆ 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i finished reading, can i just check is this statement to go along side the pros and cons? or is that is apart from peoples own links to where they make their own case? Because if this is just the statement (no pros / cons to be added) im sorry but i must oppose this wording. The whole thing simply argues against using the term Republic of Ireland, that is not a balanced intro. It appears certain editors moaning for weeks on end have paid off sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree here. A substantial number of editors believe that ROI is not only acceptable but in common use, even among members of the Irish government (and this can be sourced). If the paragraph on ROI is to be that long it can't present only the negative. Scolaire (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a quickie source to support that? I agree if this is true it needs to be added. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Republic of Ireland" is used in the Dáil, see. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I endorse this text. I would like to request the following editorial changes. I have struck out text I propose for deletion and put additional text in bold with underscoring:
The phrase "Republic of Ireland" is an official descriptor fordescription of the state, as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, though the name of the state byunder both this Act and for the international community is "Ireland". However, at the same time, the phrase "Republic of Ireland" was considered to be the name of the state by the United Kingdom in theirits 1949 Ireland Act, and remained such until the 1998 Belfast Agreement, upon which the UK recognized the state's name as only "Ireland".
I think these editorial changes are improvements in terms of wordsmithing; in particular I think that "Republic of Ireland" should be qualified by "the phrase" or "the term" in each instance. -- Evertype·✆ 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - I do not see how this is at all fair and balanced. It does not seek to explain the different options, the whole thing is an attempt to undermine the ROI option. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Put your money where your mouth is. Scoláire and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid and I spend many hours working on text which we hope is acceptable. You spurn it. Masem does the same. You spurn it. You are gainsaying. "This isn't good" isn't enough. -- Evertype·✆ 18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype, do not invoke my name again to push your POV. I agree with BritishWatcher on this and I have said so above. Speak for yourself and leave me out of it. I am not your alter-ego! Scolaire (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't pushing a POV. I was suggesting to BritishWatcher that a way to criticize text is to work to improve it, not to just say "I don't like it". I named some people who had worked on text. -- Evertype·✆ 19:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I suggest to you that the way to collaborate is to state your opinion once and leave it, not to bitch at everybody that disagrees with you. Whether you act on my advice or not is up to you, but do not cite me to back up your argument, ever. Scolaire (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep yelling at me or you could wonder, as I am, whether some sort of "pro-RoI" sentence could be crafted and attached. -- Evertype·✆ 19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could scoll up the page and read the text I suggested! Scolaire (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could be more specific 'cause I just went through the whole page and didn't see such a draft. I saw a decent comment about Cyprus rather than China. -- Evertype·✆ 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tant pis pour vous! You are being disruptive and I am not going to engage with you further. Woof! Scolaire (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pity I wasted my time in good faith looking for the text you suggested, then. Relax. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 19:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statement “Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid” is semantics and a play on words. “The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name” however to attempt to give parity of esteem to its geographical use per Standard naming conventions is disingenuous. To suggest that there has been attempts to determine which is the most common per standard naming convention rules is equally misleading, because there has been no attempts to determine which is most common, however I could be wrong and a diff to the discussion would certainly put me in my place.
The use of the Cork and Belfast analogy is also misleading, and I’ve addressed that above which has not been responded to. It has also been pointed out that this is an international encyclopaedia, and what the UK did and did not call the Irish State is irrelevant as the international community called the State Ireland. The fact that the UK now accept that the Irish State is called Ireland and use the name Ireland makes its relevance even more moot.
It has also been pointed out that the parties did not all agree to use the results of a poll too resolve the matter and this should be reflected in the wording. In addition all references to alternative proposals have now been omitted and why is that? --Domer48'fenian' 19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Domer's statement and my response to his earlier statement above, I think "the parties have agreed to use the results of a poll to all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter." should be changed to "it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter." Scolaire (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing only on the ROI statement, it can be reworded as follows:
The major component of the issue is the phrase "Republic of Ireland", which is presently the current location of information for the 26-county state. "Republic of Ireland" is an official description of the state, as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, though the name of the state both under this Act and for the international community is "Ireland". However, at the same time, the phrase "Republic of Ireland" was considered to be the name of the state by the United Kingdom in its 1949 Ireland Act, and remained such until the 1998 Belfast Agreement, upon which the UK recognized the state's name as only "Ireland". The political disagreements between the UK and Ireland between 1949 and 1998 have led some to view the term "Republic of Ireland" as supporting UK nationalism and a negative term upon the state of Ireland. However the term "Republic of Ireland" is also commonly used today in a non-derogatory way within the state of Ireland's government and elsewhere (source to be supplied). The history of the term "Republic of Ireland" has led to lengthy debates with both wikilawyering and politically-charged discussion about the use of the term as the state's article name on Wikipedia. (For more information see Names of the Irish state.)
Scolaire suggested that there's a source to show the ROI term use today; this should help balance the fact that some see the term as negative, some see it as positive. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a document written 11 June 2009 by the Northern Ireland Executive (one of three devolved governments in the United Kingdom), which uses the term in a neutral fashion. -- Evertype·✆ 19:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to that I endorse your modified paragraph. -- Evertype·✆ 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The example I used last year was this: On 17 September 2008, asked about plans for Fianna Fáil to organise in Northern Ireland, An Taoiseach, Brian Cowen said, "I am concentrating...on the strategic review of our own organisation within the Republic." -Irish Times, September 17, 2008Scolaire (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Worth remembering from an earlier discussion, that the use of "the Republic" or "The South" was acceptable to many editors within the text when the meaning of "Ireland" was ambiguous. Use of the "the Republic" is not the same as "Republic of Ireland" as a name, although its use does persist but not in official documents that I can see. --SnowdedTALK 20:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Snowded. That the term Republic of Ireland is used to distinguish between Ireland and Northern Ireland in given circumstances is not the same as Republic of Ireland being used for the name of the state when no distinction is required. For example, it would be unacceptable to say Dublin is in the Republic of Ireland according to the international community. The only ones who would insist on this phraseology are definitely pushing an old outdated POV, which even the UK has now rejected. Examples of Republic of Ireland being used to differentiate between Ireland and Northern Ireland, would include [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81] etc, etc… but to suggest that this equates to international recognition of the term for the name of the Irish state is unsupportable. The European Union which includes the UK note that the names of the Member States of the European Union must always be written and abbreviated according to the Interinstitutional Style Guide rules and that neither “Republic of Ireland” nor “Irish Republic” should be used when referring to the Irish State. This is also noted in Constitutional Law of 15 EU Member States (edition 6), by L. Prakke, C. A. J. M. Kortmann, Hans van den Brandhof, J. C. E. van den Brandhof, Kluwer, 2004, ISBN 9013012558, Pg.430. In addition, I would suggest adding this essay/article alongside the Names of the Irish state to help inform the opinions of readers.--Domer48'fenian' 20:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Stephen above has provided a link showing over 2000 examples of ROI being used by Republic of Ireland politicians in the Republic of Irelands own parliament. Im actually stunned at how many examples there are in his link and it shows even the Irish Government ministers have used the term. This nonsense that has been pushed for months here that ROI is just used by POV British editors is clearly wrong.
Considering that source, and others like it that show Republic of Ireland is mainstream, i still oppose a intro to the vote being overwhelmingly against the Republic of Ireland option.. it must be neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an utter fabrication of some editors here that "Republic of Ireland" has a bias of any kind. The "evidence" for this is the fact that "Ireland" is the states official name - a name that is internationally recognised and is its common name. So what? We all know that. We also all know that "Republic of Ireland" is commonly used name too. It serves a very practical purpose: it differentiates one "Ireland" from the other. That's how we are using it here on Wikipedia also. The EU, like Domer48 has pointed out, had a style guide for this - it needs it, the practical usefulness of "Republic of Ireland" is overwhelming.
"This is also noted in Constitutional Law of 15 EU Member States (edition 6), by L. Prakke, C. A. J. M. Kortmann..." What is noted? Can you provide a quotation? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lies damn lies and statistics. You fail to produce a balanced argument again. Tfz 23:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that republic with a "small r", or a "capital R". It's a pathetic argument, there are millions or references to Britain, in parliament, and out of parliament, on TV, and in the news columns, but that doesn't make 'Britain' the proper name for the "UK". I say, "so?". Tfz 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Capital R. Let's be clear: "Ireland" is the proper name of the state. "Republic of Ireland" is not a UK-biased slur. It's a term of great practical use of Irish legislative origin. The proper name of the Irish state is a non-issue: it is Ireland. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussion how to organise two pages in an encyclopedia. A technical constraint means that they cannot both be at their proper names. We can have one, or the other, or neither. Currently we have one at it's proper name. And one at a name that is commonly used to disambiguate it from the other. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I have said yesterday, and why is everyone trying to lawyer for the real world about "RoI v Ireland". It's a non issue, and the problem is here on Wikipedia, not out 'there'. Neither have I ever said the use of RoI is a British slur, that's surely making up a false argument indeed, and I pretty much resent people putting words in my mouth. Commonly used you claim, Google OR of course. Tfz 22:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy to respond to. I already did, though you ignored my response.
1. Ireland is a state comprising 26 counties and having its capital in Dublin. True or false? True.
2. Ireland is an island off the west coast of Europe. True or false? True.
Note that both statements are true. It is therefore also true to say that "both uses of the name "Ireland" are equally valid". If you dispute that either statement (1) or (2) is true, please state so now and explain your reasoning. -- Evertype·✆ 21:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that this phrase and remained such until the 1998 Belfast Agreement, upon which UK recognized the state's name as only "Ireland". is incorrect. The UK has not officially changed anything, and the 1949 Ireland Act is still in force. For me, this is a BIG reason not to use RoI, as it promulgates the official UK position. Unofficially, the UK will now accept the name of the sovereign country as Ireland - but this is more of a relaxing of an official position, than an actual new official position. --HighKing (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, my bulleted replies to your latest proposal:
'"Republic of Ireland" is an official description of the state, as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, though the name of the state both under this Act and for the international community is "Ireland" though the constitutional name of the sate remained unchanged.' The Republic of Ireland Act did not make any statement on the name (that would have required a referendum, which the government of the day could have lost - a *very* embarrassing if it had happened).
'... until the 1998 Belfast Agreement, upon which the UK recognized the state's name as only "Ireland".' If we are going to go into the Belfast Agreement we need to mention the horse-trading involded. The issue the UK had with the name "Ireland" was that it was ambigious with the entire island, which the Irish state claimed sovereignty over. That encroached on the UK's national territory. With the Belfast Agreement the Irish state resigned its territory claim over Northern Ireland and the UK recognised the name of the Irish sate as "Ireland".
'The political disagreements between the UK and Ireland between 1949 and 1998 have led some to view the term "Republic of Ireland" as supporting UK nationalism and a negative term upon the state of Ireland.' We need a citation for this. I have never seen it except here on Wikipedia.
'However the term "Republic of Ireland" is also commonly used today in a non-derogatory way within the state of Ireland's government and elsewhere (source to be supplied).' The sources are too overwhelming: Google Books, Google Scholar, Amazon, etc. There will be no source that say that "Republic of Ireland is non-derogatory" because that question simply does arise except - apparently - here on Wikipedia.
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd like to add that the new draft goes down the road of focusing even more on the "controversy" of what to call the Irish state. And further away from the actual issue: how do we organise two topics of the same title on this encyclopedia? That question is what we should be focusing on. Not on some made-up "controversy". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that there's a point this starts to get into the weeds, but if ROI was universally acceptable as the name, or if ROI was universally unacceptable as the name, there would never have been this much effort the naming done; in the first case, the solution would be obvious, while the second case would still need some debate between certain options, but the ROI would not be acting as the elephant in the room on the matter. But let's see here...I could see taking out the second para about ROI altogether and having a reasonable summary of the issue still. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe section the ROI part of as a "backgrounder". The problem I see with it now is that the question seems to be: what do we call the Irish state? The answer to that it simple: it is Ireland. The question we have instead is: how do we organise these two articles. Info on the phrase "Republic of Ireland" is important background information for anyone to decide on that - but it needs to be clear that the questions is not "To 'ROI' or not to 'ROI'?". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary attempt #2
Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration Project
The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it and comprising 26 of 32 counties, also named "Ireland". (Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining 6 counties and 17% of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid, and attempts to determine which is most common per standard naming convention rules has led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues. Other naming conflicts that involve countries do not provide consistent advice for resolution of this issue (compare, for example, Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China). Imprecision in naming may lead to equivocal statements; either Belfast or Cork could be considered the "second-largest city in Ireland" depending on how "Ireland" is taken. Since this also affects where the disambiguation page for the term "Ireland" will fall, that too is considered part of the naming conflict resolution issue.
The major component of the issue is the phrase "Republic of Ireland", which is presently the current location of information for the 26-county state. "Republic of Ireland" is an official description of the state, as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, though the name of the state both under the state's constitution and for the international community, particularly the European Union ([84]) is "Ireland". However, at the same time, the phrase "Republic of Ireland" was considered to be the name of the state by the United Kingdom in its 1949 Ireland Act in order to distinguish the state from the island, and remained such until the 1998 Belfast Agreement, upon which the UK recognized the state's name as only "Ireland", though the Ireland Act still remains in effect. The political disagreements between the UK and Ireland between 1949 and 1998 have led some editors to view the phrase "Republic of Ireland" as supporting UK nationalism and a negative term upon the state of Ireland. However the term "Republic of Ireland" is also commonly used today in a non-derogatory way within the state of Ireland's government and elsewhere ([85], [86]); as such, other editors see the phrase "Republic of Ireland" as an acceptable means to identify the state, and thus an appropriate solution to disambiguate it from the island. The history of the phrase "Republic of Ireland" has led to lengthy debates with both wikilawyering and politically-charged discussion about the use of the term as the state's article name on Wikipedia. (For more information see Names of the Irish state.)
As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below, presented in no particular or preferential order. Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the 26-county state named "Ireland" will be referred to in the text of other articles.
Update to include some of the points and references above. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you had a chance to read my comments above, Masem. I think most of the still apply here, particuly my last comment about focusing in on the Republic of Ireland "controversy" and losing sight of what the real question should be: how to organise *two* topic of the name name on this encyclopedia. If it was only the state article we had to organise the solution would be simple: it's name is "Ireland". The problem is that there are two things called "Ireland" and the vote is how we are to organise those *two* things. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did catch some of it, and still offer the suggestion of completely dropping the second para from the above, but still allowing for user essay links in the options. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replid above suggestion that the "ROI" bit be sectioned off to make it clear that "what to call the Irish state" is not the question. And to return focus to "how to organise these two pages". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are links to the essays please let them be linked uniformly in the ballotting area with (my rationale here). I can live with trying to improve the second paragraph or with deleting it altogether. -- Evertype·✆ 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary attempt #3
Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration Project
The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it and comprising 26 of 32 counties, also named "Ireland". (Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining 6 counties and 17% of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid, and attempts to determine which is most common per standard naming convention rules has led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues. Other naming conflicts that involve countries do not provide consistent advice for resolution of this issue (compare, for example, Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China). Imprecision in naming may lead to equivocal statements; either Belfast or Cork could be considered the "second-largest city in Ireland" depending on how "Ireland" is taken. Since this also affects where the disambiguation page for the term "Ireland" will fall, that too is considered part of the naming conflict resolution issue.
As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options, based on solutions used for other country names, from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below, presented in no particular or preferential order, along with links to essays from its participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice. Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the 26-county state named "Ireland" will be referred to in the text of other articles.
If we nix mention of ROI... --MASEM (t) 22:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict If there are links to the essays please let them be linked uniformly in the ballotting area with (my rationale here). I can live with trying to improve the second paragraph or with deleting it altogether. -- Evertype·✆ 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, that plus the 250 word summary statements per option (supporters only) would work, I assume that is what you mean by links to essays? If so can we get 2/3 people to sign up for each to get it ready? --SnowdedTALK 22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remain opposed to the 250-word summary statements. Who will write them? Who will vet them? What if people dislike them? I don't want to see a formal set of arguments linked. I think that if voters want to explain their rationale that is fine, that;'s what the Talk page is for and a nice neutral link from the ballot area should do that. Actually I'm sure that the Talk page would be fairly interesting to some of the uninvolved editors. But Masem's idea of these mini-essays is not a good one, in my view. It can only lead to more antagonism and contention. -- Evertype·✆ 22:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think shorter (like this) is better. If people want to read more, they can click on the "my rationale here" links. --HighKing (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, just because the country's name is the internationally recognized name for it, does not make that use of that term the most common english use, otherwise, Georgia would point to the country. Second, it needs to be taken as common sense, both recognizing the volume of words generated in the years of debate here and what one can find externally, that the island and country name are comparatively equal in their claim to the name "Ireland" and that it makes no sense to try to objectively determine this as there's really no good place to start. Given that ArbCom's identified this as the core of the dispute, trying to further figure out which is most common is a wasted effort. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Belfast/Cork example, particularly as I've reworded it: asking "what is the second-largest city in Ireland" will require some disambiguation to get the right answer and thus the naming affects how we write Ireland-related articles. And while it shouldn't matter what the UK considers the name, the fact that the UK considers the name to be one thing seems to cause some editors to disagree with the use of that name, which is why its necessary to consider that - at least in the version before I removed the whole ROI section. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When people talk about cities they almost always invariably talk about them in relation to sovereign states. Dormer is quite correct, it's one big red herring. But that's not what we are discussing here. That contrived disingenuous "problem" can easily be ameliorated by saying , "Belfast is the second largest city on the island of Ireland". Actually it's a bit of an insult to peoples' intelligence to push that silly gawking example, imo. And in BW's words it's the sort of "crap" that fuels this page, and blinds the real issues at hand. We had a poll 2 weeks ago, and "Ireland state" topped the poll. Why was the 'page move' not made, when obviously most editors want "Ireland state". It's just more of the nonsense that goes on around here, and it's really a question of "too many cooks spoiling the broth". You will never get so called consensus on this proposed poll, just as it was never attained on the naming issue either. We have had the poll, let's implement the changes, and end this debacle. Tfz 00:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You talk about disingenuous! We balloted on what word or words should go in brackets if there were to be options with brackets in them. We will ballot shortly on what we want the article names to be. If any one option gets a 50%+1 majority under STV, it will be closer to a consensus than anything we've had before, or are ever likely to get any other way. Sit back and enjoy the ride! Scolaire (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per my response to his Domer's earlier statement above, an example does not have to be an instance of an actual problem. Here is an actual instance from the Rosemary Clooney article: "In later years, Clooney would often appear with Crosby on television...and the two friends made a concert tour of Ireland together." Was Belfast included in the tour? The sources don't say. So which "Ireland" is meant? Scolaire (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support this version, it is the only one that lacks a POV. As others have suggestion, personal opinions or rationale should be made in their own userspage and piped behind "my rationale here" next to their vote. Rockpocket 23:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally Oppose - I'd support the version #1 (with one minor adjustment). This version is right back to the core problem Masem described when he presented #1 - no context as to why ROI is objectionable. If (1) we are going to invite the entire disinterested "community" and then (2) give no explanation as to why RoI is the problem then this is merely a farce to defend the status quo. Sarah777 (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also totally opposed to the use of the term "26 county" rather than sovereign state (the only bit of #1 I had a problem with). There is only one single sovereign state called Ireland on Earth - why use a demeaning phrase like "26 counties"? Sarah777 (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you walk into a bar in Uzbekistan which is more likely to generate an understanding of your identity: "I come from the sovereign State of Ireland" or "I come from the 26 counties"? Sarah777 (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MASEM thanks for the responce. Because the country's/States/Nations name is the internationally recognized name for it, does make that use of that term the most common english use, above and beyond the geograpicial use of the name. It is very disingenous to talk about "common sense", that the island and country name are comparatively equal in their claim to the name "Ireland" when one is clearly being used in a singular geograpicial sense while the other use covers the Nation, State, and country. I offered you the oppertunity to put me in my place by providing a diff for the discussion were this comparatively equal claim was discussed, with you yourself self saying "recognizing the volume of words generated in the years of debate here and what one can find externally, that the island and country name are comparatively equal" so were are the discussions? On ARBCom, you are again being very very disingenous, they outlined what the issue was, but did not pass comment on the validity of any claim. On the Belfast and Cork analogy this is also misleading, as this situation is not and never was a problem and could and was addressed in articles. It was the insistance of a hand full of editors to use RoI which caused the problem. There is no need for it. That the UK don't use RoI is very relevent, that they once did is not. That a hand full of editors want to use this as an excuse is of no concern to us. I also asked about the removal of the alternative options to the poll being removed, and saying that editors agreed to a poll and you have not addressed that, could you do so now? The diff on the discussion would also help a lot thanks. --Domer48'fenian' 07:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Statements and links to statements: a suggestion
As I see it, two mechanisms have been proposed for allowing links to statements of pros and cons (or pros only). Both have drawbacks IMO:
A link from each of the options to a single 250-word essay. Problem: who should write each of the essays won't be agreed before 2010; Sarah777 will never agree to Scolaire and [username deleted] will never agree to anyone.
Each and every user is allowed to add a link to a place of their choice to their vote. Problem: in principle the majority of voters will be uncommitted so the links will be scattered; everybody in this collaboration will not vote en bloc at the beginning of the poll, so many users will be voting before all the arguments have been linked to.
My suggestion: allow as many users as want to to link to a statement before the poll opens. The links can either be submitted in a designated section on the talk page, and moved onto the ballot by the moderator, or be added to a sub-page of the ballot which is linked to from the ballot and protected at the same moment the poll opens. All submissions would be in one of three forms:
I would suggest that the following rules should apply
Every link is included, without any kind of vetting, unless either it is completely off-topic (like my examples above) or it contains a personal attack on another editor or editors.
All participants undertake not to interfere with the text linked to e.g. by adding comments. Editors have an absolute right to revert any edits to the text linked to.
No. Links are totally inadequate. The disinterested voters we are going to attract from across En:Wiki must be given upfront information that RoI is the problem.
The fact that people supporting the status quo here keep playing what they think are winning cards every time they get a reference to use of "the Republic" illustrates their real or feigned ignorance of the core issue. So I'll point out that:
and any other variants are totally different in concept and affect from calling the article "RoI". These versions make it clear that "Ireland" is the name of the state. That is one reason why I became worried when Masem and others apparently thought that dropping Ireland (Republic of) in the (xxx) vote was sensible because it is basically the same as RoI. It absolutely is not. Ireland (the Republic) is used in conversation for dab purposes by people who would never call this country the Republic of Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And while Sarah777 would never agree to Scolaire writing the "official" summary, Sarah777 is prepared, in the interests of the project, to write the summary herself:) Sarah777 (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the talk above I see that some defenders of RoI are now claiming that the fact that Ireland is the actual name of the country is something ("everyone knows"). But this fact was only generally conceded on Wiki after a titanic battle in Ireland talk-pages; when I first came here the defenders of RoI frequently claimed that RoI was a/the name of the state. It took a year to sort that one out. Now we have (above) an RoI supporter saying "Ireland is the name of the state, it is the recognised international name, it is the widely used common name." But in the light of this new admission he then says - So What?" Sarah777 (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the suggestion above by Scolaire although i dont think there should be a restriction of 1 link per editor, people should be able to provide links to several of the options. I also think we must allow negative links, to talk of the problems of each article.
Sarah, nobody here is questioning the fact that the name of the sovereign state is IRELAND. The problem is there is also an island called Ireland, there for its ambiguous. Those that support Republic of Ireland being the title of the article on the state do so because they see it as a common name of the state and there for a good compromise allowing the island of Ireland to be at Ireland. The Island has far more right to be at Ireland than the 70 year old state called Ireland. This has been addressed above, many countries dont have their official name as their article title. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself in agreement with Sarah. If I came to this vote as an uninvolved user without detailed knowledge of the issues, I think my first questions would be: what is the current situation and what's wrong with it? So I think people will expect to find discussion of the term "Republic of Ireland", and specifically what's wrong with it. And to me that seems like something that would be best written by an editor who is passionately anti-RoI. Sarah has a very good writing style: perhaps she would be willing to draft a couple of sentences on the subject? I have to confess, I suspect part of the problem is a cultural issue. I'm English, and despite having read many, many comments on the subject, I find it hard to fully appreciate why RoI is so problematic; I dare say a number of other English / British people are in a similar boat; a similar bias may exist elsewhere in the English-speaking world. But that doesn't mean we can't appreciate that there is a problem, even if we can't easily empathise with it. I would be very supportive of some text explaining this. —ras52 (talk)
It's true, BritishWatcher, that some editors "see it as a common name of the state" and think it's OK for the article title. But there is fundamental opposition to this from some other editors. There has been since the beginning. So, one has to ask all those editors who "see it as a common name of the state"—why is it that you (they) can't take on board the discomfort that those other editors feel? Is it just "screw you lot, you're just big babies"? I don't understand the psychology. You (lot) should want something other than the status quo simply because you know it's a way toward some kind of peace. Isn't that what Ireland (state) is about? I'll agree with you that Republic of Ireland has legitimacy—it's used out there in the real world by real people on both islands and elsewhere. But it is irreparably controversial whether you (lot) think it is "neutral" or "acceptable" or not. I'm not making a personal attack on you, or on anybody who favours the status quo. I'm trying to get you to see that there's another side. That other side (Sarah's an example) feels very strongly that the status quo is offensive. Rightly or wrongly. Their view isn't going to change. And honestly, because of that, there aren't very many ways one could write arguments for why the status quo is superior to any of the other proposal suggested. Republic of Ireland is just not a "good" compromise. It's not really a compromise at all—and if it were, it could only be categorized as a "bad" one. So why pretend that it's neutral? Why pretend that it's not the reason, the source, the cause, for this entire Project? But that's what I see you arguing. -- Evertype·✆ 09:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the introduction explaining all the problems with the Republic of Ireland option and i accept there is justifiable concerns against using it. However i do not support an introduction which is biased against one option, that is simply not fair. If the bad points about ROI are mentioned, the justification for keeping it at ROI must be clearly presented as well. It also must do the same for the other options if needed and in one case i certainly think its needed.
I am not someone who thinks it should be Republic of Ireland and nothing else, to be honest as long as Republic of Ireland redirects to where ever the state goes i am ok with that. The whole reason ive taken an interest in this is because i strongly oppose the option of the country at Ireland, i find that totally unacceptable and as long as the outcome here does not result in that happening and typing in Republic of Ireland still takes me to the article on the state (directly or as a redirect) i am happy. On several occasions i have said i support ditching the two problematic options of the state at ROI/Ireland so we can have a sensible debate on a compromise be it Ireland (state) or one of the other solutions but that has not been supported. So since we go into the vote with both "bad" options we cant only talk down one, it has to be fair and address the core problems people have with other options too or none at all as the 3rd wording attempt does which is much more reasonable. We just need those pro/con statements for each option and it would be a good vote allowing people to be informed about everything and that "name (see..)" giving everyone a chance to make their own points for people to read.
The sort of structure of a single statement to cover everything i would of liked to see is..
# Basic explanation of what the vote is on (location of Ireland related articles)
# Explain how we got here - Years of disputes/ Arbcom ruling, collaboration process etc.
# Explain the current setup (where the articles are now AND how long they have been there)
# Explain why that setup is justified (starting with.. "Supporters of this say..."
# Explain why its unacceptable to some (not name of state, some find it offensive etc)
# Explain each of the other options separately stating clearly the main pros and main cons
# Remind people about the implications of this vote (no change for 2 years i think it was)
That in my opinion would be a fair opening statement which covers everything and could be presented in a clear way. Now that text would be quite long, which is why i support the idea of Pros/cons separate from the main intro but displayed clearly for each option (not just someones (click me) after their own vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarah777, "Now we have (above) an RoI supporter saying 'Ireland is the name of the state, it is the recognised international name, it is the widely used common name.' But in the light of this new admission he then says - So What?" Please don't presume you know how I am going to vote simply because I am not going to push misinformation and nonsense in order to have my way. "Ireland" has been the name of the state since 1937. This is not new information, but please answer my question: So what? We have two articles to organise on this encyclopedia, both on topics named "Irealand". Simply knowing that both are properly called Ireland is of no aid to us in organising them.
"Ireland is the name of the state." "Ireland is the name of the state." "Ireland is the name of the state." "Ireland is the name of the state." You can repeat this fact all you like. We all know it. But simply knowing it is of no use to us. It does not inform us on how to organise the two topics, both named "Ireland". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Rannpháirtí anaithnid; you are attacking a straw man there! So I won't raise the temperature by responding in kind. Sarah777 (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ras52, "And to me that seems like something that would be best written by an editor who is passionately anti-RoI." Normally that might seem logical, but the purpose of the into should be to inform the voters, not mislead them with nonsense. There is no much nonsense being floated around about "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. that it has a UK-bias, that it was a source of contention between the UK and Ireland, that it is offensive, that the UK has agreed not to use it, etc.) that I cannot see the outcome being anything but a POV-fest of drivel (undoubtedly backed up by the synthesis of hundreds of irrelevant citations - complete with ISBN numbers!). I would love to be proven wrong but there is nothing on this page - or from what I have read elsewhere from these editors - that would suggest to me that that is likely to be the case. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are a number of options indicates clearly that there are both Pro's and Con's attached to each option. Letting the reader know what these Pro's and Con's are is common sense in making an informed decision. To suggest that we only have Pro statements can not be considered as a serious consideration, however this suggestion was made. I would only hope that having agreed to statements on both Pro's and Con's we would have in the intrest of informed opinion relied on supporting references to remove the POV, but this does not seem likely. Statements in my opinion should focus on our policies and how they support or got counter to them, but that is just me. --Domer48'fenian' 13:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, when is the Final Poll gonna begin? GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be rushin' yourself G'Day. You do like a good row though! From Jimbo's talkpage to the Deserts of Sicily, wherever there is discord there is G'Day pouring balm on troubled editors.....Sarah777 (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preparing for poll
There seems to be two issues on the table (there are likely others but they are not as objectionable)
Including linked-in POV statements. The above section outlines this, and I believe this is the best solution to making sure non-involved editors can seek out commentary on this without wading through this page. I will be happy to vet these and add them (making sure they're not loaded personal insults) to the ballot, and encourage the idea of three possible types: a general position statement, pros and cons. There need not be one of each for each option, but if you feel strongly one way or another about an option, this is your time to state it. Please note that these should be not be comparative ("This option is better than option X because...") but only highlight pros/cons/general facts about that option. (If you do make these, I'd recommend subpages for each one seperately and I will also be happy to protect them when the poll starts).
The ROI issue. I'm stumped here: I've tried to include a neutral statement, but every version there seems to be more that needs to be added to keep it fairly balanced, expanding it out too far and pushing away from what the core issue is, how we dissect the information on the island and country into different articles. If I take any direct mention of ROI out, people complain that it's not being mentioned. I believe that it needs mention in a general statement, but with the user-space statements above, I think that all that needs to be said is that the phrase can be taken both positively and negatively - without digressing into the history of the term - and voters should be encouraged to read the user essays to make a judgement. This is the only way I think this can go forward without spending hours arguing on the language in the poll itself. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with having RoI mentioned as a descriptive of the country called Ireland, helping to clarify the country from the island. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, so long as it's also stated that as choices for a dab term, why pick the one that the British used for decades because they wouldn't use the correct and internationally recognized and legal name, and why not simply pick another? Etc, etc, ad nauseum. There's no way of putting a neutral statement in that even looks like it is giving weight to either the status quo, or a change. I believe it should get a minimal mention, as per Masem, and damn the rest. Have a little faith in the community to decide and form a consensus. --HighKing (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one the Irish government chose that the British government used lol BritishWatcher (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(With respect to BW, no offense meant of taken) You see? This point alone (which I use merely as an example) is a good indicator of one small point of disagreement. As I said, best leave the intro simple and leave the discussion points to statements. --HighKing (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with anything, that'll get this Poll started. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the two points made by Masem above. The #3 attempt summary works well if we have pros/cons for the options provided in other places which are put under protection during the poll. The only thing that needs to be added to the summary is a basic explanation of the current setup that the country is at ROI, island at Ireland (without trying to say its a good or bad thing) but pointing out people are divided on this matter and urge people to read the statements provided for the different options before voting also pointing out this poll will result in the articles staying at the chosen locations for 2 years.
One little thing i think needs changing from the summary is the bit where it talks about the six options below. It says "the six most likely options"... "most likely" should be removed as the options have already been decided. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have this right:
1. I'm not sure what is meant by "linked in POV" statements - where would these fit in? Would there be a POV neutral intro text - one that doesn't go into any of the argument, just explains the predicament - followed by a list POV statements by individual members of WP:IECOLL (maybe endorsed or otherwise by other members). If so could we be given a week or so to prepare our statments, and get approval for their inclusion from you - but no endorsements until the vote happens, maybe. I would not put any restrictions (except civility, etc.) on these POV statements since this is a complex problem and atomising it is not possible IMHO. I would suggest that we use something like "Summary attempt #3" as the text for the ballot, and the links to individual member's POV statements appear below in under a header such as "Member statements". (For practicality too can restrict these to members and to be given to you before a deadline for the poll.)
2. If so, the can we scrap mention of ROI, etc. and leave all of that to our individual POV statements? A great problem I have is, for example, with the statement you made above that, "I think that all that needs to be said is that the phrase can be taken both positively and negatively." By who? There is no secondary source that says that the term can be taken either "positively" or "negatively", merely individual editors here (and I have *never* came across such a position in "real life"). I think the ROI issue is so bogged down in POV that it should just be left to individual POV statements.
I have also posted message on your talk page, Masem. I have made an update to the ballot template that would allow a single uniform link to a personal rationale. The additional parameter ("link") is optional, but I think it was received as a compromise to the "comments in the balloting area/genuine rationale being lost it the shit-fest" problem. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You basically have it. No text of support/oppose statements on the actual ballot but linked as needed, and yes, I would only review the statement for incivil remarks. The only thing that I would change is to explain The phrase "Republic of Ireland", the current location of information pertaining the country, is strongly backed by some editors and strongly contested by others; voters are encouraged to review the provided rationales from involved editors to understand the history and current status of the conflict over use of that term. Nothing else - no Acts, no history lesson, as you've pointed out before, this is how the info on the island and country are filtered into articles, and finding the best fit for that, but it is necessary to flag ROI as the monkey wrench in the works. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Republic of Ireland", which is the current title of the article on the state, (or sovereign state if people prefer; or even political entity), because (a) a term cannot be a location, and an article is more than just information pertaining to something; and (b) country is ambiguous as already mentioned. Scolaire (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least we know, the country article & the island article, can't both be named 'Ireland'. Wikipedia doesn't allow articles being named exactly the same. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But if we say that the island is the country, and the state is just a state? You don't have to be a diehard republican to believe that. Scolaire (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jumpers, the country just had to name itself after the island. Obviously, nobody was concerned about Wikipedia in the 1920's. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, how about something like "The article on the island is currently at Ireland and the article on the country called Ireland is at Republic of Ireland" Rather than just saying the location of the state, i think we focus too much on the country and forget about the island. Agree with the rest of it although i think we should also point out this has always been the setup of the articles on wikipedia from 2002/2003 despite edit wars as far as i know (unless it moved for awhile at some stage), the article at Ireland started out talking about the island. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...voters are encouraged to review the provided rationales..." I like very much - and back Scoláire suggestion re: changing "country" to "state".
If we do go with this, and I know there has only been limited feedback on it as yet ... but if we do ... can we get a hard deadline for go-live? One, it will help focus minds on writing our own POV statements. Two, it will aid in the writing of them to know how long we have. Three, it will guard against the shock that "it's really happening", which can be a de-stabilising factor. In Ireland too, we have a so-called "day of reflection" ahead of a an election. Knowing when the vote is going to happen, I think, will help us to privately consider our positions ahead of the vote - which would be a good thing. I, personally, think 5 days to a week.
Also, did you give any consideration to changing the go-live time. Last time it was a 00:00 UTC, which is 01:00 IST/BST, a bad time for most people here. I think 20:00 UST UTC (21:00 IST/BST) would be better. Also, maybe midweek would be good? Rather than the weekend? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will be very happy to offer a fresh eye to final edits if we have a hard deadline. The go-live-time for the (xxx) poll was sometime between 18:00 and 20:00 IST/BST; I would think that a start time between 20:00 and 21:00 UTC would be fine for this one. A day of reflection is a doubleplus good idea. -- Evertype·✆ 22:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)I corrected a wee typo error below. --HighKing (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary attempt #4
Here is a revamped text to lead in the poll. Based on the above, it alerts the reader that there's an issue with the current scheme due to ROI, but invites them to read essays further.
Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration Project
The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it and comprising 26 of 32 counties, also named "Ireland". (Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining 6 counties and 17% of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Currently, the state is located at "Republic of Ireland" while the island is located at "Ireland" (with an Ireland disambiguation page). There is discrepancy in the use of phrase "Republic of Ireland" to describe the state, some editors believing it to be inappropriate while others believing it to be appropriate (voters are encouraged to read the provided statements below to understand these positions before voting). As such, there is conflict as to which articles should cover the island and which should cover the state. Neither standard naming convention rules nor other states with similar naming conflicts (such as Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China) lead to a simple resolution on the matter, and long debates and edit wars have resulted from trying to resolve the issue.
As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options, based on solutions used for other country names, from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below, presented in no particular or preferential order, along with links to essays from its participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice. Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the 26-county state named "Ireland" will be referred to in the text of other articles.
As for above, given that everyone seems open to providing input, let me suggest this:
All essays to be complete by 00:00 UTC, July 18 (that is, up to next Saturday).
I will incorporate them into the ballot (And if people want protection, I can do that).
Barring any difficulties, let the poll go live around 00:00 UTC, July 20 but give or take a few hours - however, once we're sure the poll is live, we'll start the 21 day clock from the nearest "go live" time that has yet to pass (so effectively, 21 days+ some hours). --MASEM (t) 23:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the summary is good enough now presenting as much of a balanced view as is possible here. Could i suggest we create a list below where people can just sign their names if they are intending to write a statement (pro or con) for which option? That way we will be able to see clearly if any option isnt going to have a statement, or if several are writing one for the same option. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep being so pedantic about language, but "There is discrepancy in the use of phrase 'Republic of Ireland' to describe the state" doesn't actually make sense to me. "There is disagreement over the use of phrase 'Republic of Ireland' to describe the state" is surely what is meant? Also, "the state article is located at...the island article is located at...", and "some editors believing it to be inappropriate and others believing it to be appropriate". Scolaire (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem you suggest three possible types of statements. Could you possibly narrow this down to an agreed format? Is it to be an (a) general position statement, that is POV statements i.e. general soap boxing or (b) statements which address both the Pro’s and Con’s using sources, references and policies to guide, inform and facilitate conversant decisions by non-involved editors? Option (b) would “highlight pros/cons/general facts about that option” as you suggest, while (a) would simply perpetuate the type of discussion which has been the hallmark of this process and be basically useless.--Domer48'fenian' 08:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like again - and again back Scoláire suggestion. I think there's great merit to Domer48's suggestion too. However I don't think that putting a fixed format onthe POV statements is the right way to make sure that they are more than just soap boxing. Soapboxing and unreal hysteria is just as likely in a pro/con statements format as it would be in a an essay format.
Maybe a "terms of reference" for the POV statement would be good idea? i.e. the statements must refer to sources, references and policies (and most not contain incivility, bad faith, personal attacks, etc.) like Domer48 says. They may address some things, may not address other things, and must address other things again. But the format for how they do this should be left up to the author.
I'd still be concerned about synthesis of sources that has been a trademark of some editors referenced contributions though. Will we get a chance to endorse/comment on the POV statements after the vote begins? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against any "terms of reference" for POV statements. Per my original proposal, "Every link is included, without any kind of vetting." POV statements by definition are statements of opinion, not statements of fact. They needn't and shouldn't adhere to WP:V etc. The idea of the statements is to educate the uninitiated (and unwary) voter as to the arguments, that is, what people have been saying the last six months / six years. Plus I agree with Rannpháirtí: synthesis in sourced statements is a far bigger hazard than unverifiable claims in unsourced ones. Scolaire (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I envision all three types of POV essay links: generic for an option, pros and cons, editors have to be explicit which they are writing for. Now, I do like the idea of allowing for "in support of" responses so maybe as they are put up and in the few days before the poll goes live, editors can add their support for specific statements (maybe even allow these to be added as the poll goes on, let me think about this.) Now, with that "support of" comment, these can be truly POV statements (they need not be based on sources), but I would expect those that are backed by sources to have more stronger support from others. They will still be vetted for incivility and pointless POV statements. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, on your latest “Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration Project” I welcome the removal of the ridiculous Belfast / Cork analogy and the nonsense about the UK’s use and abuse of the term Republic of Ireland being utterly irrelevant. However, the removal of the alternative options to polling has not been addressed. While no editor asked for it to be removed, its removal remains unexplained? I agree also with the point made above i.e. there is no discrepancy about the RoI being a descriptive term, it is a descriptive term. It’s the use and abuse of this descriptive term as the name for the Irish State which is the issue, and is reflected in the current article content on the RoI article. It’s the inability of editors to agree were the current article text should go which is the crux of the problem. I’m disappointed again to have to point out that Standard naming conventions have not been applied to the problem of Ireland being the internationally recognised name for the State, and the use of Ireland in a purely geographical sense. This is very disingenuous, and that I have once again to comment on it is becoming a bit of a concern. This issue could quite easily be resolved by doing one of two things, pointing editors to the discussion were editors attempted to apply Standard naming conventions to the issue, or removing the comments from the summary. That the subject of how the article “Ireland” should be named led to long debates and edit wars is a fact, it is wrong to imply that the long debates and edit wars were on the application of the naming conventions. I just have one other concern on the proposed text and it is this “As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter.” This gives the impression that after reasoned and rational discussion there was a stalemate in achieving consensus. This is not true. It is because there was no attempt by some editors to engage in reasoned, rational and fact/policy based discussion that it was decided to have a poll. Masem, you yourself have said on a number of occasions that you simply felt there was no alternative to polling. On a personal note, I think Wikipedia Editors will agree that when dealing with POV warriors achieving consensus is never possible, that’s why we have policies and guidelines. --Domer48'fenian' 10:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was attempts by editors before and after the ArbCom case to reach a solution through consensus and it is clear that there's a gap that people are not going to cross (that's the reason for the ArbCom case). There's a point where you need to count the losses and recognize that we could have forced everyone to forget about the poll and say "no one is leaving the talk page until we come up with some consensus-driven solution", but that would effectively be futile; it may have happened but after a long drawn out process that might have caused members to be driven from the project or WP itself. Instead, it was recognized that most would seem that a poll was the better way to come to a conclusion, and that's a perfectly acceptable alternative situation for resolution as long as it wasn't the first thing tried without any attempt of discussion. I point to the entire Statement process here as a sign of an attempt to work out consensus first. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; this is way worse than Version 1 and hardly any better than the original; it even still includes the phrase "26 county state". I'd suggest:
Proposed "non-RoI biased" summary of result of Ireland Collaboration Project
The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it and comprising the sovereign country, also named "Ireland". (Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining 17% of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Currently, the state is located at "Republic of Ireland" while the island is located at "Ireland" (with an Ireland disambiguation page). There is disagreement in the use of phrase "Republic of Ireland" to describe the state, some editors believing it to be essentially a British pov usage while others believe it to be appropriate (voters are encouraged to read the provided statements below to understand these positions before voting). As such, there is conflict as to which articles should cover the island and which should cover the state. Neither standard naming convention rules nor other states with similar naming conflicts (such as Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China) lead to a simple resolution on the matter, and long debates and edit wars have resulted from trying to resolve the issue.
As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options, based on solutions used for other country names, from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below, presented in no particular or preferential order, along with links to essays from its participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice. Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the sovereign country "Ireland" will be referred to in the text of other articles.
Please stop using the phrase "26 counties" as shorthand for the State; it is a sovereign country, it is the only "Ireland" that is a sovereign country and as there is no ambiguity about that, so will everyone please stop and desist from referring to it by any other shorthand in this summary? Thank you all. Sarah777 (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like Sarah, I'm puzzled by the specific reference to ROI alternating between necessary and undesirable. I think we have to come down on one side or the other. Scolaire (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Sarah on the other matter: "26 counties" is not being used here as shorthand for the State, it is the way the country happens to be divided. If the British had decided to partition off 17% of the country south of Malin Head, the two states would look very different indeed. Scolaire (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from how people have responses that some see absolutely no problem with ROI and infact see it is as the "right" solution to simplify the naming scheme, just as there are those that refuse to live with the ROI term. If it was the case that ROI was seen negatively and that everyone else recognized other possible names for the country article (that is, no one saw ROI as the only right solution), then this process would have been a lot simpler, as "ROI" would have been off the table completely. The reverse is even more true if no one saw "ROI" as a negative, instead. It is thus necessary to identify the statement has been taken both ways to make voters aware of the complexities of the naming scheme. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, identifying that ROI is a British POV is both adding the only piece of bias to the statement plus it also doesn't reflect that there are some that just don't argee about using it as a name because its only a description, not the real name. As I've mentioned above, the issue is so complex that we just need to hilight it is there and avoid descending any further letting our POV statements do that job. Further, while we don't use "26 county state" in normal text, it has been the status quo here to make sure we're talking about the state of Ireland and nothing else. As some have pointed out, those that are that are very pro-Ireland that likely would presume that for them the "sovereign country" is still the whole of the Ireland regardless of what politics may say; heck there may be editors that are not aware of the existence of Northern Ireland as a separate country from Ireland. "26 county state" is an aukward, but explicitly neutral term, to describe the country and completely appropriate for this poll. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Masem, referring to the state as the "26 county state" isn't really as neutral as you might think. It avoids referring to the state as a country, or a state, or any stand-alone entity. Instead you are essentially describing one entity, the state, as a subset of the island. For the opening statement, it might be better to introduce new terminology - for example, "Ireland the island" and "Ireland the sovereign entity". --HighKing (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this solution, and I volunteer to submit the piece in favour of the status quo. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, are the POV statements per solution or per editor? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per editor, hopefully. I see a couple of people volunteering to be "the one" but where would that leave everybody else who has something to say? Scolaire (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear it was Masem's version I endorsed, not Sarah's. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree with this version, but I do think that the Masem's earlier version was better written e.g. the part, "with an Ireland disambiguation page" doesn't make since as a written phrase (I assume what is meant is that "there is also an Ireland (disambiguation) page"). Also phrases like "British pov" is poorly written as it uses "wiki slang" (uncapitialised also) - there is nothing wrong a British POV (viz. point of view), I assume what is meant is a "British bias". Like Masem, I also don't think that that is the only reason to disagree with the status quo - it could, for example, also be said that "Ireland (state)" is simply better as per WP:NAME. Also "sovereign country" is a relatively unusual turn-of-phrase compared "sovereign state", or, better still, simply "state". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a rushed job in response to "Version #3"; so the syntax etc I'm not defending. As for sovereign country, I would be happy enough with sovereign state, but not with 26 counties. I thought British pov was less "biased" than the term "British bias" and if there are other reasons apart from that we should maybe mention them too. Sarah777 (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised a number of concerns and in fairness some of them have obviously been considered and acted upon, see my comments here. However, as can also been seen some have not been addressed at all. This is supposed to be a summary of the collaboration process yet one whole side of the discussion has been omitted, namely those who opposed the poll and all mention of the alternatives which were offered. In the original summary one of the alternatives was alluded to, and others omitted. I drew attention to the omission, and not one editor objected to the inclusion to reference being made to the alternative being mentioned. Despite no disagreement on it, this section was removed and I’d like to see it replaced with mention of the alternative suggestions mentioned. As can also be seen with the diff above, I raised the issue of the Standard naming conventions being mentioned in the summary. I invited Masem to show were the application of the naming conventions had been attempted by editors to address the issue and where it had failed. As can been seen from the second response the issue was not addressed at all. I hope editors will agree that if we are going to identify only one of our policies i.e. the naming conventions and tell readers that we did try this but it failed we should be at least willing to show were the attempt was made and let the readers judge for themselves as to the level and quality of the discussion. This is getting put before the community, were telling them we could not find a policy based solution. Were telling them we failed. Were telling them the application of our policies failed, that Wikipedia failed. How many content disputes has the project failed to address? All it takes is one good Wikipedia content editor who knows our policy to ask were was this policy or that policy tried. To ask to be shown how it failed and where? When this gets put before the community I for one will not be found with egg on my face, because it will not be me who is being asked.--Domer48'fenian' 20:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to 'Ireland' in articles
The intro text says the following: "Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the 26-county state named 'Ireland' will be referred to in the text of other articles."
Are we not basically agreed on this already? Otherwise don't we want to do things in this order: have the vote, calculate the result, make the page move, discuss in-article names? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No we must do it in the order planned. Have the vote, calculate results, decide the remaining problems THEN make the page moves. If the articles are moved there will be attempts by some to start making changes in text across wikipedia that refer to Ireland. The page moves should only take place after everything is sorted, otherwise some may choose to delay sorting the remaining problems by many months. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There will be no chance of changing the poll results after the poll is completed, but before the pages are moved, we want to make sure that if there's any bot action or automation scripts involved to reflect names of other articles or the like or article text, make sure its all identified as one solution. Again, once the poll is closed, that result will not be changed due to followup discussion, but simply deferring the move to make sure all changes related to this results and followup discussion are announced and performed as closely as possible. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another major reason why I am/was anti-poll. This whole area is a mine field, any "stupid rule" that passes will be highly abused, no doubt! Tfz 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well we have to make sure the "Stupid rules" are very very clear and detailed so that cant happen. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If there's method to it then that's fine. Waiting just didn't sense to me. That's cool so. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very difficult to legislate for usage of terms and names, it's much easier to proscribe something though. Tfz 00:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Writing essays?
Because a question can get lost in the middle of a ton of other stuff I've moved this down here:
We seem to have begun talking in terms of writing of essays. I understood from way back that "linking" meant linking to anything we like as long as it's relevant e.g. "Summary of pros and cons submitted by Scolaire." I for one, if I decide to link at all, will be linking to something I have already written or collaborated in. Scolaire (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too think it should be anything we want so long as it is relevant. Maybe, however, we should keep them all in one place such as on specific sub-pages of this project (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Statements/Rannpháirtí anaithnid) or in our own user space (e.g User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/Ireland-vote-statement). I would prefer the first, though with the understanding that individual members "own" the content of the statement (the associate talk page and endorsements section would be covered by the usual Wiki etiquette).
I'd also favour a semi-structured template that could be auto-generated (there a button that does this, if I can find it). Something like this?
I would have thought though that they would appear in a uniform way on the "info" statement e.g.:
Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration Project
The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous ... edit wars have resulted from trying to resolve the issue.
As there is a stalemate ... will be referred to in the text of other articles.
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think we should do it like that. We need statements for and against the options people care about, we shouldnt use the persons name on the voting page, just links "Statement for option 1" "Statement against option 1" next to the actual explanation of the options on the ballot paper. The short "statements" are going to be the main arguments for and against, people are also still going to be able to do that (my rationale) when they vote for others to see. Well atleast thats what i thought was going to happen. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BritishWatcher, we are talking about two different options here: the one you are referring to is the "statement by a designated editor beside each option" and a (my rationale) with each vote. The drawbacks of this option are (a) we will not succeed in "designating" an editor for each of the options this side of Christmas; and (b) there is a real danger that uncommitted voters will come along after all the Island-of-Saints-and-Scholars partisans have added their (my rationale) and before the Land-of-the-Little-People partisans have added theirs. The option Rannpháirtí and I are talking about involves some or most or all of us committed people adding a link to an argument infavour of X or against Y or whatever in advance of the poll, so that the uncommitted voter has the option of reading all the arguments, or some of them or none as they choose, before voting. Scolaire (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rannpháirtí, I continue to think that we should all be allowed to link where we want. Putting them all in one place will in some cases require third-party intervention and then all the accusations of fiddling and censoring and owning will start again. Besides, as I said above, I want to be able to just type a link, not type an essay or create a user sub-page. I also suggested, and Masem seems to prefer, that the links should state explicitly what they are i.e. general statements, statements in favour of an option or statements against an option. Scolaire (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But they would have that with the pros and cons arguments people are going to write which would be linked to on the ballot paper. Most people here will not write the essays, i dont think its going to be too hard for us to reach agreement on whos statements are best to go with which argument (aslong as we do not go down the path of people picking bits saying add this remove this) should just let everyone who wants to write a statement for an option write it, then at the end of the week we pick and if we cant reach agreement where several have written an argument for one option we display them all or just get Masem to pick which is the most reasonable.
Then once the vote starts people can add their own (Rationale) link when they sign which can be as POV as they want. The pro/cons statements are going to be the main thing people use and are able to see from the start of voting, not peoples (my rationale) links. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are the eternal optimist, aren't you? ;-) Anyway it is yet to be decided which way we are going to go. Scolaire (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a question: if (my rationale) is not going to be used by voters then why have it at all? Remember, this is an actual ballot, not a standard WP poll where arguments are more important than numbers. Numbers are everything this time around. Scolaire (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol i have faith in everyone here (i must be mad). Some will take a look at (my rationale) i just do not think most people will go to that much effort before voting. Im concerned not enough will take a look at the actual essays for/against options which will have prime place on the ballot paper, but certainly more would read those than the (my rationales). BritishWatcher (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please realize that I was suggesting, to avoid asking "who" would write essays, instead allowing anyone that wanted to to do so, and indiciting where they want that link to occur. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As we are anticipating so many "disinterested" and perhaps "uninformed" editors from the wider En:Wiki the initial box is still crucial, because many editors will not look beyond that. Sarah777 (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point surely is to provide an editor without experience to understand the issues involved. Multiple statements by individuals will mean a lot of noise. Better still if editors signed up to an option and then worked this week on getting the statements agreed on separate pages - or at a minimum a PRO and ANTI ROI 250 word summary that everyone would read up front? --SnowdedTALK 07:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but it seems pretty clear to me what will happen. First, editor A will be nominated to write the "Pro" summary for option X, and editor B will say, "but I already offered to do that, and I know exactly what needs to be said and A hasn't got the same grasp of the issues." Then, when editor A is finally agreed and produces a 250-word essay, editors C, D and E will say, "you can't say that - it's inaccurate, unencyclopaedic and POV!" The process will halt until that issue - one issue out of twelve! - is addressed, and will never get back on track again. A good example is whether to refer to the Ireland Act 1949: one anti-ROI party says it is essential to do so, while another anti-ROI party says it is unacceptable to do so. So who's going to write the essay and what are they going to say? Where everybody gets to link to a statement, everything that could possibly need to be said will be said. Voters have the choice of reading the actual arguments for and against, rather than one editor's attempt to summarise them. Scolaire (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, will go through the grinder first! I think it should be up to Masem to finally vet them, and totally unfounded statements like "roi is the most common name for the state" should be disallowed. Equally statements like "roi appears to be a slur on the state". All such statements are emotive and are false arguments. Also calling other editors "silly and immature" because the don't support a particular option should be seen as an "ad hominem". Therefore it should be Masem's call what finally goes forward. Tfz 09:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain my opposition to a set of formal arguments to be offered. We tried to make concise NPOV arguments. Nobody likes that. What Scoláire says about this never getting done by Christmas is spot-on. If people want to link to their arguments (whatever or wherever they are) they should be writing those arguments now in advance of the launch of the poll. Then in the ballot area each person who wishes to may link to their arguments. I oppose having arguments on the actual ballot at this stage. Real ballots don't have these, wikilinking should be sufficient. -- Evertype·✆ 10:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's my impression of what everyone seemed to want- Anyone can write any (appropriate, civil, whatever) statement in general, in support, or in opposition to any argument which will be linked to the poll before it opens. There's no assignments or anything, only that I just need to know what essay goes where. I will vet for any incivility and hostile attack, but that's it. They will be linked and encouragment to read them will be given, but nothing else on the poll beyond a brief intro statement. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not everyone. Would you please hold a straw poll to gauge actual consensus? The question is, should the statements be linked to the poll before it starts, or should people be allowed to link to statements from their votes instead? -- Evertype·✆ 17:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They should be linked in before the poll starts. Votes should not include any discussion though the talk page should be used for further discussion. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem! You're not listening! I will try again. I object to having the statements linked from the ballot. I think that this gives them a consensual status they don't have. I think that it would be better to have "ABCDEF Jimmy Wales Datestamp (see my rationale) than to have links to some of them on the ballot paper. You said "Everyone seemed to want" it linked this way. Everyone doesn't, at least I don't. I think it's a bad idea 'and I am asking you not to "guess" about what "seems" but to hold a straw poll about this. I may be in the minority, but I don't believe you've done diligence on this and I don't think it's trivial. -- Evertype·✆ 09:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with some of the points rasied above, and disagree with others by Scolaire. I agree that "the idea of the statements is to educate the uninitiated (and unwary) voter as to the arguments" and that "POV statements by definition are statements of opinion, not statements of fact." I don't think you'd get much disagreement there. However, to say then that statements "needn't and shouldn't adhere to WP:V" or that on statements "every link is included, without any kind of vetting" contradicts the previous comments. To provide a soap box to allow editors to keep saying what they have been "saying the last six months / six years" and will not "educate the uninitiated (and unwary) voter as to the arguments." I also agree that "synthesis in sourced statements is a far bigger hazard than unverifiable claims in unsourced ones" an example of this being when I quoted Masem who said quite clearly that "I would expect those that are backed by sources to have more stronger support from others" can with synthesis be suggested to mean "'I expect it will rain' sense and not in an 'I expect you to have that done by tomorrow' sense." Masem can talk for themselves, and I like to suggest that each statement have a hat note stating that statements which are sourced and referenced should be given more weight and consideration that POV statements. I agree "POV statements by definition are statements of opinion, not statements of fact" and this should be pointed out to the "uninitiated (and unwary) voter as to the arguments." --Domer48'fenian' 08:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how it hurts to say what I thought Masem (the Masem's?) meant when they said that, but for sure I can't see how it can be called synthesis! Anyway, my feeling on this is that the voters, though they might be unaware of the issues, are not sheep. We may "strongly encourage" them to read the statements, but we shouldn't instruct them how to read them. Whether to attach weight to sourced statements, or how much weight to attach to them, is a matter for the voters themselves, all of whom are adults with experience of Wikipedia policies and how they work. Scolaire (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion -> Clarity
Masem, can we see a mockup of the balloting page with (mock-up) links to the POV statements. I for one am definitely confused about what is being planned. I thought I knew what was going on, other editors also seem to think that they know what is going on, but yet we all seem to be thinking different things.
So, Masem, some idiot-proof clarity please. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I was thinking of, this is option A, I pulled it only as an example:
A: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.
Repeat for each option. No one is assigned to write an essay, they write what they feel is what is needed. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a vote is only a vote? There is no (my rationale here)? That is my understanding but I'd like to see it confirmed. Scolaire (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No statements attached to votes, but the poll's talk page will be open for further discussion and if people want to link more, they can there. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Some questions:
Do the "essays" (I think "statements" would be a better word) have to address specifically that option? I mean suppose someone writes in favour of a disambiguation page are Ireland then could that statement be placed in the "essays opposing" section of every other option?
They should be tailored to that option, and no, a statement in favor of an option should not be considered as opposition to other options. Opposition statements should be aligned in that the user believes the option to be completely unacceptable, not juust because they prefer option X instead.
What do you see as being the actual text used instead of "Example1" etc.? Would it be the user's name or could it be text like "Such-and-such is ***TOTALLY POV***!!! If you vote for this then ***WIKIPEDIA HAS FAILED*** and ***YOU*** are ***EVIL***!!!!!"?
Just the user's name. Not a word on the content on the essays nor any assessment of them beyond which side they support.
There are 35 members of this project and there are 7 options on the ballot. If each member writes pro/anti statements for each option that's 245 statements. In reality, there are only 35 actual statements (1 from each member and each one, generally speaking, being "pro" one option and "anti" all others). In such a circumstance, why do you think it would be better to present 245 statements to the voters rather than just 35?
If any user wants to write a statement for each option, fine, that's great. I'm not pushing for "exactly one" for any option, and may expect some options to not have support/oppose statements, and others to have many of those.
If we go with this format then it is likely that some editors will writes essays pro/anti every option. Other editors may only write one statement. What safeguards are their against some editors "spamming" the ballot with their POV to the detriment of less vocal contributors and their POV? We all know that it is quality not quantity, but in reality it's quantity counts.
These are essays, which won't be repeated here but will be visible. The voters will be able to figure out for themselves which is which. But in tied in with the question above, I strongly only encourage essays that the write feels is the absolutely right solution or absolutely a solution they can't live with. They shouldn't do anything for an option they are acceptable to but not their first choice.
I don't plan to write a statement specifically in favour of one option or another, but around the issues involved and the things that I think voters should bear in mind. How anyone then votes, I would prefer to leave up to them rather than soapbox for one option or another. Where would my statement fit in?
We'll have one general "overall" place for comments, and then ones for each option.
Using this format we a mixing the options on the ballot with arguments pro-/anti- them. Do you think that this is the easiest way for voters to navigate user statements? How does it help voters to see the issue in the round and not merely in terms of belligerence and opposition/support?
This is the problem with trying to decide how much to tell people in the poll ballot. If we start down any path that explains it more, we're going to need to get into a lot of explaining. I'm thinking that the options thare are most controversial will likely have the most essays attached to them, so voters will be able to see that some options are trickier than others. I think we need to make this a conscious decision to treat it like a normal political election where you aren't give much beyond instructions before you walk into the polling place but have the ability to research it outside before you do.
I think it would be useful to the voters to see who wrote each option (including things like edit histories, logs, etc). Do you plan to facilitate this? If so, how?
Essays are linked and referred to user's name
Using this approach, it is likely that some options may have few or no statements in favour of them. This may not necessarily mean that those options do not have support, merely that they do not occupy the extremes of the dispute. I suspect that there will be a glut of support in favour of some options and anti- others. Do you think that that is the best way to encourage consensus and compromise? Do you think that it may further seperate people into camps and isolate the middle ground?
I see that happening, but I don't see it as a problem. Again, the fact that a majority of the people involved here - including the extremes - seem willing to abid by the poll's results means to me that it doesn't matter if there's an unbalanced approach to the poll ballot to start with, as it will help indicate to the non-involved voter what are hot issues in the entire thing.
Can voters add their "essays" in favour or support of each option or it is restricted to only the members of this project? If voters can add their "essays" how may do you expect to appear after each options? How many will it take before the number of "essays" become unwieldily?
I'll keep the option open for that, but I suspect that this won't be a problem. If there is a need to add more essays, they will be only in the frist two weeks of polling. I'd see any more than 10 being a problem, but I doubt we'll get that many for any given option/position.
Thnaks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments above. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is the positions of the essays/rants going to get decided? I'm sure editors will want the one they wrote first followed by others.BigDunc 18:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two possibilities really: (1) first come, first served; or (2) randomise à la Evertype. Scolaire (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I volunteer to do the randomization. -- Evertype·✆ 20:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would an alphabetical sort not be the most sensible way since the text will be each users username? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea! So my statement can be as rambling and as pointless as I like and it will still come before BigDunc's, Domer's and Evertype's. Aardvark (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect everyone who reads these will have a back button on their browser. Scoláire, you may rambale all you like. Coming first in the list is no guarantee that anyone will actually read what you write. (Also, see Wikipedia:Signature_forgery#1 and Wikipedia:Point.) Edit: striking because the "WP:POINT" was meant as joke.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I volunteer to do the randomization. That way nobody can complain. I have done the two other randomizations, and no one has complained, so it should be fine to do it with these. -- Evertype·✆ 16:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, if you think it is necessary to have statements on individual options then OK, that sounds fine, but for it to work I think it will require a lot of policing on your part. Maybe an option would be to emphasize general statements. A reason to do so would be to make sure that per-option statements are, like you say, to "only encourage essays that the write feels is the absolutely right solution or absolutely a solution they can't live". I've mocked up what the ballot paper would look like using your way above but with a "General statements" section in the "main info" section.
I'm a little concerned now, however, that it is difficult to see all of the options. With all of the additional bits below each one, they straddle three page scrolls. I think it's fine for us because we know what the options are but for someone coming fresh it is quite hard to read and know what all of the options are. I've done a quick suggestion for how to get around this problem (see "Ballot" vs. "Description of each option"), but more thought has to be put into getting around this problem IMHO.
Also, did you see my suggestion for a standaradised format? (I've made some change to it on the back of what you wrote above.) I think a standardised page for each "essay", with elements such as endorsements sections, etc. and links to alternative perspectives, would help the voters navigate around them. The pages could be generated using a form similar to the form on the RFC page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rannṗáirtí, I know you put some effort into that and so are keen to have it adopted, but I oppose the "hidden" descriptions of the voting options and I oppose the placement of 'any individual editor's name on the ballot. That's improper. It's prejudicial against the views of any member of this project who doesn't want to or have the time or have the spirit to write one of these "mini-essays". I support your standardized format, which (although it practically canvasses for argument) does have the advantage of preventing people from (as has already happened) editing archived pages. Please give up on trying to get editor's names on the ballot itself, though. For me that's a deal-breaker. -- Evertype·✆ 08:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Timetable
From the project page:
24 June 2009 - Polling opens for subsidiary poll on "Ireland (XXX)". Vote here
1 July 2009 - Polling closes on subsidiary poll.
5 July 2009 - Date to be confirmed: Polling opens for main poll on Ireland naming options.
Three weeks later - Polling closes on main poll.
Please can some one update this and have clear dates? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell? Everytime the final Poll is about to be started, somebody has a complaint & the Poll gets put on hold. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated it with unclear dates. Scolaire (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it so it says 21 days, which is more precise (and what was explicitly agreed). -- Evertype·✆ 17:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary attempt #6 - proposal by Scolaire
Note: attempt #5 was proposed by Sarah777, but does not have its own heading.
In the event that it is agreed that the ballot page will contain links to arguments from participants, and that these will be clearly identified with respect to the option being addressed, and whether they are for or against (or whether they are general comments), then I am more and more convinced that the introduction should do no more than address the question being asked, and should say only the absolute minimum - preferably nothing at all - about the options themselves. Rather than continue to tweak the originally proposed introduction, I propose here a completely new one, which I think addresses in particular some of the reservations expressed by Domer48 and Sarah777 e.g. discussing some options at length while not mentioning others at all; saying that the poll was "agreed" or "decided" without saying that some participants were in favour of continuing dialogue instead; use of "26 counties" to refer to Ireland-the-state etc. Here it is:
"Ireland" is the commonly used name of two different entities: a political entity and a geographical entity. Ireland, a sovereign, independent state, covers about 83% of the island also called Ireland. Currently on Wikipedia the article on the state is titled Republic of Ireland and the article on the island is titled Ireland, but these titles and issues related to them have been subject to dispute for several years, culminating in an arbitration case in early 2009, and in an as-yet unsuccessful attempt to reach a consensus at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.
This poll is an attempt to resolve the article naming question by means of a ballot between six different options, using the single transferable vote system. In the opinion of the monitor appointed by the Arbitration Committee, all six options are equally valid. They are presented below in no particular or preferential order, as well as links to arguments from Ireland Collaboration participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice.
Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion will take place at the Ireland Collaboration Project to resolve other issues such as how the sovereign state named "Ireland" will be referred to in the text of other articles. In the event that the poll results in one or more page moves, this discussion will take place before renaming the articles.
NB I made one edit to this draft before there was any response. Scolaire (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made another. Preposition and punctuation and indentation. -- Evertype·✆ 12:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Must have looked different on your browser than on mine. Looks okay now anyway. I don't have any issues with "in an as-yet" either. Scolaire (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per common sense. -- Evertype·✆ 17:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per common sense and uncommon sense. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Does everybody actually think that "about 83%" reads better than "about five-sixths"? I'm more of a fraction man myself, but I'll go with the majority. Scolaire (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer 83%. -- Evertype·✆ 20:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your remark that "the introduction should do no more than address the question being asked", but weep at the thought of an entirely new intro text. Apart from the sentence about ROI, would version #4 not suffice?
Anyway, here's my 2¢ on the above:
"...a political entity and a geographical entity." The article on the "Ireland"-that-is-not-a-state is about more than just a geographical entity. It deals with the sport, culture, history, people, politics, demography, science, music ... (well, just look at it's table of contents). The Ireland-that-is-not-a-state is quite easily arguably a geopolitical entity also. What not just say "an island and a state" like we had said before? There's no need to use big words for simple things.
"...a sovereign, independent state..." Ah heck, at this stage we might as well just quote the constitution and throw "democratic" into the mix ("Article 5: Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.") All this caboodle about "sovereign state", "sovereign country", and now "sovereign, independent state" is overkill. "State" is what was chosen for the "xxx" option, surely "state" should do for the intro text also.
"...but these titles and issues related to them have been subject to dispute for several years..." The "but" implies that there is something wrong and thus expresses a bias against the current solution. The long sentence around that remark can be broken in to three smaller ones and the "but" should be removed.
"...an as-yet unsuccessful attempt to reach a consensus at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration." If if it's only "as yet" then why are we having a vote? "As yet" implies that if we stick at it we will reach consensus. We are only having a vote because we are agreed that we never will.
Anyway, that's my 2¢ but overall I oppose this version in favour of version #4 above (but per Scoláire reasoning, I would suggest that the sentence about ROI be removed from that version). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to answer you point by point but there are two things I think need to be said. First, "...but these titles...have been subject to dispute" is a neutral statement of why we are here. There are titles but not everybody likes them. To suggest in any way that the titles are fine would introduce bias. Second, at least one participant, Domer, continues to believe that we can achieve consensus through dialogue, so it's not correct to say that we are "only having a vote because we are agreed that we never will." Scolaire (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "...but these titles...have been subject to dispute" You say that "{to] suggest in any way that the [status quo is] fine would introduce bias." What you do is to suggest that the status quo is not fine. That "but" implies that there is a problem with the current solution that needs to be changed. I don't need to remind you that in the countless polls held at Talk:Republic of Ireland over the past seven years, the status quo was favoured by the majority? (That is not to say that I favour the status quo or any other solution.)
RE: "...as yet..." Domer48 opposes the vote, as he/she is entitled to do. That doesn't merit an "as yet". If it is genuinely merely "as yet" that we have not reached a consensus then I, and I think everyone else, would agree with Domer48 and not want a vote. Consensus is far more preferable. However, even as the moderator (and presumably ArbCom too) have said, consensus is not possible. It is not merely a case of "as yet".
What would you say is wrong with version #4 that require a full rewrite? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I said at the top of this section. I made it quite clear there. Scolaire (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Rather than continue to tweak the originally proposed introduction..." - this part? You didn't state why it is better to do so, merely that you would do so. That's clear as mud. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the text is a sight better than the previous 5 proposals. It appears we are going full circle with the wording coming round to the exact same text as ArbCom came up with when they outlined what the issue was. Giving editors the option of using the “General statements” as a platform for soap boxing will definitely give readers a sample of the quality of what passed for discussion, but they will not find it very informative. On the statements however Masem says they “expect those that are backed by sources to have more stronger support from others” and I’d hope that is the case. A note to that effect on the top of the statements could not possibly hurt and should not meet with any objections from editors? --Domer48'fenian' 21:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Masem meant that in an "I expect it will rain" sense and not in an "I expect you to have that done by tomorrow" sense. IOW it's common sense to expect voters to be more influenced by sourced statements. Scolaire (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Makes sense FF3000 ·talk 21:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse best effort yet though still begs the question, what is wrong with the current title? Te reader will be directed to the pros and cons of this I assume? 86.47.158.18 (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Version #7 - Rannpháirtí anaithnid
OK, I've decided to get in on this act. I don't think that a total rewrite of the into text is the right way to go as it puts us back at square one when the concerns raised about it are relatively trivial. "My version" is based on #4 but with some changes.
An "innovation" I've introduced is the section "Statements by individual members of the project". This section would link to "main" statements by individual editors. Specific pro/anti statements would also appear along side each option on the ballot. But allowing for general statements first (which may conclude being pro/anti an individual option) would, I think, be an easier introduction for the voters. Please also see my suggestion for a layout to these statements pages.
Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration Project
The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it, also named "Ireland". (Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining portion of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Currently, the state is located at "Republic of Ireland" while the island is located at "Ireland" (there is also an Ireland disambiguation page). Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules, which has led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues. Other naming conflicts that involve countries do not provide consistent advice for resolution of this issue (compare, for example, Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China).
As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options, based on solutions used for other country names, from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below. They are presented in no particular or preferential order, along with links to essays from its participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice.
Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the state will be referred to in the text of other articles.
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That list is going to have the potential of growing a bit long. Also what happens if some active members don't want to write statements? Make a new page from which all those statements can be linked, if the (better) idea of just allowing people to link next to their votes is rejected. -- Evertype·✆ 08:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's possible but I really don't like the idea of statements simply for or against options. I don't think it will help voters see the whole picture. As it stands there are a whole load of stuff underneath each option. The seven options stretch on for three full page scrolls. It's nearly impossible at this stage for a person that is not already familiar with the options to simply know what is on the ballot. If they have to drill into these to read a pro "essay" here and an anti "essay" there, they are not going to read very many. And they are not likely to consider the ballot as a whole, merely this option vs. that option and ignore anything else in between (if they can even read them).
The alternative I'm presenting is that we can have a list of statements (as well as the pro/anti "essays") that summarise a member's position. After reading a handful of these (and seeing which one are endorsed, etc.), a voter would have the breadth of the discussion. I think it would be a whole lot easier than picking out atomised pro/anti "essays" (and less adversarial).
I don't see any issue if a editor doesn't want to write a statement. They just don't write a statement. No big deal. Maybe they don't want to. Maybe everything they might have wanted to say was said already by another statement (which they can just endorse, if they wish). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I object to ANY individual editor's (nick)name appearing on the actual ballot paper. A link to a page full of statements is one thing. Personalizing the ballot with individual names is quite another. I can accept an editor linking to his or her statement from his or her vote -- as has been said many times -- or I can accept a sentence "A number of the Projects' editors have made position statements available [[Main Page|here]"], but what you proposed is, to me, quite unacceptable. Sorry. -- Evertype·✆ 13:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stating "oppose" isn't helpful. It won't get us any to consensus any quicker to leave other editors guessing as to what you like/don't like about any option. This should be a collaboration, not a riddle or a game of 20 questions. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rannpháirtí, you are becoming tedious! I oppose this version because it bangs on too much about the options, same as versions 1-5. I said as much when I proposed version 6. I only said "oppose" on the misguided assumption that you wanted to know if your new tweak of the old tweak had support or not. Please stop taking everything so personally! The poll will take place on the terms that suit most people. Getting emotional isn't going to convert anybody to your way of thinking. Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not getting "emotional", but I do want to know what you mean. To my eyes it doesn't "bang on" about the options. In fact it doesn't mention any one of the options at all. Maybe I've missed something, but I'd like to know what? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask me nicely...
My rationale is, and I quote, that "the introduction should do no more than address the question being asked". Versions 1 to 5, and 7 to 8, have a lot of words in them that don't directly address that question, don't especially clarify anything IMO, and really just hurt my eyes, viz.
The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings (this is not even English. Does it mean "The name can have a number of meanings"? Why not just say so? More to the point, why say it at all?)
The six most likely options (most likely to what? And why should likeliness be a criterion?)
Additionally:
the state is not located at "Republic of Ireland", nor the island at "Ireland". Both of these are web pages. The state and the island are both located at the edge of the continental shelf, on the Atlantic Ocean, west of the island of Great Britain. I live there, and I've seen it with my own eyes.
The validity of both uses of the name has not led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues; disagreement about the appropriate use of the name has.
It has not been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. That would presumeably involve sending the said results to some sort of analyst to see if he or she could find some underlying trend or meaning in them. It was decided to hold a poll to decide the matter.
The six ("most likely") options are not based on solutions used for other country names; they are the stated preferences of the people who have been debating this for the last seven years, since before some of those other naming disputes even arose.
Further discussion will take place before renaming only if there is renaming to be done. All the versions except mine prejudice the poll by assuming that option F will fail.
The whole thing is not a summary of [the] result of [the] Ireland Collaboration Project; it is a preamble to a ballot. The project has not had a result - certainly not one that could be summarised in this way.
In short, I think the original was poorly written (no disrespect intended to the author) and thus does not need to be tweaked but re-written. I also think that the proliferation of tweaks is only adding to the confusion - I seriously doubt that anybody besides us is even reading them any more!
Please do not respond to any of my points above. I know you will disagree with me and so does everybody reading this, so no purpose will be served. Let's just leave it lie for the moment. Scolaire (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this restores most of the problems that option number 6 eliminated. 86.47.158.18 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editors of this discussion know full well what the issues are, restating them again is not isn't helpful and suggesting that the issues are not know won't get us any to consensus any quicker. A spa account who's first edit was on this project is still a riddle? --Domer48'fenian' 13:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, give the frakkin' "SPA" thing a rest, Domer. Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's contributions have been mature and sensible. He like a few others (one whom I am proscribed from naming, tsk) has done his best to try to build text which is agreeable to all. He understands the word "collaboration" which is more than I can say for some members of this project. -- Evertype·✆ 13:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since signing up for an account, I have made 1,531 edits across the length and breadth of Wikipedia. (See here.) Please read Wikipedia:SPA, particularly the section entitled "Identifying SPAs". Thanks. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose:
Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration Project
The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it, also named "Ireland". (Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining portion of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Currently, the state is located at "Republic of Ireland" while the island is located at "Ireland" (there is also an Ireland disambiguation page). Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules, which has led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues. Other naming conflicts that involve countries do not provide consistent advice for resolution of this issue (compare, for example, Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China).
As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options, based on solutions used for other country names, from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below. They are presented in no particular or preferential order, along with links to essays from its participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice.
Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the state will be referred to in the text of other articles.
Statements by individual members of the project
A number of the Ireland Collaboration Project's editors have made position statements available here to help explain their viewpoints on the choices in the ballot below.
I hope this is OK. -- Evertype·✆ 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per me. -- Evertype·✆ 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support he above version. Would the link to position statements be on the same page (which I favour) or on a different page? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a DIFFERENT page. I believe that we should definitely not allow personalities (i.e. known or unknown editor's names) to be on the ballot. I think that's extremely inappropriate. -- Evertype·✆ 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Note that this is now version 8? Could I just point out we're probably not going to get 100% agreement - especially as some are opposed to polling at all. If there is broad consensus, can Masem not just say grand, we go with that one? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that protagonists in this debate no matter how well intentioned should leave it to the moderator to propose wording and guide the process, the last one from Masem was better than this (or the other alternatives)--SnowdedTALK 17:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Scolaire's version 6 is way better than this which fails to address any of the concerns about version 4. 86.47.158.18 (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Scolaire's version 6 is way better than this which fails to address any of the concerns about version 4. Scolaire (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im rather confused about what the current plan is on these things? are there just going to be user statements for people to read which are linked in the intro or are there still to be the general statements for / against aswell?
I really do think its important there are a set of pros / cons for each of the options which is put in the intro or linked on the ballot itself, rather than just a huge list of peoples statements, many of which are probably going to be very very long and could be misleading. People need the basic key facts, and to avoid having to fit that all into a single intro i thought we were going to have statements. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would appear to be close to me and to Masem on this. Other editors who I have respect for would appear to disagree, and are saying so vociferously in various sections and subsections. TBH I'm not seeing a lot of collaborating at the moment, just a lot of noise. It might be time for another short break for some. Scolaire (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, if everybody continues to argue and nobody bothers to link to anything, the whole question is going to be moot! Scolaire (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a bit of a turnabout for the editors who didn't support the poll idea, to be now writing summaries to help with that same polling. Dunno if I'd write anything yet, will think on it. Also editors can only be truly pro "one-proposition", so there may be some areas uncovered. Tfz 16:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily anti the pro/anti statements, but I am concerned that the ballot paper is now full of stuff. It's got the seven actual options ... each with bullet list of a short-hand showing what each option means ... and a table showing what the moved articles would be like ... and a bullet list of pro, anti and general statements ... Just glancing at the seven options take three page scrolls. That's a lot of stuff to just to look at, never mind read and consider.
My preference for having separate "general" position statements is because 1) I think they will be easier digest and 2) I think they will present the issue in the round. Some people have very strong opinions on particular options. That's cool, and I support the individual pro/anti statements for that reason too.
I too think we should take a pause. For the reason you stated above (because there is a whole lot of noise but little collaboration). But also to consider how we are going to present the ballot - and particularly the whole lot of information now on it - in a digestible way. I think a space for overall statements should be a part of that also. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scoláire, may I suggest that we use this page for the position statements? -- Evertype·✆ 17:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)-[reply]
Sure, I only put it where I did so that you could put it somewhere else ;-) Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's likely that voters will go onto a second page to read position statements. Unless they are presented up front, on the ballot page, I doubt they will get much traffic. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voters who WANT to will do so. -- Evertype·✆ 08:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaning up ballot paper
As I wrote before, I'm afraid that the ballot page is getting full of stuff and is difficult to read. I also don't think that voters are likely to navigate lots of pages to get an overall background on the topic. Therefore, I'm proposing some (relatively) small changes to the design of the ballot page. A mock-up can be see in my 4th sandbox. The changes I'm proposing are as follows:
I've tidied the details on each option into a "hidden" template. I know that this is (literally) hides the details from the reader but I think it makes it improves the overall readability and effectiveness of this information by 1) making it easier to see all of the options 2) making it easier to actually read each one and compare individual options.
I've added a "Member statements" section at the very bottom just above the Comments area. In this area I would see "main" statements by members of the project. (Specific statements on individual options can still go in the same place, beneath the respective option. I'm not arguing for one or the other.) I don't think that having these statements - or any of the statements - on a different page will be very effective. I don't think that it is likely that voters will from where ever, to the ballot page, to an index page, to an individual statement and back again. If we put member statements (of any kind on a separate page), I think they will end up being lost.
The only link to the "main" statements is a link in the intro box, like Evertype proposed.
I think that these are relatively small and sensible changes but I am mainly presenting them for discussion. Like Scoláire said, there has been a lot of "noise" and little over the past few days and little genuine collaboration. So I don't mean these as a proposal that is set in stone but as a starting point for a discussion on making the presentation of all of the various parts of the ballot page clearer and more voter-friendly. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd suggest using a single format for position statements (like here), with endorsement sections and links to other positions statements as I think that would make things easier for the reader too. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more you overtick the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. Rannṗáirtí, your newest suggestions not only make the poll more complicated, but turn it (with all the links to supports and opposes and opinions about the supports and opposes) into a Great Big Feuding Ground. -- Evertype·✆ 08:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem has already explicitly stated that the pro/anti links will appear has I have them on the mock up in my sandbox. (I asked him to show exactly, that is exactly how he showed they would appear.) He has also said that there will be place to endorse, etc. the "essays". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rather strongly. Sorry, but I dislike this immensely. I don't like the descriptions of the polling options to be hidden at all. That's a recipe for mistakes. And I maintain my fierce opposition to putting any editor's name on the ballot in a link to his statement. It is inappropriate and a form of popularity-contest pseudo-canvassing. If voters WANT to see the articles, the fact that we have a whole section heading about Position Statements with the sentence "A number of the Ireland Collaboration Project's editors have made position statements available here to help explain their viewpoints on the choices in the ballot below" following should be more than enough. Sorry, but I don't approve of what's in your sandbox now. -- Evertype·✆ 08:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe have just one link from each option to a separate comment page, where a voter, if they wish, can give their rationale. The comment page could have an general intro on top, like "this is the comment page for "option B".... etc etc etc .. .. . Tfz 09:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try to see the wood from the trees, Evertype. The major point is that the ballot page is HUGE. It takes three page scrolls of tables, bullet points, bold text, links and underlines for a person unfamiliar with the seven option just to know what they can vote for - never mind what they should vote for.
You don't want individuals names appearing on the ballot page, cool. What I am more interested in is organising the information into a readable package. We've been tacking bits onto a simple ballot page for weeks and we now have a monster. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm i thought hiding the options to make the ballot more clear was a rather good idea, the main information about each option is still presented and a link to the pro/con statements could be put next to it for people to read if we are having those still, im still not sure whats happening. Although i agreee i do not want to see peoples usernames linking to the statements given prime place. the links to peoples private statements should just be after they vote with (my rationale). Pros and Cons link must take prime spot on the ballot or in the intro. We will have to have a few months off for our summer holidays if this isnt sorted soon. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) C)[reply]
Changed my mind after looking again at what content is hidden, i oppose hiding the information it is vital the full details are read or seen by everyone. The basic outline of the change does not state the future location of all articles, and the table description is needed so people are clear what that article content is meant to be about. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a point of information, Rannpháirtí: what is the seventh option? Is it hidden too? Scolaire (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rannṗáirtí, the ballot is not "HUGE". It prints on two sides of A4. That's pure hyperbole on your part. You're over-designing for a problem that isn't a problem. Please. -- Evertype·✆ 11:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two sides of A4! I get four A4 sheets for the lot. Two A4 just to read the six (thanks Scoláire!) options and another two between the intro text and the "terms and condidtions". The latter two, I don't mind. But two pages of text just to read the six option on a vote is crazy. That's longer than most articles! By the time most people have finished, they won't remember what the first option on the list was. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get two sides of A4 plus the section on "how to vote" is on a third sheet (browsing in Safari under Leopard). I'm sorry, I can't agree with you that it makes sense to hide those example boxes. They give the context needed to understand what the implications to the text of the articles will be. This is a serious matter. I simply don't believe that you are right to say that people will get confused by the example boxes. What worries me far more is the danger that people will be voting without "un-hiding" that information, and that that will make many votes uninformed. We need to take this seriously, and we need to make sure that voters know what they are voting for. "Hiding" the parts of the ballot you want to hide is a very bad idea. -- Evertype·✆ 12:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are using the exact same OS and browser. Printing it out is irreverent, people will be view this on screen.
I know it's important. That's why I want people to be able to read the options. If people can't see all of the options at once, what I suspect will happen is:
a) many people will be turned off voting (because there will be just too much work involved);
b) many of those who do vote will not read the text (because it will be just too difficult);
c) many of those who do read the text will not read/consider all of the options, but rather go with their gut feeling (because it will be too difficult to see/read the entire ballot - either in the whole or to compare individual options).
You are concerned that people read the text. I am concerned that they will be able to read the text. We are not at odds with each other. I'm not saying that the only way to make it more readable is by hiding or cutting anything out. That was just one way that I mocked up to start a discussion. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I really think that trying to second guess (a)-type voters and (b)-type voters and (c)-type voters is just getting us off the wrong track. We don't need to be doing re-design, or re-re-design. We'll never get to our deadline that way. I am convinced that the "hiding" option (the "show"/"hide" toggle) is GUARANTEED to be missed by some voters, and that will mean they don't have access to the text. I really don't believe that having the page be a little bit long (and it is really not very long; your saying it is "HUGE" was unsubstantiated hyperbole) is going to be the curse of death to voter's ability to read the material and to make their choice.
This material is a different kind of material than the individual editors' Position Statements. I very much believe that this material must remain on the ballot; I do not believe that editor-named links to Position Statements should be. -- Evertype·✆ 15:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal
Alternatively, we could have a minimalist front page that says "these are the options - off you go", linking to a page for each option with all the implications and the arguments. Voters who know what they want can just vote; voters who want to know more can just click. There is the added advantage of NO MORE SMALL TYPE. Yes there is a proliferation of pages but I think it is more elegant than the above. A couple of notes: (1) the options are in the wrong order - that's because I was editing my own sandbox; (2) I'm not good with "div"'s and "hr"'s so if the formatting is crap feel free to edit it; and (3) I haven't included Evertype's 'general general' statement, not because I'm ignoring it, but because I'm perfectly neutral as to where it should go. Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm I like the link position to Implications / arguments and thats the sort of thing i was imagining for the pros / cons statement, although id like to see that placed on the previous suggested ballot with those "show" options which when clicked lay out in more detail the changes, rather than just the simplified wording. On second thoughts, i oppose hiding any of the current information on the ballot. It is vital that all the details are displayed, but that link thing should be placed on there. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the minimalist front page. Come on guys, the ballot has been stable for a long time. I object to it going back to the drawing board every two days. -- Evertype·✆ 11:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the simplified bit, but what do u think about having the link to the agreed pros/cons statements like that next to the option on the ballot. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scoláire, I honestly think that your proposal hamstrings any hope we have of getting mature, intelligent Wikipedia editors to take the time to become informed about the issues we face. I know that as a voter I will NOT want to click six different "un-hide" options or go to six different pages to see all of the bits of the ballot. I can't believe that you and Rannṗáirtí are engaging in this kind of re-design six days before the poll is supposed to start. What the bejesus were we doing for the last month? -- Evertype·✆ 12:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can near guarantee that people will not go onto another page. If you want people to not read text, the easiest way is to put it on a different page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we need the agreed statements (pros/cons) to be placed on the ballot paper itself above each of the options, theres a wording limit so it wont take up huge amount of space. then just need one other location for peoples own essays or comments linked by their {see my rationale)BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want people to read text or to not read text. I only want information to be available to anybody who wants it. I believe that the people who come to vote will be mature adults capable of having an opinion on something without being force-fed with other people's. But if you don't want to split pages then let's leave the thing alone, as Evertype says. Hiding things is not de-cluttering - it is as close as you can get in this virtual world to literally sweeping things under the carpet.
Evertype, don't get too self righteous about this. The ballot has not been stable for a long time, it has been protected for a long time. Before that it was not stable because a certain editor reverted every edit to it. You talk as if you are disinterested, but if you are honest you have a major interest in having the last word. And you won't, in the end - if it's done at all it will be by agreement and there will be bits that aren't the way you wanted them. Scolaire (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My interest is in seeing the opening of this ballot succeed without it descending into farce, as has nearly happened more than once. Kindly do not assume that your interpretation of my motivations reflects my actual motivations. "If I'm honest," I have to say that joint editorial projects like this don't succeed if issues don't ever get closed. I have a lot of experience in preparing formal ballot text, as it happens. I have seen processes like these collapse under the weight of too-many-cooks wanting to start afresh over and over again. And in this process we are now two weeks on from the close of the (xxx) ballot, and every time I log in it seems as though there's another bright idea that overturns everything we've done previously. -- Evertype·✆ 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...it is as close as you can get in this virtual world to literally sweeping things under the carpet." I don't believe so - thought it is a very emotive argument that you make. Being able to see something does not equate with being able to comprehend it. Too much stimulus (in the cognitive sense) adversely affects comprehension. Being able to show/hide items of information allows people to give attention to each one in turn. Being able to reveal two or three items side by side allows people to to compare individual items. This is in contrast with moving from one page to another on the internet, where we tend to dump our short-term memory when moving from one to the other (with all of the consequences that that has for comprehension).
Anyway, that's just my professional opinion. How about this:
A list of the six options underneath the "info" box.
The full ballot - with all of the options, details, etc. as we have them now - below that
In-page links leading from the list of the six options do the details of each one
An in-page link leading back up from the "details" of each option to the list of options
Scrap the "member statements section" that I added and use a standard "(My rationale is here.)" link leading out from a vote in the balloting section (optional obviously).
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. You know "being able to see something does not equate with being able to comprehend it" does not make much sense. This is the Wikipedia. It is populated by people who can read. Intelligent editors make the Wikipedia worth putting any effort at all into, and those are our audience. I don't agree with your "stimulus" argument. I don't believe that people will be able to use the show/hide toggle as an effective means of getting an overview. Readers see things all at once. The show/hide toggle's intrinsic nature is to hide things that aren't relevant. But this material is highly relevant. -- Evertype·✆ 15:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of intelligence, it a matter of cognition. "Readers see things all at once." Then our readers must not be human. We're getting off topic, but you'll enjoy this and I think it's a good example. As an example, tell me how many times the the woman in the white T-shirt catches a ball in watch this video (she is on the right hand side of the screen at the start). Respond here when you're done. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
Just by itself, as a summary. An executive summary.
Repeating the summary items in toto, and then giving all the boxes showing what the text changes would be.
Unnecessary given the repetition in 2 here.
Likewise unnecessary.
I can live with either the member statements section (with no editors names but linking here, or with a standard (see my rationale)—but remember, then any voter could make any rationale at any time during the balloting process, including vandalizing other editors' contributions. So maybe that second choice isn't so good. Rather we should link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements and each of the Position Summary pages there (as your or Scoláire I think suggested above) be given and protected. -- Evertype·✆ 15:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But as I understand the latest idea, the show/hide toggle is gone, right? What we actually have is a slightly longer but more navigable page. I quite like that idea! Except for the (my rationale) bit, of course. You see, with the members statements, all the arguments are presented for the first voter; with (my rationale), all the arguments are not presented until the last vote is cast. What's the point of that? Scolaire (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Let me mock it up on my sandbox and we can see if it's what Rannṗáirtí is getting at. Back in a tick. -- Evertype·✆ 15:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Em, no. Edit conflict. I meant Rannpháirtí's latest idea. I didn't understand your one at all, I'm afraid. Scolaire (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is what I was saying. See my sandbox and note that it has two info-boxes (yours and mine/Rannṗáirtí's). It does not allow Position Statements during the ballot because as you say what is the point? -- Evertype·✆
Yup that's what I meant - but why is the info box repeated? Also, I hope you don't mind, I added what I meant by in-page links. If you click on them you don't leave the page, you just jump down to the details on that option. Then below there is another link to go "back up" to the options list.
Man, you really like that clutter? I find it very disruptive to reading. I think it's deep overkill considering the short length of these paragraphs. The two infoboxes are there only because evidently we haven't decided which one we want. -- Evertype·✆ 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the risk of vandalising other editors "rationale" statements is so great. Surely that kind of thing would attract one of those "non-trivial sanctions"? I agree with Scoláire re: "my rationale", and that's why I favour having a "members", but really do think they need to be on the same page. Also, Masem said the per-option statements would appear below each option. Not on a separate page. Maybe the member statements would be a place to use the "show/hide" template? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make the show/hide template remotely appealing to me. Not all editors even know about it. It's just a bad idea. Keep it simple, please? Please? -- Evertype·✆ 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking over this conversation for the last couple of days. Although I have nothing too constructive to add to this I do think that Masem should be the one who should be most involved in writing a draft. At the very least he should be working very closely with those of you who are working hard on it. I have no opinion on the matter and whether I even vote depends on how well all the options available are explained to me. On the other hand, if it is explained in too much detail over several different pages users like myself may be turned off by it. I can see you are all working very hard towards your goals. I think, as I said, Masem should be brought into this discussion a little more. I hope you don't mind me butting in here. Coll Mac (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A sincere thank you for that, Coll Mac. I feel another new section coming on. Scolaire (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I agree. The sort of things we've been discussing over the past couple of days is just the sort of things that requires a moderator to take charge. We need someone to say "we're doing this". I wouldn't want someone to say so without listening - but I think we do need someone to say "we're doing this" after having listened. Masem is the only person with authority to do that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heck I don't even know what timezone Masem is in. He is certainly not spending as much time on this as some of us.. -- Evertype·✆ 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hand Masem the reins
It's now almost exactly a week since Masem suggested putting the vote on hold to think it out a bit more. In retrospect it was a good idea. Issues were raised that hadn't been fully dealt with before, and some people were heard who felt they hadn't been listened to before. However, I think there comes a point when everything useful that is going to be said has been said. Beyond that point, the only people who benefit by continued arguing are the people who don't want the poll to take place. Per Coll Mac's comment above, I think the time has now come:
for all of us to put down our pens,
to invite Masem to summarise what he has heard over the last week, and
to invite Masem to tell us how the poll is going to be conducted, including what format the ballot paper will take.
And I would hope that nobody will respond to Masem's scheme with a "but.." I also think that, while we should be ready and willing to undertake any job if asked, none of us should do anything more on our own initiative. An operation like this can only succeed if it is centrally regulated, and the only centre we have here is the moderator. Scolaire (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is a good idea to wait and see what is going to happen, we are simply creating more distractions which slow things down and leads to wastage when ideas are not used. Good idea to all pause and wait for further details. On the no buts bit, sorry but this vote has huge implications for the next few years, i reserve the right to "but...." if really really needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about putting things on hold either but I'd like to hear back from Masem too. I'd also like him to be a bit more "pro-active" (not in dictating but in chairing/moderating). I'd also like confirmation of dates/deadlines, etc. I think we should all reserve the right to say "...but" also. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I am not proposing to put things on hold again. Just the reverse! I am proposing that the period of reflection be declared at an end, and that we proceed ASAP to the vote itself, with Masem directing it, and without any "But that's not they way I wanted it at all!" Does either of you really believe you will have a "but" that Masem hasn't heard already? It's not a question of "rights", it's a question of whether we trust the man to do his job or not. Every "but" is another step towards bringing the process to a halt again. Scolaire (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in again, sorry. A suggestion of "maybe a little tweek here" rather than a "but" may prove to be the thing that moves it along a little quicker. I'm sure masem has been looking at all the suggestions even though he hasn't been pro-active. Coll Mac (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what Masem has heard or not. I don't think it's realistic to think he can come back in and solve all of our problems - I don't think it's fair to expect that either. A problem, I think, over the last few days is that all our work hung around "but, no..." and there were few "yes, but..."'s. We weren't collaborating, were were presenting a series of competing ideas. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the potential for frustrations to mount, increases with each passing day the 'Final Poll' is set back. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're still missing the point, Rannpháirtí. Solving our problems is not a part of Masem's job description. We have tried to aid him in deciding how this is to be done. Now our part is done and Masem only has to decide on a procedure and tell us what it will be. For my part, no matter how far away from my vision Masem's final decision is, I will only say "Yes, Sir, thank you, Sir!" Anybody who genuinely wants the poll to take place will do the same if they've any sense. Scolaire (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps asking him now on his talk page to do just that, then holding fire until he finishes would be the best way to go. Coll Mac (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to bring up recriminations but only last week we were having the poll. Masem had assigned a time, said OK to the ballot page, battened all the required hatches, told editors to put the invites out ... then someone whose name begins is "S" said "...but".
There have been no changes made to the ballot page since then so it sounds a little rich that you should say we should all just accept whatever we are told. I was all "yes" before. Now, when we could have been one week into the vote today, I'm sorry to say it, but it was you that set this "...but" ball rolling. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Perhaps this was the period of reflection that we all needed. Perhaps we truly are ready now.... --HighKing (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat what I said earlier. You have all put in a great deal of time and effort to accomplish something which is not easy. Could you all forget who said "but" first or anything else? What do you think of my suggestion above? Coll Mac (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. And I apologise, Scoláire, if what I wrote above was unfair. I understand you've been working hard on this too. And I don't doubt your faith one bit.
Coll Mac, I don't know what's being tweaked anymore. We've got 10 different versions of the intro text, pro/anti statements that are on the page/off the page/on the page/off the page, apparently no room for general statements - but apparent consensus on having no discussion of thel issues in the intro text, statements that will be linked by user name, but not by user name, linking to personal statements from the ballot area ... of maybe full discussion ... or maby not ... who know what's going on? And still there has been no change made to the the ballot page itself!
I've love to say I'd agree to whatever Masem says - or just offer minor "tweaks" ... but god knows what's happening anymore! I don't know what Masem could come back with. I was all set to go this day last week then it all came down in a heap. And it's been in heap ever since. And I don't know what for ... because that has not been one change made to to the the ballot page. So I can't agree to saying anything when Masem comes back because it's all a "pig in a poke" at this stage to me. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
