Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

WikiProject Ireland Collaboration
Home	Discussion	Related projects	Members	Templates	Statements	Ballot page
Project main page	Discussion	Related projects	Members and moderators	Useful templates	Statements on the problems	Also: Intro text and position statements
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.

Position argument summaries

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)

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."

Can we please confirm that what we are doing is:

a) Winner will be calculated using instant-runoff voting

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

I thought it was going to be STV? 50%+1 sits uncomfortably with consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

From President_of_the_French_Republic#Election:

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").

So they use run-off voting. -- Evertype·✆ 12:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• Support - I think this does the job nicely. Rockpocket 20:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• 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 ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• • 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)

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)

"I will tell you right now that..." Too true, but I thought the pro/anti statements for each options here are pretty succinct. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So do I. I can support that text (without sabotaging edits) or Masem's text above. -- Evertype·✆ 21:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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:

1. "...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.
2. "...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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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 ;-) ) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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 --Snowded ^TALK 10:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Undoubtedly we travel in different circles. News reports: Irish and non-Irish (filtering out the British of course!). Books. Scholarly publication. ... Anyway, this is why we have to have a vote. There's really is no point in discussing it any more. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Suggested info box - if there is to be one

Sarah777 (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Here is a diff between Sarah's and Masem's drafts. Here is a diff between Sarah's and my drafts.

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)

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)

We're not ignoring it. It is now part of the current infobox. -- Evertype·✆ 15:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hopeful we are making progress, I have updated the Draft Poll on Ireland article names. -- Evertype·✆ 21:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Country

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)

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)

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)

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). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the person responsible, here, what's up. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes such things should not of been changed until, he probably wasnt aware of this project. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Just to be clear, this is the diff from your version. -- Evertype·✆ 10:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

I've done this in preparation. I've moved the "draft" out of "draft" and into a template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Ballot paper. I've created an actual voting page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. I've put notices in the voting area to "Wait!". Is it OK? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose for the reasons stated. Sarah777 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

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:

• The method to be used is instant-runoff voting
• 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)

• If you're actually looking for votes, then I'll agree. Scolaire (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, let's see if we can drop the 50%+1 clause first. See below. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

Woof? -- Evertype·✆ 12:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support method above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

50%+1 requirement

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)

• Against --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Against per Ras52. -- Evertype·✆ 16:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Against: we need an outcome of some sort here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• For per my comments above, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. Scolaire (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

• Support 21 days. -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support 21 days. (But I think this has been well agreed to already.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes but let's just make sure the t's are crossed. -- Evertype·✆ 11:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the ts be crossed (and the is dotted) before the 21 days begin? Scolaire (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's why I asked this question. -- Evertype·✆ 11:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. --HighKing (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. As we're into the summer holiday period, we should have more than a fortnight. —ras52 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support 21 days --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support -- GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland article names (Text for the ballot announcement)

A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote 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. Non-trivial sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will be applied. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 27 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST).

How is that for a draft? -- Evertype·✆ 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Lordy. -- Evertype·✆ 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Thus:

A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project.

The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Non-trivial sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will be applied.

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)

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)

Waitin'. Waitin'. -- Evertype·✆ 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The ballot page has gone more than an hour without being edited.... -- Evertype·✆ 19:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm obssessively refreshing or anything.... -- Evertype·✆ 19:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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. --Snowded ^TALK 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please try to make a case for this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Ballot_paper#Seven_years_and_the_specifics_of_.22R_of_I.22 here. -- Evertype·✆ 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

You have a point. But that would make your minor edit important.... ;-) Good night. Woof! -- Evertype·✆ 23:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Masem deleted that sentence. -- Evertype·✆ 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Masem. Mooretwin (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

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)

I think you archived all those summaries. -- Evertype·✆ 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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 --Snowded ^TALK 19:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've waited this long, I suppose another few minutes won't hurt. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I would agree with Snowded. BigDunc^Talk 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Snowded's edit is correct and should be inserted.MITH 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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 --Snowded ^TALK 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 --Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

I am happy with that --Snowded ^TALK 20:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think we should start it in the morning UTC when we are fresh. Good night, all. -- Evertype·✆ 00:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What time zone are you in? I'm fresh as a daisy. Sarah777 (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

See below. It omits needlessly informing all the European and Western European countries and omits the USA. -- Evertype·✆ 10:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project.

The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Non-trivial sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will be applied.

Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 27 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST).

It was agreed subsequently (I think) that the "sanctions" sentence is unnecessary and potentially off-putting. I am proposing the following:

• A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project.

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).

Scolaire (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That is very, very good. Well done! Fmph (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. I like it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thus:

• A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project.

This poll differs from normal polls such as those for requested moves and articles for deletion in that

1. it is a popular vote, and thus an exception to the usual Wikipedia guideline on polling; and
2. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposed locations for advertising of poll.

Projects

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish Republicanism
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Ireland
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unionism
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom

Articles

• Talk:British Isles - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
• Talk:Ireland - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
• Talk:Ireland (disambiguation) - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
• Talk:Irish Free State - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
• Talk:Northern Ireland - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
• Talk:Republic of Ireland - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
• Talk:United Kingdom - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll

Noticeboards

• Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
• Wikipedia talk:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
• Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll

Miscellaneous

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
• WP:Village pump
• Centralized discussion

Users

• All those users cited in the ArbCom case - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
• All those users cited in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Member_list - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll

Comments

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)

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)

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)

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)

{ec} Talk pages linked. Still would like advice on Village Pump and Centralized Discussion. -- Evertype·✆ 11:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Yes, but the point is where will the Poll anouncement be pasted on those two pages? -- Evertype·✆ 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

All the individual talk:WikiProject pages of all the countries of the EU, have direct interest. Tfz 13:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I've added the Europe project per you. -- Evertype·✆ 17:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Support Masem for reasons stated here--Snowded ^TALK 19:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Press the pause button, agree with the Moderator. BigDunc^Talk 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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. --Snowded ^TALK 20:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'll drink to that.) Tfz 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[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)

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. --Snowded ^TALK 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Good summary up to your statement that ROI did not come into it --Snowded ^TALK 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Then to what extent did it enter into it, would you say?--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"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)

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)

"... 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)

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)

"... 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)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed with that BritishWatcher (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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 --Snowded ^TALK 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Support - for Masem's suggestion Fmph (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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?

Scolaire (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I think Masden said something on that issue here [1]. - Tfz 10:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Method 1:

• The method to be used is instant-runoff voting
• ArbCom or Masem will adjudicate the vote

• Fine by me. Rockpocket 23:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Me too. Scolaire (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• 'Tis acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Guarantees a result one-way-or-the-other and discourages "bullet voting". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This needs resolving once and for all. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support without reservations. -- Evertype·✆ 11:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support A decision is required --HighKing (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Ditto --Tfz 12:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Fmph (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support: we need a result, not "no consensus". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Per my earlier comments. — ras52 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Method 2:

• The method to be used is instant-runoff voting, with the following proviso:

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

Sarah, the discussion of the number of options was at #Discussion of Ireland (xxx) Poll results and implications for the final poll. Per my comments at the bottom of that section, the inclusion of three or even two bracketed options would only result in discarded votes, and the biggest loser would be the anti-ROI side. Scolaire (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose. I do not want us to go back to the drawing board. -- Evertype·✆ 11:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose Per my earlier comments. — ras52 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

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)

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)

"the vote is void" as in we have to come back to the drawing board again? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I've put an explanation of the difference above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes up my mind :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes up your mind? Whatca mean? GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. -- Evertype·✆ 16:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support -- it's not going to get any more agreeable to everyone than it is now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• Oppose I can't believe I am voting in a poll on a poll ah sure the wonderful world of wiki. BigDunc^Talk 18:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Dunc. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Neither he nor you gave a rationale. -- Evertype·✆ 19:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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.--Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

". 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)

• Oppose - having a poll about whether to have a poll is silly Fmph (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• Because nobody writing a constitution has to do it from a neutral point of view. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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. --Snowded ^TALK 19:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• Endorse. -- Evertype·✆ 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse, if it'll help get things moving. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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. --Snowded ^TALK 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• I would agree with suggestion by Snowded and would endorse RP then. BigDunc^Talk 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

“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)

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)

• 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.

Can I also take this moment to remind people to please !vote/comment the method to be used to calculate the result. It's not sexy, but it is *very* important that we get agreement from as wide a number of people as possible. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

As to keep things separate:

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• Response to some of Domer48's comments:

1. 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.
2. '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?
3. "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.
4. "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.
5. 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.

Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You left once, nobody forced you to come back. You know where the exit is. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Whoopeeeee! Collaboration decends once again into point-scoring. -- Evertype·✆ 17:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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. BigDunc^Talk 18:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

speak of the devil ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

Me relax?? Scolaire (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am already. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 19:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The phrase "Republic of Ireland" is used in the Dáil, see. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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 for description of the state, as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, though the name of the state by under 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 their its 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Lmao simply amazing. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Or you could scoll up the page and read the text I suggested! Scolaire (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Pity I wasted my time in good faith looking for the text you suggested, then. Relax. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 19:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

In addition to that I endorse your modified paragraph. -- Evertype·✆ 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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, 2008 Scolaire (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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. --Snowded ^TALK 20:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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 [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] 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)

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)

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)

"Republic of Ireland" used	"Ireland" used exclusively, no mention of RoI
8,070 [9]	905,000 [[10]

Lies damn lies and statistics. You fail to produce a balanced argument again. Tfz 23:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Per my comment above. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem, could you respond to the suggestions I've made above. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Summary attempt #2

Update to include some of the points and references above. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Summary attempt #3

If we nix mention of ROI... --MASEM (t) 22:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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? --Snowded ^TALK 22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Masem, could you respond to the suggestions I've made above.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

• Statement by Username
• Statement in favour of option X by Username
• Statement in opposition to option Y by Username

I would suggest that the following rules should apply

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Only one link per editor.
4. Links such as Names of the Irish state and Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote can only be added here. The editor linking to them may not also add a link to a personal statement.

Workable? Scolaire (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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:

• Ireland (republic)
• Ireland (Republic of)
• Ireland (the Republic)
• Ireland (the republic)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

So, when is the Final Poll gonna begin? GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Preparing for poll

There seems to be two issues on the table (there are likely others but they are not as objectionable)

1. 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).
2. 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)

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)

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)

The one the Irish government chose that the British government used lol BritishWatcher (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(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)

I'll go along with anything, that'll get this Poll started. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Also, can people please comment or otherwise on the method to be used to calculate the result of the vote. Again, I know this isn't a sexy issue but it is *very* important that we agree on it in advance. Thank you to everyone who as commented/!voted already. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"...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)

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)

(outdent)I corrected a wee typo error below. --HighKing (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Endorse this solution, and I volunteer to submit the piece in favour of the status quo. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, are the POV statements per solution or per editor? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

To be clear it was Masem's version I endorsed, not Sarah's. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.:

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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? --Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

• (Ireland + Republic of Ireland) → Ireland
• Ireland (disambiguation) → no change

Name of page	Initial text (the first sentence in the article)
Ireland	Ireland is a European island and an independent state of the same name. (The text here was based on the article on Tasmania.)
Ireland (disambiguation)	Ireland commonly refers to: ...

• General essays on this option: None
• Essays supporting this option: Example1, Example2
• Essays opposing this option: Example3

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)

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)

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)

OK. Some questions:

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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

1. 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.

1. 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)

Comments above. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Two possibilities really: (1) first come, first served; or (2) randomise à la Evertype. Scolaire (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I volunteer to do the randomization. -- Evertype·✆ 20:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Timetable

From the project page:

1. 24 June 2009 - Polling opens for subsidiary poll on "Ireland (XXX)". Vote here
2. 1 July 2009 - Polling closes on subsidiary poll.
3. 5 July 2009 - Date to be confirmed: Polling opens for main poll on Ireland naming options.
4. 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)

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)

I've updated it with unclear dates. Scolaire (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it so it says 21 days, which is more precise (and what was explicitly agreed). -- Evertype·✆ 17:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

I made another. Preposition and punctuation and indentation. -- Evertype·✆ 12:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Endorse per common sense. -- Evertype·✆ 17:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per common sense and uncommon sense. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

• I prefer 83%. -- Evertype·✆ 20:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Read what I said at the top of this section. I made it quite clear there. Scolaire (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

• Endorse Makes sense FF3000 · talk 21:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Oppose Scolaire (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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?)
• (Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining portion of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.)
• 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).
• 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)

• Oppose - this restores most of the problems that option number 6 eliminated. 86.47.158.18 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Propose:

I hope this is OK. -- Evertype·✆ 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support per me. -- Evertype·✆ 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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)--Snowded ^TALK 17:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Oppose Scolaire's version 6 is way better than this which fails to address any of the concerns about version 4.Sarah777 (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A section for linked statements

I have opened a new section on the Ballot paper talk page to allow participants to add links to their statements. Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Scoláire, may I suggest that we use this page for the position statements? -- Evertype·✆ 17:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)-

Sure, I only put it where I did so that you could put it somewhere else ;-) Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Voters who WANT to will do so. -- Evertype·✆ 08:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

On a point of information, Rannpháirtí: what is the seventh option? Is it hidden too? Scolaire (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"...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:

1. A list of the six options underneath the "info" box.
2. The full ballot - with all of the options, details, etc. as we have them now - below that
3. In-page links leading from the list of the six options do the details of each one
4. An in-page link leading back up from the "details" of each option to the list of options
5. 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)

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)

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)

How about:

1. Just by itself, as a summary. An executive summary.
2. Repeating the summary items in toto, and then giving all the boxes showing what the text changes would be.
3. Unnecessary given the repetition in 2 here.
4. Likewise unnecessary.
5. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

They could be made neater and less visually disruptive. I was afraid to do anything beyond the most simple implementation because it was your sandbox. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

A sincere thank you for that, Coll Mac. I feel another new section coming on. Scolaire (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The fact there has been no change to the Ballot paper maybe tells us something. Is it because opposing viewpoints cannot agree on it for their own reasons? This tells me it could be the most neutral one of all. If it hasn't been done yet I'd like to make a suggestion (I hadn't looked before starting this). Let everyone have a vote on the present ballot with only for and against without comments. What do you think? Coll Mac (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it will be an "Oppose", but it may be a good thing to do at least. Maybe it it does come out as an "Oppose" we will be a bit clearer now about what we want changed. I wouldn't stop people from commenting, though. If it does end up being an "Oppose" then it's better to know why. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe too it would be a good idea to focus on the "good things" that came out of the past week. For me, it's:

• Proposed navigational changes to the layout in the ballot paper (as can seen in Evertype's sandbox
• Propsed "(My rational here.)" links leading out from votes in the balloting area.
• Proposal to shift the focus of the intro text from what to call the state to the (actual) problem of arranging two articles

Maybe if everyone listed their own "good things" about the last week, we could get an idea of what we achieved from all of the acrimony. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is supposed to be per ArbCom three Mod's here not one. If there is issues to be addressed, they need to be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Domer has a point, there's suppose to be three. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked the other moderator as their are only 2 and the reply can be found here. BigDunc 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

wow BritishWatcher (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I'm around. Lackadaisical is all. The other mod is doing a fine job; no-one's asked me for assistance, so I figured I'd just hang back. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Is that a joke? The first I've heard of you. Tfz 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick aside: I had commented above a while ago, probably archived now. In my experience, mediators like working alone. I've always been available, but there isn't much communication between the Arbs and the mods, and I don't want to interrupt Masem's flow. We're on the same page as far as any grand strategy goes, but there isn't talk of tactics between us. I'd rather I just hung back until someone needs me for something explicitly aside from the procedural. Please contact me on my talk page to continue this particular conversation. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I've not been responsive, RL comes into play and I've also been having a hard time trying to follow every change/complaint, etc. (I will note that people are fighting over the presentation of the ballot, and at those of us Stateside, brings back lovely memories of the 2000 election. It's the wrong battle to be focusing on.) So to summarize things as I see them:

• The shorter lede to the ballot seems acceptable with most; there is no point to bring up any specific issues beyond that one exists.
• We need to assume at the same time that the voters are both intelligent enough to use a web browser, but "stupid" on the issues (in that they lack detailed knowledge of it in the average case). At the same time, we know from past trial that as soon as you break some ground, however, non-POV its meant to be, everyone wants their view added on. Thus, I like the recent additions of the collapsible sections (there are some slight formatting changes I would suggest), and I still think it makes best sense to have user essays linked as appropriate, though I don't think I would hide the existence of these behind collapsible sections (that is, the examples per each choice is good to keep hidden, but everything else needs to be shown).
• I think it's reasonable if someone has a general comment to have a section for those. However, by general, I don't mean "any option but X" type arguments but anything that will help educate the voter or provide an overall POV sense. I'd rather see those that feel they must state their POV to focus on supporting or opposing a specific option than trying to address the entirety in one go, but that's not to say general encompassing statements can't come out of that.

I think all these steps lead to about as minimal a POV ballot but with as much possible non-POV information as one can expect for this topic. Now, yes, I could take over and say "We're doing this, this, and this" but that should be considered a last resort, though I will suggest pushing something through if there's only a few resisting it. While its been tumultuous to get to here, there is at least mostly agreements on the ballot process, it's just these fine details we're getting too worked up about. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I very much dislike the collapsible show/hide toggle. I think it is wiki-cuteness that just gets in the way. As a voter, I will have to open them all up. Why not just leave them? Please have a look at my sandbox and take that proposed configuration into account (it has two infoboxes but I think the lower one is more popular). Thanks. -- Evertype·✆ 00:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear though, it's only one of those "preambles" that will appear on the ballot? Masem, I'm also happy with the '"list of options"->linking down to "details on each option"->linking back up to the "list of options"' method as in Evertypes sandbox. The "show/hide" method met with suspicion that it was trying to "sweep information under the carpet", while I don't think that is true it is an impression we don't want to give.

Also, Masem, could we have a decision on the info box (there's now two major version and lots of minor version) - or at least herd people towards a decision. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, ONLY ONE OF THE PREAMBLES would appear on the ballot. I thought I had been clear about this; I addressed it twice already. Apologies if I was unclear. -- Evertype·✆ 08:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It just seems all we've been looking at for the past week has been pink bloody info boxes. I wouldn't be surprised if someone said we should put them all in there. :-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Shhhhh! -- Evertype·✆ 08:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care particularly if we keep the examples of the options expanded or not, though I will note that with collapsed sections, it gets to the point much faster. The examples themselves are not bad, but I would suspect the type of editors we'll be attracting to this poll will be the type that can read the one line option and understand immediately what that suggests; the examples are still useful for those that are not as experienced or for those seeking better clarification. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

While I have a major problem with general POV statements being used and presented as fact, if there was a hat note indicating that they are POV statements and this should be considered by readers. Where they go I'm not sure but I don't consider being placed by the options would be correct. However, on the Pro and Con statements, its my opinion that they should be sourced and fact based and aimed at informing readers and placed beside the options. They should focus on our policies and be kept seperate, that is one link should go to Pro statements and the other to Con. This allows editors to review the options in an informed way, and allow them to weigh up the Pro's and Con's themselves without having to wade through mountains of POV. While it has not been mentioned I'm getting very concerned by both this and this and now this. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That fellow was Wikipéire? Well blow me down. He was responsible for a lot of mischief before Masem locked the ballot template. -- Evertype·✆ 08:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm been flogging this for a while now - but a standardised format could fix that. A standard hat note explaining that the statements was the work of one author and expressing a possible health warning isn't a bad idea. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not mind that format, though I feel strongly that the pages themselves should be linked from a Position Statements page and individual Project members' names should not appear on the ballot. -- Evertype·✆ 08:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll move my statement to that format, Rannṗáirtí. -- Evertype·✆ 08:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Evertype·✆ 08:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So... which of the preambles? I don't mind myself. I assume the choice was winnowed down to those two. -- Evertype·✆ 08:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the shorted intro, "But..." i do not think we should keep those collapsable options, there is enough room on the ballot paper for all to see the key information displayed there. The simplified text does not explain article content / where all articles end up as clearly. I also didnt see what is happening about the pro/con statements, or is that the user statements refered to before. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that you, like me, don't favour having collapsable text, but you favour just having the text always visible? The section on that page that points to the user statements points to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements and the statements there should point to (for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements/Evertype where each person's statement gets a subpage with his or her user page. (I did not move Scoláire's there yet, but am itching to do so. ;-) …) -- Evertype·✆ 11:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, in Evertypes sandbox there's a slight change to the layout (a list of the options, followed by the details of each with links to and fro between the two). Evertype has pointed out that the links are a bit clunky as they stand, I think that they can be improved, but in principle are you OK with that (rather than the show/hide system).

Actually the links down are OK. I deleted the links back up because they were very clunky and heck, people know how to scroll. -- Evertype·✆ 18:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What too is the word on "my rationale here" links? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody said (Scoláire?) what's the point... since we have a process now for writing statements, now's the time. -- Evertype·✆ 18:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok I see what's being done on the Editors personal statements but what about the Pro and Con fact/policy based statements which are to inform readers. While editors personal POV's may hold some intrest to readers, it is how the options measure up on things like WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME which will inform their opinions. The reader can then weigh up the facts themselves and make informed discisions. The health warning on POV statements should be seriously considered. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

We've tried to add non-POV statements to the preamble, only to have more and more info be asserted that it must be added, and bogs down the issue. Even with a strong policy-based argument, this entire situation pretty much falls under Ignore All Rules. The key thing is that none of the options below violate any policy - some may be better matching to current policy, but we would have already discounted all those that would be immediately against policy. Remember, the goal as Rannphairti has reminded us, is to determine where the coverage of the island and the country are to be located, not to try to end decades-long political dispute. You are certainly free to cite policy and sources in an essay to be included as a link, but our past attempts at completing the lead point to leaving off anything that could be taken as supporting one option over another in the official ballot. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

We should now know why some editors wanted to get agreement through consensus. A poll for something so important was the wrong turn on this one, but I will help if I can. If we can get consensus on the poll, then we should have got it here with the naming issue too. I am saying this because if this "poll" fails, then there is always 'consensus'. Tfz 14:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem, your use of Ignore All Rules is quite frankly ludicrous. All editors are invited to put forward fact/policy based arguments both for and against and you along with some editors are trying to prevent that, why? You have been asked countless times to provide editors with diff’s to show were fact based discussions on our various policies were attempted and you could not provide one, not one. In your opinion “the key thing is that none of the options below violate any policy” but again, if asked to support this with a diff it would be either a) ignored or b) you’ll prevaricate. You go on to say that we “have already discounted all those that would be immediately against policy” yet RoI was left in despite a multitude of sources which showed that it breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV. I’ll ignore your straw man argument about the “decades-long political dispute” or this being some kind of “official ballot” and just point out to you the obvious. If editors provide sourced and referenced information which comply with and are supported by our policies in support of a particular option, editors are perfectly entitled to challenge that by doing likewise. However, to address an option by providing policy based reasons supported by references, and to be challenged by nothing other that editors POV does not provide readers with the information they need to make informed decisions. So again, what is wrong with having both policy based reasons for and against an option. Each editor can provide there own rational each with a separate section for their rational; there is no need for discussion or dispute. If an editor disagrees with an editors rational on any given policy they can provide an alternative in their own section. There is no need for any interaction between editors, and editors should be told not to direct there comments to either the editor or their rational but simply provide their own and let the reader weigh up the strength of the arguments themselves. Your actions and comments have provided us with a POV charter, and all I’m asking for is that we introduce some rational and reasoned information for readers. Trying to link the pro and con statements with the problems on the preamble is just another attempt at deflection, and is very disingenuous.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Domer, you can write your own perfectly logical statement and let people read it. That's what you've asked for. We had a nice list of fairly neutral pro/con arguments.... that wasn't good enough for some people, so they got pushed. (They form the content of my own Position Statement.) Please, please, write your own position statement. Put it here. I want to see your statement there. If you don't put one there, I can only assume that all of the protestations which you keep offering to us are just blocking tactics. -- Evertype·✆ 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I do have some sympathy for a point made by Domer48. If I happened to be one of those writing a statement I would rather not have it picked over point by point. Another user with a different view can make his/her own views known by refuting my points in their own statement as well as making their own. In my first post here I said I would only vote if I found the arguments and statements clear and concise. If you go down the road of allowing everyones statement to be interspersed by others comments it could get messy. I think most people I see here would like the Ballot to begin as soon as possible. That won't happen if every sentence of every statement is questioned. Leave it to the individual to make their own statements then leave it for the voter to decide. Well, that's my opinion. Coll Mac (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"...RoI was left in despite a multitude of sources which showed that it breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV.." Can we have a diff for this please, please? Or better still could you cite one of these sources - a simple quotation along with the author, title and date will suffice, no need for ISBNs.

I think this demonstrates the fallacy with the demand for citations in the POV statements. WP:SOURCES etc. work in articles because the process of collaboration edits out invalid synthesis of published sources. There would be no such process in the writing of POV statements. An editor could cite a hundred and one sources as evidenced their position - regardless of whether those sources actually did or not. In an article, such a synthesis would be challenged on the talk page. In the POV statements there would be no such opportunity to challenge synthesis.

Secondly, there are no citation that can solve this matter for us. The question is how do we disambiguate pages on Wikipedia. Reference to policy is what matters, not reference to secondary sources.

That said a health warning that would head each POV statement, I think, would be a good idea. I propose the following:

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Masem has been dealing with this on his own as the sole moderator. Perhaps it's time for the other moderator to come in. I would suggest that he could keep a close eye on the statements to ensure nothing outlandish is stated. They could ask for a source on anything they deem fit. Coll Mac (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest this better?

A few subtle word choices to make it sound less like the provided statement is a bogus lie. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, better. Maybe you could slap that on each one as you receive them? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you go Rannpháirtí anaithnid a whole article full of sources. I make a simple point of asking that arguments for and against be linked beside each option so editors can make an informed decision. To make an informed choice, the arguments have to be fact and policy based, that is supported by references and sources. Unsourced POV statements do not inform readers, all they get is an editors opinion. I made a statement above, and was ask to back it up and I have. Now Rannpháirtí anaithnid can do one of two things, they can challenge the sources, by providing alternative sources or they can accept my contention. However, they could also prevaricate and have it picked over point by point, without having provided any alternative sources at all. Coll Mac for example using the above example can make an informed choice based on the strength and quality of each argument should Rannpháirtí anaithnid decide to respond. The choice that Masem is offering readers is unsourced POV statements a soapbox in other words over verifiable and reliably sourced information which is written from a neutral point of view designed to provide readers with the information they need to make informed decisions. The arguments both for and against provide editors the opportunity to challenge each other without getting bogged down in pointless POV discussions because there is no interaction. Each editor is only responsible for their own statements both for and against. Now Rannpháirtí anaithnid has the opportunity to test this out by challenging the sources I’ve provided above, without having to refer to me. Why are editors so resistant to backing up their comments, one would think by now that like me they would have all the references they need? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

My request was for a quotation from a source that backed up the statement that "RoI was left in despite a multitude of sources which showed that it breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV". (I also asked for a diff for showing that the same had been provided before.) You could not provide a one. You have not proven it. Even though you say you do, and even though refer to sources.

The same will be the case in the POV statements. Editors can make statements. They can cite hundreds of sources to back up these statements if they like. But there will be no means to ensure that those sources actually prove the statements those editors make.

I agree with your description of a sort of dialectic. But simply citing sources is no way to ensure the validity of statements. Without the process of collaboration, there is nothing to stop people from engaging synthesis. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a disagreement on whether each editor should have their own statement or whether one statement should be put forward through collaboration? Coll Mac (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So we got no sources to challange the point I made about the multitude of sources which showed that the inclusion of RoI in the list of options breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV and that Rannpháirtí anaithnid instead decided to prevaricate. So I'll ask again, why are editors against giving readers the oppertuntiy to make an informed decsiion. I have no problem with editors making their POV statements, but I'd like to see arguements both for and against each option being linked to the options. That they be supported is just common sense. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"...the multitude of sources which showed that the inclusion of RoI in the list of options breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV" - What multitude of sources? I have asked that you please provide a quotation from just one of these with the name of the author, year and title of publication. (I also asked for a diff showing where the same was provided in the past, but that is not forthcoming either.)

prevaricate: to speak or acting in an evasive way I have asked you for a quotation from a source (one of a multiude, we would be told). It is you that seem evasive. Why?

In any case, do you see the problem with sources? Anyone can make a statement. They can cite a source (a "multitude even"). That does not mean that the source proves the statement. They make be drawing a synthesis (i.e. original research), for example. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone disagreeing with linkage (and marked appropriate) of pro/anti statements for each option. However, there's no requirement for sources. I will vet blatantly problematic ones, obviously. But no sources are required. Yes, you strengthen your argument citing policy and external sources, and that's a good thing, but it is important to remember that in the history of this debate, people have tried to cite policy and external sources for a long time, but there's always someone ready to fight back with their own policy and external sources, leading to no resolve on the issues. Thus, in some editors' mind (and the way I see this) that all the options are valid when you twist and turn policy and sources one way or another, and thus this is about more of the meta-nature, thinking beyond policy and what is the best long-term solution that will minimize future conflicts, even if that is the option that has the weakest support in policy. In other words, if WP:IAR works, then we should do it. Thus, I'm not expecting all editors' POV to source policy and external sites, but at least be clear and coherent. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the current plan, although can i just check we have dropped the idea of using the hide feature? All the current information on the ballot should remain visable for all, we cant depend on people clicking each options show option before voting. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Masem, so the linkage of pro/anti statements for each option is agreeable, sorted. However there being no requirement for sources is a major problem because it turns the statements into another opportunity for soapboxing which is the hallmark of this process. With correctly sourced and referenced statements there is no need for you to vet anything, and I for one would have no confidence in your ability to do it either. Having again used a strawman argument of "in the history of this debate, people have tried to cite policy and external sources for a long time, but there's always someone ready to fight back with their own policy and external sources, leading to no resolve on the issues" I must again bring editors attention to my comments above. Editors are invited to offer conflicting sources in their pro/anti statements for each option, its then up to the reader to determine the validity and strength of each source and make an informed decision. To illustrate how ridiculous your alternative is, you say that “all the options are valid when you twist and turn policy and sources one way or another” we call that WP:SYN but then go on to suggest that, therefore we will not require sources at all and you call this “thinking beyond policy” however on Wikipedia we call that WP:OR and it’s a big no, no. Masem we have seen the disagreements your attempt at a “preamble” have caused, why should your suggested vetting be any different? If the pro/anti statements for each option are used by editors to blatantly “twist and turn policy and sources one way or another,” we can address it, however, if they do this with their own personal POV statements you can do nothing about it. That is the logic of your arguments. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Readers of the POV essays will have to use their judgement as to the number of sources or policy links contained and how they are applied to judge if the statement is a good one to follow or not. A desperate plea to oppose option Q because of today is a Thursday, and not backing any other policy or sourcing anything else, is a POV statement that can be included, but obviously is not influential. A rationale option supporting option X because it minimizes the chance for any potential future conflict on the issue, but also not citing sources or policy, is likely to have a bit more impact. But that's not a job we should be deciding for the voters. Also, do note that OR applies to article space - and by extension to the naming issue - we cannot use (nor are we using) a bogus option that has no backing by sources; we can't move the state to "Mystical Happyland of Ireland", for example. However, in termining how we create policy and in this case how we assign the right naming scheme, OR and POV are perfectly appropriate to apply in the discussion. This is why it's important to recognize that IAR exists - we do the solution that best improves the encyclopedia even if it is contrary to all policy (save for a couple, like non-free content and BLPs). Case in point: most English speaking people call the state of China "China", so WP:NC should have us point it there, but because it is better both politically and properly, we call it by its full name "People's Republic of China", and recognize that "China" could be used as a more generic article about the area. But it is important that those names are all factual and follow a logical and valid scheme. The solution that might be voted on here may be a similar result - one that is contrary to policy but because we've vetted the options, are the ones that are still completely valid with respect to sources.

And while I've considered allowing for responses, anything beyond "I support this statement" will lead right back to endless edit wars around the same thing, even if the original POV statement is twisting policy to their whim. We need to assume that editors voting in this poll are familiar with application of policy and what it means (just like here in the States, we're supposed to be aware of the issues and politics before stepping into the voting booth). There will be some editors swayed by a wildly-misappropriate use of policy in a POV statement, but most should not be (same thing happens in political elections). Again, I stress that we need to assume a certain level of intelligence and familiarity with the WP process and policy from our voters. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You say Original research and Point of view, the very opposite of neutral point of view “are perfectly appropriate to apply in the discussion” and you don’t seem to have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? All of the options are based on Original research and Point of view, so to even suggest that “we cannot use (nor are we using) a bogus option that has no backing by sources” is just plain disruptive in my opinion. I’m asking that we should back up the options with sources, and your saying there is no need, we can use Original research and Point of view. Now I suggest you read my posts above and below again, and come back with something other than ignore all rules, as the basis for offering readers a distorted view of the nature of the dispute and the facts and policies behind the options being offered. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

After doing a little bit of research on this subject I have discovered the truth that the Irish Parliament have in fact passed a law in which the state is now officially named the Republic of Ireland. My research of the sources has also unearthed the fact that the majority of people throughout the world would think of the Island rather than the state when the name Ireland is mentioned. It is also a verifiable fact that those who wish to keep this article as it is have never proved their POV with any sources of note. Don't ask me for any proof that my statements are true, I just don't have the time. Please, just take my word for it. It's all true!. Coll Mac (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for my over the top nonsense statements. I'm sure nobody would make such outlandish statements. My point is that a statement could be made by anyone stating facts that are dubious without having to back them up with anything. They would most likely be a lot less obvious than the above. How would the voter be able to tell what is the truth and what is the slight untruth without seeing the sources? Coll Mac (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent post Coll. Masem are you saying that we are to ignore policy and write any old bullshit and it will get linked from an official poll on wiki? BigDunc 18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume that Coll's statement above is provided (maybe not as much rhetoric but keeping with assertions without facts). I would not vet it (it is not incivil or the like) and I would link it, based on the working assumption that the voters can recognize a statement that claims certain aspects without backing them up is a weak one at best. I fully expect that there will be statements with sources and the like, so that when the above statement is compared against it, it is clear it is a weaker one. Note that I'm strongly encouraging everyone to include sourced facts and the like, but to require that is against this type of process. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Coll Mac, but just because someone provides a "source" for a statements doesn't mean that those sources actually support what is being claimed or that the statement will be any more fact-based because of them. It has long been known, for example, that John Costello explicitly stated that the term "Republic of Ireland" should no be used as the title of a Wikipedia page but was precluded from inserting such provisions into the Republic of Ireland Act owing to residual, secret provisions of the 1921 Ango-Irish Agreement (cf. P Bew et al., 1989, The Dynamics of Irish Politics, Lawrence & Wishart Ltd; P Arthur, 1985, "Anglo-Irish relations and the Northern Ireland problem" in Irish Studies in International Affairs; P Mair, 1987, The changing Irish party system: organisation, ideology and electoral competition, Burns & Oates).

The above example is outlandish, but you will surely see that, without the process of collaboration, citations are evidence for nothing. There is nothing to prevent synthesis (i.e. original research), undue weight or - like my "Costello" example - plain outright misrepresentation of sources in the POV statements. See above, for example, how Domer48 has makes claims that a statement he has made is source based. Yet when pushed for a quotation to back up the claim, he/she shies away. In the POV statements there will be no opportunity for such pushing for the facts, so editors will be free to claim published sources support whatever outlandish statements they may make. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are definitely pushing the bounds credulity here and I suggest that your inability to identify Coll Mac’s satire on this, despite their admission betrays signs of incompetence. Please explain just what “type of process” is this that you would even consider allowing this type of nonsense to be presented to the community? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Masem has been doing a good job on this. I certainly wouldn't want to be in his/her shoes. I do agree with you Domer48 that any statements made should be backed up by sources. I hope if Masem looks at it again he will realise any such nonsense statements should not be permitted. If the policy says sources are not needed then at the very least it should be pointed out for all to see that they have been strongly encouraged to provide them, and those without sources may be less reliable. Coll Mac (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen up, Domer. It's you who are lacking credibility. These are position statements. They are not encyclopaedia articles. Now, I am sure that you believe that your own arguments are perfectly logical, and bolstered by links to sources (however cherry-picked), and that anyone who reads them must be compelled to believe your side. And Masem has invited you to write your statement, as I have. But it is folly to suggest that everyone's Position Statement will be constructed like yours is. I have already posted mine. It is a set of what I consider to be neutral evaluations of the different choices on the poll. I and others wrote them, for the ballot, but there was not evidently enough good will for them to be accepted for the ballot. Nevertheless, they form my Position Statement. I am not going to go and footnote everything on my Postion Statement, because I don't care to. I think that they are quite reasonable, common-sense, common-knowledge assessments of the choices. And since it's my Position Statement, I get to make that judgement call. If you don't like it, well, tough. Go and write your own. But bad-mouthing Masem paints only you in a bad light. -- Evertype·✆ 20:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In an effort to forestall yet another roadblock, I have put Masem's version of Rannṗáirtí's caveat header on the top of the two posted Position Summaries. There. Now anyone who worries that my Position Statement might by a synthesis of my own opinions will know that it probably is. -- Evertype·✆ 20:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I never knew a discussion on a Ballot could get so heated. As I said, I think Masem is doing a good job, and he's moderating all on his own. I think the other moderator should come in and give him a helping hand. I do believe that statements should be sourced but my opinion on it is not so strong that I would continue to harp on about it. I'll step away from the discussion now and hope you get the Ballot off and running as soon as possible. All the best. Coll Mac (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What we need is not people stepping away, but people saying "I can live with this version, warts and all, and let's go ahead." As far as Position Statements go, well, my own one links to various wiki articles but I'm not interested in writing a "thesis" to prove what my take on things is. Are you writing a Position Statement? I encourage you to do so. (And I don't even know what "side" you are on.)

I have no position or side. I will read all the statements with interest though, and when I feel strongly enough that one of the options should be chosen over the others I shall place my x in the appropriate place. As stated above, I do believe sources should be used, but I can live with it. Warts and all. Coll Mac (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Knowing that the “position statements” and the Pro and Con statements are two completely different things yet basing arguments on the “position statements” is disingenuous. I’m not interested in what editors put in their “position statements” but I am in what get put in the statements attached to the options. The for and against comments will be attached to the options and therefore should be supported. Now I not sure how readers will view my comments both for and against the various options but I do know that they will be able to evaluate the veracity of them. One would think with the suggested level of discussion that went into this process, with suggestions of how every policy and reference was supposedly discussed to death, that editors would balk at the opportunity to provide the sources and references which support their views and positions. That editors would resist the opportunity to illustrate to the wider community how and why options they support are maintained by our policies. That editors would reject the opportunity to challenge, through sources, references and policies why they oppose particular options suggests a complete lack of confidence. Now despite provocation, I’ve remained calm, rational and reasonable and suggest editors do likewise. What editors are being ask for here is not unreasonable. In the Pro and Con statements you provide references that’s it.--Domer48_'fenian' 22:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"I’m not interested in what editors put in their 'position statements' but I am in what get put in the statements attached to the options." Aaaah! This makes a lot more sense now. I agree that there is a problem. I think Evertype is of the same opinion too. Attaching statements written by individual editors to the ballot paper may attach a validity to them in the minds of voters that is undeserved. I don't really see how we can get around the problem without collaborating over the pro/con statements. Even if we do have require source in the pro/con arguments, without the process of collaboration we won't end up at NPOV. Example:

• Individual method: I begin a pro/con argument. I write the statement X and provide a source for it. I further add the statement Y and provide two published sources for it.
• Collaborative method: I being a pro/con argument. I write the statement X and provide a source for it. You say that the source does support the statement but that it gives undue weight to a particular part of the source so you modify X→X₂. I add the statement Y based on two sources, you remove Y as a synthesis of published sources (i.e. original research).

Using the "individual method" we have two sourced statements in the pro/con argument: X, which is unbalanced, and Y, which is a synthesis (i.e. original research). Using the "collaborative method" we have a sourced statement X₂ that gives a balanced assessment of what is stated in the source.

Unless we can collaboratively write the pro/con statements then I don't see any way around this problem unless we either 1) scrap the pro/con arguments and only go with position statements or 2) flag the individual pro/con arguments with a health warning like I posted above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

One way this could be done, adding a few more days to the process but providing this, is that there would be a two stage process. Stage one: editors write their essays that will be attached. That stage closes, essays are attached to options, and then stage two starts: editors are free to put their support, or write counterarguments to those essays. This step would have to be strictly controlled: the agreements or counter positions are not pieces for discussion, so you say your piece and then that's it - no counter-counterargument by the essayist, no ganging up on one editor, etc. And this would only be for pointing out flaws or problems with the arguments, not to point readers to others. These counter-points can be used to address any (as seen by the responder) deficiencies in the essay arugments whether that be lack of sources, incorrect application of policy, misinterpreted facts, or just a general POV statement. That at least provides some counterfeedback that some feel that are being missed. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst i strongly support the Pros/cons statements and dont think we should have to source everything to Domers standards, which would be impossible... we do have to ensure the statements are reasonable. Cols example above should not get past the vetting and be linked on the ballot paper (people could link that as their personal statments in the (see my rationale) thing) but the pro/con statements have to be honest, they cant just state lies. If many people strongly dispute the claims in a statement it should be re written or another statement considered. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Would the "counter argument" be visible to the voter (I don't think it should, I think it should only be posted here)? So the suggestion is, I write a pro/con statement, others respond to it, I must address those concerns by providing sources/amending the pro/con statement. TBH I don't see it working. I think it will just lead down the usual road of undue weight, weasel words and synthesis. Someone will write X. Another will say that X is not true. The statement will be amended to say that "puppets of the imperialist jingos think X isn't true - but the TRUTH is that it is".

Can we just take them out and leave it all the obvious POV statement? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And really it shouldn't matter anyway. This is a purely internal issue: how Wikipedia organises two page. External sources have nothing to say on the matter. ... but still, I expect whether the name of the Irish state is X or Y or Z in TRUTH will be the most profound case put for many. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

I welcome the agreement on the Pros/cons statements and the need for sources. I agree with the need to include the health warning on all statements. I have no problem with the suggested process on the Pros/cons statements suggested by Masem. I am mindful of Coll Mac's comment on how the statemets can be "picked over point by point" by some editors and would point out that to challange a statement one must first have grounds to challange i.e. a source or reference which directly challanges any given source. I agree that the "counter argument" should not appear on the statement and have offered suggestions above on how this can be addressed. Since the Pros/cons statements are fact/policy based, there should be little dispute or disruption as a result of POV statements. This is over all a positive step forward. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be useful to create the pages for Pro and con Statements which we can post on? Each of the options having its own section and we can either here or the discussion pages of the Pro and con Statements raise issues editors may have. These statements will also go a long way to address the issue of the opening statement also. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me iterate why I think the suggested essay with agreements/counter-responses seems to be the best way to go.

• First, I cannot legitimately put the requirement of having sources in any of the POV statements, as that's not required at any other discussion forum anywhere else on WP. Sources obviously help, but take a look at various AFDs and you'll see some but minimal or no sources at all. I still urge editors to use them if they can, but some arguments and position statements would not be able to point to any but instead appeal to common sense.
• That said, I realize that people are worried that someone will put up a not-so-obvious bogus claim without sources, or misapplication of sources that needs to be addressed. That's understood. Which is why a single agreement or counter-argument step seems appropriate - this would be sufficient to allow those that feel a completely unsourced statement that can be challenged by other sources to do so. But again, I stress this needs to be a counterargument for that option, and not a statement in support of a different one.
• Now, to allow this cycle to continue, to allow responses to counterarguments and so forth, starts to descend into discussion, and that's what that's been happening for the last few years leading towards this point. We don't need to reiterate all that to the voters, nor is anything new going to be said. The arguments and counterarguments are not there to convince yourselves of what the right option is, but to make sure your POV for or against an option, or the claims of others for/against that option, is known to the voters. They can easily find the IRCOLL project talk archives if they want lengthy reading material, but of those that will review the position statements and responses, they just want to make sure they're aware of the main issues involved.
• I can see having a talk page of the position statements used for discussion but by default these wouldn't be advertized to the poll. I just don't there's any value for having the position pages themselves being treated as forums as they would rapidly descend into the retreat of existing arguments that have been made here over the last few years.
• Only the position arguments would be linked on the ballot page; the agreements or counter-arguments would not be. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose specific arguments being placed on the ballot page. If you mean links to them, the link should only be to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements. Please confirm, Masem. Also please note that two Position Statements are there. -- Evertype·✆ 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No arguments on the ballot page, only links via writer's name to their argument page. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable about people's names appearing on the ballot like that. I think the ballot should point to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements and that is where the names should go. Please address this, Masem. -- Evertype·✆ 16:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The options would appear something like this below. You have comments in support and against this option. These comments will be fact/policy based. The only thing that will appear is the comments for and against. It will not include arguements or counter arguements. So for example, if an editor in support of this option cites WP:COMMONNAME and uses supporting references, an editor may disagree and using possibly the same policy, and alternative sources place their comments in the comments against link. Reference to comments either for or against should be avoided when commenting as the point is to let the reader come to their own conclusion based on the information provided. You outline the reasons why this option should be supported or rejected and not why either alternative is wrong. I would not use comments why it should be supported based on arguements why the comments against it are wrong. Discussions on the statements should not be long drawn out affairs, and will possibly revolve around the issue of WP:SYN. This being fact based should be stright forward. To prevent anyone trying to pick over each statement line by line, all challanges must be based on alternative sources. So an editor can't just say well I don't agree with that, they must be able to say I don't agree with that because this source says the exact opposit.

As to the position statements, I agree they should not be on the ballot paper. I'm not to pushed were they should go as long as they are not presented as anything other then editors own personal POV's. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• A: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.

• (Ireland + Republic of Ireland) → Ireland (Rational for and Rational against this option)
• Ireland (disambiguation) → no change

Name of page	Initial text (the first sentence in the article)
Ireland	Ireland is a European island and an independent state of the same name.
Ireland (disambiguation)	Ireland commonly refers to: ...

I very strongly oppose Domer's suggestion that links to the rationales appear in the MIDDLE of the ballot where he has them. I also disagree that the rationales should be split into "for" and "against". My own Position Statement gives arguments on both sides, and cannot be split thus. -- Evertype·✆ 16:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok we get that you disagree, now please tell us why? I don't like it is hardly a rational. Your arguments can be split, you just choose not to, and they should be supported with references and not just your WP:OR. The rational will appear beside each option, making them accessible to the reader and having those separate presents them both in clear and concise format. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A) The word is "rationale", not "rational";

B) You do not get to decide how people format their rationales; Evertype is completely free to comment on one, some, or all, for or against, in whatever order he chooses;

C) Masem has already stated that rationales need not necessarily be referenced;

D) Including rationales beside each option introduces the problem of whose rationale gets listed there. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

off topic discussion

The country article & the island article must not be merged. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The articles could quite possibly be merged, but who's too know. I'm sure you can provide a number of fact/policy based reasons to support you POV. However there may be quite a few compelling sources put forward to support this option. Any how your comments have no useful purpose in this current discussion, notice the header "Moving forward." --Domer48_'fenian' 20:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything is possible, time will tell. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, so how is your comment helpful in a section called Moving forward? BigDunc 20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Being honest is helpful. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Give your 'reasoning' GoodDay, and less tr***. Remember the word is 'collaboration'. Repeat it to yourself 50 times a day! Tfz 20:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The country & the island are not the same things. PS: Be not afraid, if I'm the lone dissenting voice? the merge proposal will be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

They are the same thing, the country is 32 counties, the sovereign country is 26 counties. You should visit sometime, then you'd understand more clearly. Tfz 20:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My blunder. 'Merge the articles' isn't a proposal, it's just an exampler. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a blunder, my friend - see Option A here. --83.70.245.234 (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I shall oppose it. The country republic doesn't cover the entire island, a part of the island-in-question? belongs to the United Kingdom. That's the way it. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The country of Ireland covers the entire island, the sovereign country of Ireland covers 26 counties, which is 85% of the island. Tfz 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well they said they very strongly oppose so lets hope they have very strong reasons for their opposition, unlike the ones you put forward on their behalf. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A) The word is "rationale", not "rational";

B) You do not get to decide how people format their rationales; I am completely free to comment on one, some, or all, for or against, in whatever order I choose;

C) Masem has already stated that rationales need not necessarily be referenced;

D) Including rationales beside each option introduces the problem of whose rationale gets listed there. -- Evertype·✆ 18:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Having said you very strongly oppose the rationale that is the rationale for the Pro and Con statements and not the personal POV statements being placed beside each option, you would have equally strong reasons for this, but apparently not simply parroting the previous editor. Were would you like to see these referenced/sourced and policy based statements placed? An obvious place with the reader in mind would be beside the options. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I do not care whether Position Statements have references our sources or not. I understand that you do. You seem to be the only one who wants to try to insist on this.
2. I do not care whether each Position Statements makes explicit reference to Wikipedia "policy" or not. I understand that you do. You seem to be the only one who wants to try to insist on this.
3. I want the ballot to link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements and I want Position Statements to be on individual subpages off of that. I would like to see your Position Statement there.
4. It is rude for you to dismiss me as "parroting". I happen to agree with what Bastun said, and you appear to be wilfully obtuse in understanding that, as evidenced by your persistence in badgering me. My answer wasn't good enough for you. Well here is another. I doubt it will satisfy you either.
5. Including rationales beside each option introduces the problem of whose rationale gets listed there.

Please go now and write your statement, or tell us all that you refuse to write your statement.

Masem, for the gods' sake please put some time limits on this now. We need the ballot, not more hand-wringing. -- Evertype·✆ 21:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

One can almost sense the panic with editors when asked to supply sources/ref's, facts. Trying to ignore the difference between "position statements" and the "Pro and Con statements" is not going to change the fact that that is what is being discussed. I know you are opposed to having to support your POV but hey this is an encyclopedia, were we deal with facts not opinions. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A Position Statement is not an encyclopaedia article. I feel no sense of panic. I feel a deep sense of ennui at having to put up with passive-aggressive bargaining techniques, stonewalling, and endless repetition of the same idea over and over. Anyway, if you will look at my Position Statement, you will find that its content is that which we endeavoured to construct to express various positions on the different options. I am confident that the assessment for each of them is verifiably fair and neutral, and can be understood by potential voters who use their intelligence and common sense. Of course, some of the more vehement POV-pushers here refused to allow it to be on the ballot paper. -- Evertype·✆ 09:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Position statements=

@Masem: "I can see having a talk page of the position statements used for discussion but by default these wouldn't be advertized to the poll." Where will the position statements be advertised? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore all rules?

Agree with Domer here. The "ignore" notion is wrong, wrong, wrong when it is being used to push a British pov title on the sovereign country of Ireland. Why not apply the "ignore" principle to the Wiki-so-called "British" Isles? We quote "rules" like sacred scripture when they support majority POV and ignore them when the confront majority POV. That isn't WP:NPOV. This is a charter to turn En:Wiki from an encyclopedia into a majoritarian Angloshpere polemic. Sarah777 (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"majoritarian Angloshpere plemic"? now, that's a tongue twister. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah if that was the plan we would never of even got to this stage. The view that the article should remain at Republic of Ireland would have been accepted and those moaning would of been ignored. We are here, its very likely the article will be moved from the current Republic of Ireland title so you should be happy. The more you and Domer sit here moaning the longer we wait for the vote which means the longer we wait for a possible change.. something u and some others are so desperate to see.

Goodday i think we need an article on "majoritarian Angloshpere polemic", any ideas who could write it? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't, but the phrase has a poetic look to it. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Have Sarah write it, and you BW edit it. Yeah that'd be the biggest non-article ever, all zero bites of it, LOL. Tfz 12:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

@Several above; are you folks dissin' me? I have a skin thicker than a rhinocerose's elbow. Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

BW, just a couple of points. Masem, and some editors are saying that possible use of WP:SYN in the sources for and against statements could be a problem, so we address that by telling editors they can use WP:OR. It is not me or a group of likeminded editors holding up this process. It’s the same group of editors who have dominated this whole issue from the very beginning. Now once again, what is wrong with using fact/policy based arguments in the statements for and against each option? What is wrong with allowing readers the opportunity to evaluate the arguments for themselves? What is wrong with allowing readers to the opportunity to weigh up the strength of sources presented? What is wrong with allowing readers the opportunity to apply our policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR to the sources and making an informed decision for themselves. If I make arguments for and against options who is stopping editors challenging the sources, references or my application of policy with alternatives. I’ve agreed with allowing editors having the opportunity to present their POV statements, and all I’m asking is that we also allow readers on the Pro and Con statements to be afforded the opportunity to see the fact/policy based reasons for the options. However, allowing editors to put forward their POV into both their personal statements and the Pro and Con statements is to corrupt, debase and remove any semblance of impartiality that this process could have claimed to have ever represented. It is the group of editors who want to control and determine the type and quality of information presented to readers who are holding up this process. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, Position Statements are not encyclopaedia articles and it is absurd for you to suggest that they should be sourced, or certainly to try to derail this process by suggesting that "some editors" are making a ruckus. I see a small coterie of ruckus makers, and at this stage it seems to me that you and they are doing as much as you can to keep the poll from happening. At no point do you ever say anything positive about this process. I for one am hopeful that the poll can start soon so we can put an end to all the moaning. -- Evertype·✆ 20:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not holding up the process. I've posted my Position Summary already. Where is yours? I'm sure it will be much better than mine. -- Evertype·✆ 20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Per my comments here. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And Evertype, no one asked me for mine(opinion?). And does it not matter too much, or is this all a game? Tfz 23:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Do what you want. You're semi-retired anyway. -- Evertype·✆ 16:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The egotistical view

It is not the state that Ireland is in, but the state that is in Ireland, end, end, end, end end end end. ~ R.T.G 20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What's ye point? GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am just worried that people will do this Ireland (says Ireland but actually leads to Ireland (state)) and then say something like "The largest lake in Ireland is Lough Corrib." I think that point is more important than what the article is named. Northern what? Northern Timbuctoo mebbe. It is still overlooked in this ocean of dialogue. ~ R.T.G 05:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• As long as the Queen of England is cozy in her page, it should be just fine. Tfz 13:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Queen of England? there's no such thing anymore. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why are people always calling E2nd, by that name. WP says go with common name, WP:Common. It's an aside, but can reveal the hypocrisy that sometimes abounds. In other words, let's not get tied up on lesser detail! Tfz 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's Queen of the United Kingdom. PS: I agree, let's not get tied up in this. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay is correct, just because the American media incorrectly call her the "Queen of England" does not mean its her common name. Queen Elizabeth II is how she is known around the world, silly wikipedia naming conventions prevent commonsense on this matter though. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And the wonderful thing about democracy is that everyone has a vote. Regardless. Daicaregos (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What about English Royalty of the England Kingdom and their Round Table Knights? I was sure I heard of those somewhere but nonetheless, it is not the state which Ireland is in but the states which is in Ireland. ~ R.T.G 19:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that there are articles about the Monarchs of England and the Kingdom of England and the Knights of the Round Table. Have you forgotten that this is about naming some web pages, not about politics or Truth? -- Evertype·✆ 21:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I just have to share my little cliche with you. It is not about the state that Ireland is in but the states that are in Ireland. Politics? If they can think of a good excuse to march somewhere together we should all be OK. I have seen flute bands out in green for Paddys day in Belfast so they will probably not rest until they are doing something together. ~ R.T.G 09:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Recap/clarification?

So, where exactly are we at this stage? I've not been able to pay too much attention the last few days, but from a quick read, what I think is outstanding/needs decision is:

1. Which ballot to use?
2. (All?) editors are free to write a rationale, which will be linked from somewhere on the ballot page if they so wish? These need not have references (but obviously its better if they do).
3. Is there a size limit on these rationales?
4. Each option on the ballot page will have brief statements underneath?
5. Are these just 'pro' statements, or 'pro/anti'?

If someone could clarify, I'd appreciate it. When do we think the above might get sorted and the ballot actually commence? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I am hopeful that the ballot at the top of my sandbox is chosen -- although a decision still needs to be made as to which of the two infoboxes should be used. Both point to a separate page for Position Statements. No Project Member user names appear on ballot paper itself -- only on the Position Statements page. A summary of the ballot points is given, then repeated below with explicit (unhidden) examples of what the different options could mean for the initial sentence of the articles in question. I think that this ballot paper should be used, that we should proceed to collect Position Statements and get on with it.
2. We should set a time schedule and people whose statements are ready get in, and those which do not don't. Masem has indicated that he reserves the right to reject any that are, well, not serious in his judgement. I would support letting him do that.
3. I see no need for there to be.
4. I hope that the brief statements (which are NOT pro or con) which describe the ramifications for the initial sentences are retained on the ballot.
5. People should be free to write what they want in their Position Statements. No positions should appear on the ballot (just like in real life ballots).

That's my opinion. -- Evertype·✆ 21:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's get the Final Poll, the Curtain Closer (etc) into gear. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, if that means that you endorse my suggestions above, please say so. Saying "let's get the Final Poll", yes, it's what we all want. But it's the form of that that is in question. -- Evertype·✆ 21:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. I support Evertype's suggestions above. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There will be Pro and Con statements attached to each option and they will be referenced/sourced and policy based. Your POV statements can go were ever you like as long as they don't appear on the ballot paper. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I oppose any pro or con arguments appearing on the ballot paper itself. In the real world, we do not see such arguments on ballots. The arguments belong elsewhere, whether they are my "POV statement", or whether they are your "unassailably logical and perfectly sourced statement". Neither should go on the ballot, Domer. This one is a deal breaker. However fantastic your statement will be, it's still your POV, whether you want to dress it up with citations or not. -- Evertype·✆ 00:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Evertype's proposal - favour the first the intro in your sandbox, mainly because I think it is more polished (the second one needs a bit more work before I'd be happy with it). I have also redone the Position Statements page and included a section for pro/con arguments. Maybe instead of linking to directly to individual pro/con statements from beneath the options, we could link to that section on the Positions Statements page? I also think it will be pointless insisting that POV statements (either general statements or pro/con arguments) be referenced since there will be no way to properly challenge synthesis (i.e. original research) or plain misrepresentation of published sources. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I really hate have severe misgivings about what you did to the Position Statements page. I think all the statements should be treated equally, coming from individual editors, and should all be kept on sub-pages. The scheme you put there is asking for a world of painful delay, as we will NEVER EVER be able to agree any text. It's very late. I'm going to bed, but I think that what you did should be reverted tomorrow. -- Evertype·✆ 00:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• "I really hate have severe misgivings about what you did to the Position Statements page." OK.
• "I think all the statements should be treated equally, coming from individual editors ..." So do I. Are they not?
• "...and should all be kept on sub-pages." ... Again, are they not?
• "The scheme you put there is asking for a world of painful delay..." Scheme? Delays? Huh?
• "...as we will NEVER EVER be able to agree any text." What text? What page are you reading?
• "It's very late. I'm going to bed..." OK.
• "...but I think that what you did should be reverted tomorrow." Then do that. But before you do, can I ask that you go look at the page again? What you wrote didn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe someone else has something to say on it? Maybe wait for their input before you revert it? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's far, far, far too complicated. It's confusing even to me to have to decide which of the multitude of places I should duplicate the link to my own Position Statement. It's just far too complex. I think the list of Position Statements should simply be a list of links to the editor's names. Voters who want to study them will do so. Attempting to have them pre-parsed is just over-ticking the plumbing. I'd really like to see the simpler list as here. -- Evertype·✆ 09:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't "duplicate" your link. Did you want to express a pro/con on a particular option? I thought you only wanted to write a single general statement?

I don't see how we can be "over-ticking the plumbing". Your preferred draft is identical to the first version. A write followed by a single rewrite is not "over-ticking" anything.

That said, since we only have two names in the list, a categorised list is overkill. I thought we could expect more position statements by now? How many will there be? If it is only two then I agree it should go back to the simple list. If it is more than six or seven then I think we should start categorizing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I really think that a categorized list is overkill, and we should just list the contributors. If it is the two of us ± Scoláire, fine. Let's keep it simple, and not try to lead all the voters through all the pros and cons. Those who want to read the statements will do so. -- Evertype·✆ 14:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see how many positions statements there are. I had imagined that there would be far more that two by now. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I see there is still a disagreement over whether sources have to be used or not. Maseen has already said that it would be preferable though not necessary. If it is an absolute certainty that there is no wikipedia policy on this then I don't see the problem with going ahead without them. I do agree with Maseems statement that they are preferable and that any argument with them may be more convincing. Rannphairti, I understand your point that they could be misrepresented, yet an argument without them can also be misrepresented, perhaps even more so. As I said, if there is no policy then there is no need. It will be an individuals choice on whether they think their argument will be more convincing with or without them. Coll Mac (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. For my part I made my arguments and I am happy with them. I don't feel the need to "prove" my case with a thesis. There are sources to support almost anything anyway. -- Evertype·✆ 00:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources obviously bolster an argument in the mind of the reader. Sourced transparent statements will fare better. But, with regards to determining the "facts", there has been such a load of nonsense (both "supported" by sources and otherwise), particularly around ROI, that it really makes little difference IMHO.

Domer48's claim above, for example, that have been a "multitude of sources which showed that the inclusion of RoI in the list of options breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV." No doubt in his/her statement such a claim would be supported by this "multitude" of sources. Yet if we ask him/her for a quotation from just one of these showing that this is the case, and he/she shies away. If sources are the answer, let's see the quote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Evertype, I too support your first infobox. Of your other points, I agree with number 2 which would actually cancel out number 5. Number 3 concerning size limit is one I think should only be looked at as they are written. Not sure if a rationale similar in size to War and peace would be appropriate. Coll Mac (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If somebody wants to write War and Peace, bíodh aige. More power to him. It's up to the voter to decide to read it or not. -- Evertype·✆ 00:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors must begin to wonder why a small group of editors refuse to support their poll options with references. We all must being to wonder why this small group refuse to back up their poll options with any of our policies. It must also cause some concern that this small group should insist that they be provided the oppertuntiy to present their unsourced opinions to readers in an attempt to "inform" their decisions. This is an encyclopedia not a chat room, and as such we do have some standards. Editors are being provided the oppertunity to present their arguements to readers to support their arguements and they refuse to do so. The question is why? Readers need to know what are they are voting for. They need to know what are the reasons for the various options. They need to know what are the reasons for supporting one option and rejecting another. They need to be provided with the information which will enable them to make informed decisions. They need to know that the information they are provided are not just the opinions of editors but are supported by both references and policies. They need to know that they are being given the facts and not a fictious account of the issues. So lets see the excuses offered by these editors why they want to prevent editors from making informed decisions. We are told this issues has been well discussed, so it should be no problem to provide the supporting references. That is of course if this process is not a sham. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"... the multitude of sources which showed that the inclusion of RoI in the list of options breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV." - Can you please provide a quotation to support this statement from one of these sources with the name of the author, title and year of the publication? The quotation should demonstrate that the source actually supports the statement. If you do, it will allay a great number of my fears vis-a-vis the ability of editors to correctly use sources. If you can't, it means that the correct citation of sources will be threatened by synthesis (i.e. original research). Thank you. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To even suggest that you fear that the correct citation of sources will be threatened by synthesis and yet accept original research shows that your "fears vis-a-vis the ability of editors to correctly use sources" is BS. I provided you a whole article full of sources to support the statement that the inclusion of RoI in the list of options breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV but you could not respond so you prevaricate. So here again is just one source to support the statement the European Unions Interinstitutional style guide which clearly states "Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’" when refering to the Irish State. This source is supported by WP:V, WP:RS is not based on WP:SYN or WP:OR and supports our policy of WP:NPOV. Now if you prevaricate it proves my point again that some editors do not want editors to have the information needed to make an informed decision. Provide a source which challanges the view of the 27 Member States of the European Union, per WP:COMMONNAME. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Domer48, "synthesis" and "original research" link to the same article. Synthesis of published sources is original research.

The quotation you supplied ("Do not use Republic of Ireland nor Irish Republic.") does not support the statement ("...the inclusion of RoI in the list of options breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV"). The quotation does not comment on the NPOV or otherwise of the term. From the quotation we don't know why the EU style guide is to not use the term. Inferring more from it that what it there is original research.

Please see policy: "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid that's a really poor attempt at original research on your part and goes a long way to explain why some editors are dead set against providing references. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

@Domer48. In my humble opinion you should let the sources argument go. You should write your statement and add your sources to your rationale. If you believe that sourcing will go towards making a more convincing argument then from your point of view it can only be a plus. Delaying the Ballot (and I know I have contributed to that) appears to have put off those who were contributing earlier to this page. It would be interesting to hear from those editors and discover if they are happy to go ahead with the Ballot as it stands. Coll Mac (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

@rann - there's no need to debate the merits or otherwise of Domer's arguments here. Really. And perhaps a timely reminder to everyone - Arbcom administrators have specifically stated that Domer's prevarications can be ignored. The constant repetition and WP:BEANS from him is annoying, but replying just means we'll see it repeated yet again. The moderator has stated that we do not need sources for the position statements. That's good enough for me. Though mine will have them, anyway ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. -- Evertype·✆ 14:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Are editors happy to have the statements written now and arguments presented as things stand? (with among other things, sources as optional)

• Support Coll Mac (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support if this means "OK, folks, write your Position Statements in your sandboxes and let us know and we will help post them to the Position Statements page and subpage (without causing chaos)." -- Evertype·✆ 14:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes,it means just that. Coll Mac (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Whole process has dragged on long enough. Valenciano (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per Evertype, and I additionally wonder how many people will be on holidays and miss the main event now that it has been delayed till at least the July/August period? --HighKing (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Evertype. (HighKing, the actual poll, when it goes live, is scheduled to last 21 days). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support ... and think there is a case now for extending the ballot to six weeks. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Rationale for doubling the length of the poll? -- Evertype·✆ 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the middle of the summer time. People are on holidays/going on holidays/not so interested in looking at a computer screen. It's not unimaginable that someone might not look at Wikipedia for the duration of a three week poll - never mind find the time to participate fully. If we were going to give X amount of time for the poll during what we could say was a normal period then we should consider giving >X amount of time for the poll during what we might predict to be an "off-season" period. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(Adds: Masem, I think a deadline would focus minds. I thought it was said somewhere that last Sunday was the last day for position statements? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

• Support. Lets go. Rockpocket 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: It has been agreed that editors can have their POV/Soapbox Statements, and it is also agreed that they will not appear on the ballot. This issue is about the “Statements both For and Against” each option. The issues involved are, 1) should they be sourced, 2) were should they be placed on the ballot paper, 3) should the Pro and Con statements for each option be kept separate. On point (1) Masem outlines a process for fact checking the statements here. On point (2) here they suggest they be linked to each option. On point (3) here they suggest that they should “focus on supporting or opposing a specific option than trying to address the entirety in one go.” So are editors suggesting now that we drop the Pro and Con Statements and just present the readers with the POV/Soapbox Statements? Please not that Masems attitude on fact checking on point (1) came after Coll Mac’s deliberately bogus statement illustrated why sources are necessary. As to Bastuns attempt at distraction “Arbcom have specifically stated that Domer's prevarications can be ignored.” As can be seen here it’s a completely spurious claim! Here is a list of ArbCom Members and they said nothing about me or the report that was thrown out by Admin's. Just another reason for fact checking.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we any closer to having the Final Poll? I assume, I won't need references & sources to back up my claim, that the republic does not cover the entire island. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I still want the pros / cons statements which will be linked on the ballot paper that must be reasonable (not sourced to Domers high standard though). We should not do away with the pros and cons statements, i strongly oppose that (if thats what is being suggest) its vital we have detailed pros / cons for options rather than peoples soapbox/POV statements. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Domer and BritishWatcher. We have already tried to come up with "acceptable" pro/con statements. We had a good set, worked on for some time, and then several people came at the last minute and torpedoed them. (These are now in my personal Position Statement. I do not want to see a second set of positions or arguments. All statements, whether general or pro/con or sourced or unsourced, should be in the same place, and linked to in the same, randomized way. I object to Domer's personal attack which suggests that any Position Statement that does not meet his criteria for citation are "POV/Soapbox Statements—indeed if anyone is perpetually on a soapbox here it is our dear friend Domer48. I do not support a split of "Position Statements" and "Pro/Con" statements. We already had a set of the latter, and they failed to win the consensus of BritishWatcher and Domer and some others. I am quite sure that if they were to write a set of Pro/Con statements it would likewise fail to won consensus. Pony up, ladies and gentlemen; write your Position Statement so we can post them to the appointed place and get on with this. -- Evertype·✆ 20:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(Adds: Masem. It's time for a deadline, and time for you to notice how many names are constantly working on collaboration and good faith and which names are constantly finding reasons to ignore consensus and delay. -- Evertype·✆ 20:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"We have already tried to come up with "acceptable" pro/con statements." Funny how we are still discussing the pro/con statements, and you suggest we already tried? Statements without sources are "POV/Soapbox Statements even Masem has described them as POV Statements. Your comment above is as factual as your Position Statement, but we will get round to that when this is addressed. I thought you agreed with the need for this, or that is what we were told. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless supported by a consensus of editors, the pro/com statement will essentially be POV statements too. I, for example, do not share your POV that the EU's style guideline should determine how we name our articles. Its one thing providing a reference (objective), its another interpreting its relevance (subjective). Its patently clear that we will not reach a consensus on pro/con statements, so lets all list out subjective statements - providing sources, or not, as required to make your case - and let the community decide. Rockpocket 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Domer, you seem to be trolling for attention. Rockpocket is right: we have no consensus on pro/con statements, and we won't get it. We have an alternative mechanism: A set of individual editors' Position Statements. We have three now. Go and write yours. You have failed to win people over to your ideas, and it seems now that the ballot will not give any arguments but will link to the page of Position Statements. That's the venue for your arguments. -- Evertype·✆ 07:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(Adds: Masem, please confirm. I have asked you for confirmation several times now. -- Evertype·✆ 07:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC))

First off the EU's style guideline was just one example, used as an example. That you offered nothing to back up your comments/opinion/POV or mention it in the context of WP:COMMONNAME, verifiability, neutral point of view explains why we don’t get consensus. Information that is challanged must be challanged on the basis of alternative sources and not just the opinion of an editor, who in the absence of an alternative source relys on their opinion alone. On the Pro/Con Statements Masem has outlined a process for addressing issues with the Pro/Con statements, this process can also be used on the "POV/Soapbox Statements. There is nothing stopping editors from putting forward a source which challenges references, and letting the reader weigh the strength of argument. The main point though of your comments is, let’s put possibly misleading information before readers and present it as fact. Your suggested alternative to using referenced sources which would be reviewed is to use "POV/Soapbox Statements which will not be reviewed. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with that interpretation. I don't dispute the contents of your sources, just their relevance to the discussion. For example, your source tells us what the EU's style guidelines are - nothing more, nothing less. Once you begin to use that as justification for why our article must be named whatever, the issue is no longer about the source, its about the use (or misuse) of the source to advance a position. That is more misleading than bald soapboxing (note soapboxing does not equal POV; just because one has a POV, does not mean that one is interested in foisting it on others. A distinction worth considering). Tub thumping is easy to ignore, propaganda masquerading as information is insidious, however. Rockpocket 01:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care to hear Domer continue to make content arguments on this page. This page is for process. -- Evertype·✆ 07:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is part of the process, weather you care to respond or not is up to you. Now when it comes to playing word games on sources I'll be more than happy to respond but for now this is about weather we on the Pro and Con Statements present readers with referenced sources which would be reviewed or just use "POV/Soapbox Statements which will not be reviewed. Are editors now suggesting that we drop the Pro and Con Statements and just using "POV/Soapboxing Statements. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Weather" is an atmospheric condition. I believe you mean "whether". How's that for a word-game? -- Evertype·✆ 10:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A little unfair of you there, Evertype. Everywon can make mistakes in there speling. Not me of cource, I mean everywon else. Seriously though, point scoring on spelling? Coll Mac (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Call it Domer Fatigue. I'm tired of being told that my Position Statement is a soapbox, and that I am playing word games. Right now, Domer's got the spotlight (see section below) and clearly he enjoys it. But he's not producing text for the ballot, he's not producing his own Position Statement, he's no producing anything but repetitious repetition of his previous points. It's not getting us anywhere. -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Statements For and Against each option

The issues involved on the Pro and Con Statements are:

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

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

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

It is again logical that we don't lump all the statements both Pro / Con together for each option. The reader needs to be able to read each statement and then make a balanced and informed decision, so lumping them all together makes this cumbersome and distracting. As to which editors statements goes first, a simple solution is to put them together that is all the Pro statements together and all the Con Statements go together. So for example on the Pro statements while editors my all put forward the same particular rational there is only a need for one of them to be presented.--Domer48_'fenian' 09:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are these statements? Mooretwin (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

We need to address the points above first, then editors can be invited to provide them. On the Editors personal "POV/Soapbox Statements" which don't have to be sourced at all it is agreed (see above discussion) editors can write them up now and some already have. Were they go however still has to be decided, were they will not be going is on the ballot paper that is as far as I know also agreed. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is my opinion. I disagree with what Domer48 considers to be "logical". In the first place, he's shown us nothing in terms of actually crafting either a Position Statement or helping to draft Pro/Con statements. In the three weeks since the close of the (xxx) poll, he's argued and argued, but offered no text. Well text is what this is about, not more blather about what's "most logical". Here is my response to Domer's points above:

1. Pro and Con statements are no different from any other individual editor's Position Statement. All statements must be Position Statements; we have no hope in writing a set of "neutral" Pro/Con statements (we have tried it before and failed). An editor may choose to support his Position Statement with sources. An editor may choose not to support his Position Statement with sources. (My Position Statement does not argue for any one solution, so it is a Pro/Con statement; nevertheless, it does not cite sources.)
2. No argument, whether a Pro/Con Position Statement or any other kind of Position Statement, should be placed on the ballot paper.
3. Any editor may write his or her Pro/Con Poosition Statement (or any other kind of Position Statement) as he or she wishes.

I oppose very strongly any attempt to put arguments of any kind on the actual ballot paper itself, and I oppose very strongly any attempt to put any editor's names even as links to their statements on the actual ballot paper itself.

That, in my opinion, is the only way we can move forward here. NOTE PLEASE that Masem outlined a possible process for fact checking the statements here. I don't believe that process in workable, and I call on Masem to put us out of this misery and make some rulings so that we can get this ballot launched. Three weeks, six weeks, I don't care. This has become a colossal waste of many editors' valuable time at this stage. Nothing will be served by delaying the ballot any longer. We are spinning our wheels. -- Evertype·✆ 11:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how many people will dispute the facts. Rather than another editor directly disputing the facts could it be possible to dispute them through Maseem? This would at least avoid the worst of the arguments which could descend into another debate. Coll Mac (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We've already been there, Coll Mac. We wrote these collectively and in good faith. I don't believe there are any "facts" that warrant serious dispute in that presentation. But they rejected it. Masem is not a hands-on moderator here. I don't believe we should try to "ghettoize" some Position Statements by entering (again) into a process to try to define Pro/Con arguments. We've done that and failed, and the text that failed isn't even obnoxious. We don't NEED another debate. We need to agree to have Position Statement, sourced or unsourced, Pro/Con or otherwise, and to set a deadline and stick to it. Hasn't this gone on long enough? How many months more? -- Evertype·✆ 11:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've only been involved for a few days and feel a little frustrated. Goodness knows how the rest of you feel. Ok, forgetting the challenges to the statements, why not start the process now. Unless I'm mistaken and there are different rules on wikipedia, there seems to be a consensus for it. Coll Mac (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting that "We wrote these collectively and in good faith" is very misleading. Who were they "we" because I thought that was just "your" statement. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The main and obvious difference between the Pro / Con Statements and the "POV/Soapbox Statements" also know as “Position Statements” is the issue of sources. Masem has suggested a solution here which I think editors could support.

We have not “tried it before and failed” on the Pro / Con Statements because it has never been tried. Some Editors have simply argued against the need for sources.

Again, this is not about the "POV/Soapbox Statements" also know as “Position Statements” that has been agreed. Editors do not have to support their statements, hence the name the "POV/Soapbox Statements".

I’m glad there is no argument about placing the Pro / Con Statements beside the options.

I offered a suggestion why the Pro statements should be kept together and separate from the Con Statements, so as to simplify it for the reader, by making it clear and concise. No reason has been offered as to why this solution will not work.

If the Pro / Con Statements are sourced and referenced there is no need to put editors names beside them. Like I said above, if editors are putting forward the same rational on options there is not need to repeat them all, just use one.

The Pro / Con Statements are less problematic than all the other discussions because of the use of sources. There is not need for discussion or debate because it is all fact based. If I provide a reference/source or cite a policy and an editor wishes to challenge them, they simply put forward an alternative reference/source or offer their “interpretation” of any cited policy. Should any disagreement persist, both will be presented either for or against and the reader can make their own determination based on the weight of evidence. This process of challenging has been outlined above by Masem here

Because the Pro / Con Statements are being directed towards the reader to inform them they must be fact based. Coll Mac illustrated this very well above by using a deliberately bogus statement to illustrated why sources are necessary.

1. Editors who object to this should really be asked why they don’t what to provide fact/policy based rationales for the options they are offering to readers in this poll?
2. I’d like to ask them now, what are the objections to offering fact/policy based rationales both for and against each option to readers?
3. What is their reasons/motivation for not wishing to provide readers with the information that will help them in coming to a balanced and informed decision? --Domer48_'fenian' 12:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's totally disingenuous, Domer. You know perfectly well that the text which is now in my personal Position Statement was worked on for several weeks by a number of editors. -- Evertype·✆ 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to have to agree with Domer, but i agree. We MUST have pro / con statements, i honestly dont see how we can put this to a vote without informing people about the different options, the implications are too great. I dont have a problem with the pros / cons meeting a certain standard, like basic sourcing and common sense. I just dont want us to go crazy about needing a source to say the obvious.. like "Ireland is ambiguous". That does not need a source, its obvious. Masem must decide if the statement is reasonable, and like with an example mentioned above it cant just be a lie or misleading.

This whole process has changed my mind about how i will be voting. Its clear to me now that there is overwhelming evidence to justify the current setup of the articles. The only reason we have got here is because some people have mislead others about Republic of Ireland being a "British POV term" which is clearly not the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, you can vote the way you want. However, we have consensus to have a vote. -- Evertype·✆ 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

OK, how about this:

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

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

Sorry but i dont like the idea that "No distinction be made between "pro/con" statements and "position statements"" . There must be pros and cons in the introduction, or linked on the ballot paper next to the correct option. I dont see how we can treat them the same way as peoples own position statements. People must be given the basic implications of certain changes, which is why we need the cons section and there must be basic points to justify the options. that should be kept separate from peoples own long written views.

i agree with the other points about allowing people to petition against certain points and demanding they meet wiki guidelines. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I am adamantly opposed to any canvassing of any kind on the ballot paper, and all arguments are a form of canvassing. I object to your proposal "A link to the relevant specific section of the page beneath each of the options on the ballot paper will be placed (e.g. "See arguments for and against Option B")" -- I think no good can come of this. I'm sorry, but I have been opposed to this from the beginning. It was already rejected to put Pros/Cons on the ballot, and I think it is extraordinary bad faith to try to do so again now. The process you have outlined here is a guarantee of three more weeks of this "process" (I almost wrote "charade") -- Coll Mac has pointed out that we see 7 editors above approving my call to move forward, and only two opposing, neither of whom are lifing the pen to propose anything substantive toward the collaboration. I oppose very strongly any attempt to divide "Position Statements" from "Arguments For and Against". This is duplication of effort. As far as I am concerned it is a deal-breaker. It is not moving forward, and it is putting some editors' statements at a different level from others'. -- Evertype·✆ 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I want us to move forward Evertype, but not at any cost. The implications of this vote are HUGE. People need clear pros / cons on the ballot paper or linked next to the options. Without clear pros / cons which are seen as accurate (rather than statements where people can rant away all they like), people may choose an option not knowing all the facts. If this was just going to be an internal vote with the people here then i wouldnt care about pro/con statements, id say just go straight to the vote because we all know the facts. But if this is going to be open to people from all over wikipedia who have never been involved in the dispute or dont know anything about it, they need information. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, in the real world ballots do not have arguments on them. Arguments belong somewhere else. It's canvassing. We don't need that. We are UNABLE to come up with a set of Pro/Con arguments that satisfy everyone. We have proved this already. Hence my request below. -- Evertype·✆ 13:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, there is no substantive difference between ranting away on a specific "pro/con statements", or ranting away on a general "position statement" What I am proposing is a system whereby people won't be able to "rant away all the like". Both general and specific statements would be subject to verification, etc. and be available for voters to read. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The implications of this are not HUGE, BritishWatcher. The implications of stem-cell research, or of going to Mars, are HUGE. This is about naming some encyclopaedia articles. -- Evertype·✆ 13:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wow.

• BritishWatcher doesn't like it because '[n]o distinction [would] be made between 'pro/con' statements and 'position statements'"
• Evertype doesn't like it because he opposes "very strongly any attempt to divide 'Position Statements' from 'Arguments For and Against'" (bold text removed).

We are through the looking glass, people. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal splits Position Statements and Pro/Con arguments into two separate areas. I oppose that. -- Evertype·✆ 13:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

His proposal puts them on equal footing "No distinction be made between "pro/con" statements and "position statements"".. in the same area. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is a positive move forward and I hope it continues. I agree with the point made by BritishWatcher about linking the “Pro/Con Statements” and the “Position Statements” together as being a bad idea. Readers are only interested in the reasons for and against the options the basic facts, not editors thoughts/views/opinions on the them. However we seem to be moving to the position of having the Pro/Con Statements attached to the options, and that some form of fact checking is needed. This is all very welcome. Providing fact/policy based arguments for and against the options is not canvassing, putting editor’s views and opinions forward is. Suggesting that the “Pro/Con Statements” have been rejected even though they are still being discussed and a number of editors agreeing with having them is disruptive and displays some very bad faith. It was agreed that editors can draw up their “Position Statements” so editors should really stop trying to confuse the two completely different things. Editors know full well they are different things. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• Name of the article on the political entity

• Ireland

• 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.

• Ireland (state)

• In favour: The article title needs a disambiguator because "Ireland" is ambiguous. "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.
• Against: The word state could confuse some readers, because the United States and Australia use the term for administrative divisions.

• Republic of Ireland

• In favour: "Republic of Ireland" is a valid alternative name for the article on the political entity, per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.".
• Against: The intent of the Republic of Ireland Act was specifically to give a description, not a name; the only name of the political entity is specified in the Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland".

• Name of the article on the island

• Ireland

• 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.

• Ireland (island)

• In favour: The article title needs a disambiguator because "Ireland" is ambiguous. "Ireland (island)" works as a disambiguation term because it is neutral and factual.
• Against: The term is not unambiguous. See Ireland Island, Bermuda and New Ireland (island).

• A single article for both island and political entity

• In favour: Historically, the island and the political entity are the same. Currently the six counties of Northern Ireland are outside its jurisdiction but this may change in the future. Encyclopedia Britannica has only a single article for the two.
• Against: Historically, the whole island was part of the United Kingdom. Only the 26-county state became independent and this is unlikely to change in the future.

• A third article separate from the 'island' and 'political entity' articles

• In favour: The term "Ireland" does not have a primary meaning. An article is needed that covers all meanings of the term. The existing articles should deal only with their specific subjects.
• Against: A disambiguation page is adequate where a term has more than one meaning.

Didn't you reject these? For no specific reason? I'm fairly sure you did. -- Evertype·✆

Well i never rejected those, thats the sort of thing i want although in MORE detail. There are many important reasons against certain options and they should all be listed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A ballot can't be an encyclopaedic essay. These were meant to be summaries, as short as possible. And dammit, it's no good saying "there are many important reasons". You have to offer text if you are putting together a document. And that is what we were trying to do. -- Evertype·✆ 14:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Caoineadh chun Masem

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

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

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

Who are the "two editors"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please only use English. What is Caoineadh chun / Ochón is ochón ó ? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, now. Heartfelt thanks to both of you for not looking at the substantive proposal just above. That's very helpful. -- Evertype·✆ 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

"Caoineadh chun Masem" = Crying out for Masem Lament offered to Masem

"Ochón is ochón ó." = Alas and alack!/Woe is me!

And who are these "two editors"?

"Heartfelt thanks to both of you for not looking at the substantive proposal just above." No problem. Only returning the favour. I strongly oppose because it contained one thing I didn't like. Ochón is ochón ó! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for translations. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One is entitled to sustained fundamental opposition to thinks one thinks are serious mistakes. -- Evertype·✆ 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And one wonder then why one cannot get agreement? "Your gainsaying everything gets us nowhere." Is that what one said? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have given clear reasons for why I think (1) having two sets of arguments (Pro/Con summary vs Position Statements) is a bad idea and (2) why individual editor's names and specific arguments should not be on the ballot paper itself. At one time I hoped for, and wasted weeks working on, a list of Pro/Con summaries for the ballot itself. This was rejected, for no better reason than "I don't like it because it makes it look as though there are arguments against my POV". What I see you doing these days, Rannṗáirtí, is making the Position Statements page more and more confusing. I called that "overticking the plumbing". -- Evertype·✆ 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than having a go at rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, BW, Masem and Me, why not go to the end of this section and address the questions down there. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

• Whether or not statements are to be sourced/supported by policy/guideline or not.

  On this point, I only can fairly say that sourcing and supporting arguments will give you an essay that is much more likely to convince readers than one that makes wild claims, simply because no where else on WP where we use such position statements do we require the same. We have to assume the readers are smart enough that if they see a claim and don't see a source next to it, they need to think to themselves "". We cannot baby-step the voters through the decision process - only the actual voting part.

• Whether to specifically link each one to a section in options (whether split between pro/con or not is another issue) or just one link.

  I'm tending to think what would be better as to not bog down the ballot page is to first make clear there's a position page elsewhere (in the header or just below it) and direct voters to read through that to learn the issues. But impatient voters may jump to the options, in which case I recommend we link to a section of statements on that page for that option. That is, instead of linking via editor name, just one general link. It's doing the same job without what could be see as a bog-down of the page. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

" But impatient voters may jump to the options" this is the thing i am concerned the most about as this is a poll open to everyone rather than the just those involved in this process who already know the details. People need the key facts for and against in their faces, clear for all to see rather than a dozen long winded position statements which many sadly will not bother to read. I agree about not linking via editors names. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First, there will always be voters that will ignore these - whether placed in their face or not - and vote based on a logical choice (maybe keeping the status quo, maybe going for the "obvious" "ireland as disambig page" solution, or whatever). Most of the rest that will want to be informed just need to know where that info is. If it's right on the page, hey great, but as we've determined from trying to do that before (first pro/con statements alone, then when I tried to provide a header) we have to go deep into explaining the entire issue and that's going to bog down the page. But those same voters, if they see a link for information, can go and read through that and then come back and make their informed choice. As long as we don't hide where those statements are, those voters that need more information will know where to find it. Thus, in weighing the challenge of trying to add as-neutral-as-possible pro/con statements verses the reasonable intelligence of the voters, I'd be working on assuming voters are not stupid and will be able to find this information as long as we link to the statements. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Masem, do I understand correctly your first point: It is up to the author of a Position Statement to give sources or not? -- Evertype·✆ 14:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. Any other place on WP where there is statements and positions (AFD, ArbCom, etc.), sourcing and supporting is not required, though clearly there are consequences of not doing so in that your argument may be less persuasive or completely ignored compared to one that is sourced. I cannot see any reason for changing that presumption here. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Masem, I do not understand your second point. It is a question of design. (1) If neutral Pro/Con arguments could have been in the Preamble, they would have been. But this was rejected, so now we have the infobox. (2) Having any editor's name on the ballot is in my view a kind of canvassing; I don't want Domer's name there, nor mine, nor Scoláire's, nor Coll Mac's. Nobody's. I feel the same about having actual arguments on the ballot page. I propose that they be on a second page. Please guide us and accept or reject this proposal. -- Evertype·✆ 14:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Masem, what's not working here is that we can't get closure on ANY of the documents. We should have a stable and fixed ballot paper and then arguments can be put together on a separate page. It's not working to just try to edit all these documents at the same time. It is all too much up in the air. Nobody has the baton, so the race gets nowhere. -- Evertype·✆ 14:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Masem, do you believe that (1) it is possible for this Project to come up with a consensual set of Pro/Con arguments? (2) If so, do you believe that they should go on the ballot paper? (3) If not, do you accept my suggestion that Proposal Statements may be an argument for a particular position or alternatively a list of Pro/Con arguments? -- Evertype·✆ 14:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem offered a suggestion on fact checking here and you rejected it.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Using the problems of the “Preamble” to suggest that we would have the same problems is a red herring. I’ve offered a number of suggestions on how the statements can be handled, as has Masem but they have been ignored. It is not only possible to provide Pro/Con statements its practical. Asking weather we can have consensus is another big Red Herring. The fact that there is both Pro and Con statements allows editors the opportunity to agree to disagree. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Evertype your comments are bordering on frantic right now and I suggest you relax. You have been throwing around a number of very misleading comments and you’ll have to stop. The “Pro/Con Statements” have not been rejected, in fact quite the opposite. Editors are now supporting the statements and we have moved on to the process of fact checking. You have attempted a number of times now to link both the “Pro/Con Statements” and the “Personal Statements” as if they are one in the same, they are not and you know it. So stop with the pleading to Masem and saying that it is all “bitching and bickering down here in the trenches” because its not. Everyone is moving forward and there is some productive moves being made. The only ones bitching is you and Bastun, pulling me up on my spelling of all things. Stop trying to drag the process down because you disagree with something, and distorting and misleading editors with your opinions. I disagree with the whole notion of a poll but I’m here working with editors I disagree with to make it better. Now Masem is starting to move forward with the rest of us its about time you started. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Every week, week on week, we make progress and then it gets blocked. How many more weeks (or months) do you want this to go on, Domer? It seems that you enjoy it. I don't see you making "productive moves". I see you writing no Position Statement. I see you offering no list of Pro/Con arguments. Only through improving text does the ballot get better. I've been behind this Process from the beginning. I filed the request with ArbCom, for pity's sake. -- Evertype·✆ 14:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One is entitled to sustained fundamental opposition to [things] one thinks are serious mistakes. -- Evertype·✆ 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The implications of this are not HUGE, BritishWatcher. The implications of stem-cell research, or of going to Mars, are HUGE. This is about naming some encyclopaedia articles. -- Evertype·✆ 13:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So stop with the dramatics. ArbCom rejected your request and stated it was a content dispute and sent it back to editors. Now content disputes normally involve sources/references and policy but no you pushed for a poll. Now this is a content dispute and you reject again using sources/references and policy. You have your poll now, but its going to be done right. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't GET to a poll without some kind of document structure. Your gainsaying everything gets us nowhere. Masem has indicated that Position Statements need not be sourced; it is the editor's discretion. That issue is now closed. Kindly do not re-open it. -- Evertype·✆ 14:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And ArbCom did not reject my request. We are in an Arbitration Process now, because they accepted my request. -- Evertype·✆ 14:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Rannpháirtí anaithnid in responce to you here. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Coll Mac editors have already been told that they can go ahead with their "Position Statements" there was no need for a poll. This is about the “Pro/Con Statements” different thing altogether, did you not read my post above. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The issues involved on the Pro and Con Statements are:

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

Because the Pro / Con Statements are being directed towards the reader to inform them they must be fact based. Coll Mac illustrated this very well above by using a deliberately bogus statement to illustrated why sources are necessary.

1. Editors who object to this should really be asked why they don’t what to provide fact/policy based rationales for the options they are offering to readers in this poll?
2. I’d like to ask them now, what are the objections to offering fact/policy based rationales both for and against each option to readers?
3. What is their reasons/motivation for not wishing to provide readers with the information that will help them in coming to a balanced and informed decision?--Domer48_'fenian' 14:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Statements For and Against the process

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

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

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

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

Having condensed the statements and removed repetition they can then be linked to the various options. Readers are then presented with sourced/referenced and policies based reasons for each option. They are not been given editors views, opinions or preferences just the basic facts. They are presented with the rationales for and against in a clear and concise format were they are then able to make an informed decision as to the various options. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Per Masems suggestion or along them lines which would involve editors "pointing out flaws or problems with the arguments, not to point readers to others. These counter-points can be used to address any (as seen by the responder) deficiencies in the essay arguments whether that be lack of sources, incorrect application of policy, misinterpreted facts, or just a general POV statement." Yesterdays example is what you requested, just one example. I did provide a whole article which would of added context which I did also say yesterday. That reference I used yesterday on its own would not be enough it would need additional sources and used in the correct context. However yesterday you offered no alternative reference to challenge it and only offered your opinion. Opinions are one thing, but in an Encyclopaedia sources/references are the basis of a challenge. While I would like to have a good Wikipedia content editor help with the fact checking, Masem seems to be the one we are going to have to decide. If the issue is beyond the editors and Masem, rather than bog things down, the statements will contain possibly the same policy argued from different points likewise the sources it will then be the reader who makes the final decision. On the statements though, we would not be using them too challenge each other, we would be presenting them without making reference to any other statement. It is the reader who makes an informed discussion based on the facts presented. If they are presented in a way that they are used both for and against an option, they are the final arbitrator. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"However yesterday you offered no alternative reference to challenge it..." My opinion is neither here nor there, the issue was that use of that quote as support for that statement, would be original research: "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source."

I don't see a collective pro/con statement working. We tried it before. It sank. But I would be willing to try again if it could be done quickly. At this stage I think it is behooven to those that want pro/con statements to make the effort to reach a consensus on the matter - and establish one quickly - otherwise, we will have to move on without them. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given an outline of the process above, would you like to comment on it and offer suggestions? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Masem's suggestion is good, but I want to sort of the actual details: what happens and when, who does what, how is it decided and why. I think for something so dense as bullet points, a process like that is unworkable (because bullet points are necessarily vague, especially when we should have been long started with the vote by now and time is upon us). See my suggestion below. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How would people feel if we went along with everyone writting their statements (if they want to) then we attempt to pick the main points (provided they are accurate) from all of the statements for and against each option and put them as bullet points on a separate page which is linked on the ballot next to the options or on the ballot paper itself using that (show/hide) feature as has been shown before for something else.

So for example, the statement by Bastun in favour of the status quo raises good points and goes into good detail, but those points could easily be put in a few bullet points as main arguments for the option aswell which could be easily viewed by everyone, where as many wouldnt be prepared to read through his whole statement and everyone elses because people are lazy. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem with your suggestions. The bullets points would definitly work as would the (show/hide) feature linked to the options. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@BW, I think that sounds good, but rather than wasting more time trying to agree on a summary how about each editor completes a series of 20-word precis. These precis should be drawn from arguments for/against each options that is stated in their position statements. We should then combine or remove duplicate/redundant precis (rather brutally, I think). The remaining precis should then be arranged either on the page itself (how to be decided later) or the position statements subpage. Links to the positions statements that fed into each individual precis should be linked to from beneath/beside each precis.

I would also favour a kind of validity checking process, like I outlined above. The precise would not be subject to validity checking, but rather the position statement (an argument from which was merely summarised in the precis). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good points. However I don't see how there could be any reasonable rational to combine what will in effect be sourced/referenced and policy based rationales with general comments i.e editors personal statements. We achive balance by removing our own personal opinions and just presenting facts. They may possibly be conflicting facts but its the reader who has the last word. We all seem to agree on the fact checking with the Pro/Con Statements and that is a big plus. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You are presuming that the position statements are "personal opinions". I say we start of with "sourced/referenced" positions statements (though the process of the sort Masem described - the exact details of which I want spelt out, my suggestion is above). Then, after we are happy with those, we extract arguments as precis from those (which will by "sourced/referenced" since the original position statement that they were drawn from was). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

See i would like to have seen something where these sort of bullet points appear on the ballot paper, with the show / hide feature as was previously shown above to try and make the ballot paper shorter or a clear link to the page showing the points right next to the option in question.

• It meets Wikipedia:Naming conventions
• Island of Ireland has no alternative English name, unlike the State which has Republic of Ireland
• Republic of Ireland is official description as designated by the state
• Republic of Ireland is commonly used by the Irish government and Irish media
• Many country articles on Wikipedia are not at their official names
• Polls over the past few years have continued to show a majority against changing the current article locations

All of these points were basically in Bastuns statement, but the average person coming along to vote is far more likely to read these bullet points than read his whole statement which goes into more detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup. What I am suggesting is a three-phase process. 1) We make position statements ahead of a deadline. 2) We fact-check them through a finite process (like the one I said above) ahead of some deadline. 3) We extract max 20-word precis from the argument contained in the statements ahead of some deadline.

I'd like this whole process finished in three weeks (i.e. one week given to each step) after which we run the vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support most of that, give people a week to make statements (if they want), then spend some time "fast-checking" it. Then extract word limited points to list as the pros and cons and again pause for a few days allowing for any problems with the points to be raised. I wouldnt want there to be a limit on the numnber of points allowed though, aslong as its not repeating itself. If theres 10 clear pros for one option and 10 negatives for another, they should all be listed. We cant say for example, Option 4 only has two good points there for only two points can be listed for all other options.

These points would then either be on the ballot paper with the hide/show feature as we saw before, or a clear link to the page with the points. Im not sure about setting an external deadline, the implications of this vote will result in the articles spending 2 years at the chosen locations, we CAN NOT rush this process. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid double jobbing is basically what your saying. The hold up on the "Position Statements" which was then agreed was because some editors did not want to have to be "sourced/referenced" and that's why they have been called "POV Statements." Your suggesting now that the "Position Statements" should be fact checked am I right? I'm not presuming that the position statements are "personal opinions" they were and always have been? Now if you want to suggest that they be now fact checked I'll support it but I'd suggest you'll meet opposition. After we are happy with the "sourced/referenced" positions statements and we extract arguments will they then become the "Pro/Con Statements" and be linked to each of the options? If that's the case we are calling for the same thing, because you will still be left with the origional "Position Statements" and what do we do with them? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the substantive issue was how to "fact-check". I think a process for Masem's suggestion like I gave above would be satisfactory to most because it is a finite process that will end (i.e. it will not go on forever, with editors arguing over nothing). Would you agree to that process for "fact checking"?

What do we do with the original statements after precis have been extracted? They can be linked to from the statements page (which will be mentioned in the intro box) and people can read it. It can also be linked to from precis that have been drawn from it. (Since the precis won't contain references or nuances of arguments, it would be helpful IMHO if people could see the argument in "full".)

Example, my position statement gives a pro/con for the "merge" option. After it has been fact checked though some process, at least two 20-word precis could be extracted it:

• There is enormous overlap between the two articles. History, culture, geography, etc. make it difficult to discuss the two separately.
• The Republic of Ireland article was spun out from a single, original Ireland article. The same would likely happen again.

Assuming that the original position statement was fact checked, we could infer that these two precis are at least basically sound. So they don't require anymore sourcing. The limit of 20 words keeps the precis focused. For the argument in full a reader can go to the relevant position statement(s) (which at this time have been "fact checked").

I think we should brutal in combining duplicate/redundant precis from different editors and precis that deal with essentially the same argument on the principle that "less is more". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

No. That works. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool by me. So we can go ahead with the proposal below so? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutly not, per my comment below. My personal rationale will be linked next to my signature on the ballot, and will be in a location of my choosing and under my control, and will not be plastered with pointless templates. I suggest if this is unnacceptable, we consider the validity of the 'Position statments' issue officially disputed, and settle it formally as an Arbitration Ammenment, clarifying the merits of these conditions to the polling process. MickMacNee (talk)

Normally, I'd agree with you - most of our !voting processes are based on the added text of the voter's rationale. This situation is radically different. The discussion has been going on forever, and people are camped to their specific choices. Attempts in the past few years (not days, or weeks) have been fruitless to change more than a handful of people's minds. Any discussion towards any single solution tends to devolve into circular arguments, and it's like beating a dead horse, over and over and over again. The last thing that is needed here is more discussion. That's not to say that it's important for people to speak their peace on the subject and try to convince the voters to select the options they want or avoid those they don't. But to include voting rationales on this ballot is going to invite further, and likely unwarrented, discussion that could weigh down the ballot page. You can make a position sttement, you can comment on the ballot's talk page, but for sake of just getting this done without creating even more drama, cutting down on what ends up appearing on the ballot is going to go a long way. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring a few crucial points. First, I am merely adding a link next to my sig alongside my ABCD vote, I am not adding a long discussion on the ballot page, and any rebuttal will be removed under the 'no comment' rule. Second, this vote is nothing like any previous votes, the options have never been laid out like this before. It doesn't make any sense to bar a rationale link like this based on the fact it will invite discussion, when the poll goes live it will invite kilobytes of irrelevance, that is a fact of life that just has to be handled in the normal way. But anybody who understands why the vote is occuring, is entitled to use the simple and accepted method of explaining to any watcher who also understands why the vote is happening, why they voted ABDC and not CDBA or even ABCDEFGH or X only. MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support a simple linked rationale to the ballot talk page from votes. I thought you were implying of including the text of the rationale on the ballot page itself, but a link by no means pollutes the issue and encourages the discussion in a better venue. Maybe there'll be a standard "Statement by X" approach there, so linking would be simple. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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

• Pros/cons are by whoever wants to write them (you write an essay, and say "this is a pro for Option Q", it will be added there.)
• The link will be on the statement page. The only link on the ballot page will be a link to the statement page (or specific section of it) that says "Prepared statements on this option can be found here" (or something like that).
• I'll have to relook at the 20 words thing - I can't see it easily through the rest on this page. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Pros / cons comments about bullet points / 20 word limits are in this section. If the Pros / cons are just going to be in peoples own statements, then we are basically not having pros / cons at all as people can choose their own layout of their statements. I must oppose this, the only reason i accepted not going into basic pros / cons in the opening statement was if there were separate and clear pro / cons shown easily found on or linked on the ballot paper next to the options.

Please have a read of the comments from the top of this section, i give an example of easily presented bullet points which are all just extracted from Bastuns statement. The trouble is most wont read detailed statements, thats why i support the basic facts (pros / cons) being shown for everyone.. its more likely to help people decide how to vote than just very long statements by a dozen users. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What can't hurt the process is to attempt the 20 word thing, after giving editors time to get their essays written. However, I would think it best me (or the other mod) to actually write up those 20 word things and then do a really quick thumbs-up/down to see if they could be used. If they are, great, if they aren't, fine, but we've wasted minimal time in deciding that. So I would tentatively say, lets add this step in but if it still ends up disagreeable, then we'll just abandon it for sake of going forward. (If this approach cannot produce accepted statements on the ballot page, then no other approach, short of someone pulling rank, will do so) --MASEM (t) 18:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes i think its a good idea that you or the other mod attempt to pick out the main valid points for and against each of the options, from everyones statements. Most statements will just be repeating the same basic arguments, so its not going to be a huge list, although as i mentioned above, if there are clearly alot of valid pros or cons to a certain argument they should all be included, we cant be politically correct and for example say (option two only has 2 positive points, there for thats the limit for all options). Fully support the process, where do u think they should be presented? on the ballot paper using the hide/show feature or linked to another page? i think the show/hide feature would lead to alot more people viewing the facts than if they have to click a link to another location. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

An angry layman

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

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

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

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

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

• Deadline for submission of position statements is 29 July 2009 at 21:00 UTC.
• 30-31 July and part of 1 August to be used as "preparation days" for formatting etc;
• Begin the vote on 1 August 2009 at 21:00 UTC.
• Notices to be posted at places agreed before.
• Poll to run for 42 days (extended to account for summer holidays) => ends: 12 September 2009 at 21:00 UTC.

• "Rules" as agreed before.

• Ballot paper to be as seen here.
  • Position statements' page as seen here.
  • Individual position statements to take a format similar to as seen here (i.e. health warning, nut shell, endorse/alternative statements).
    • Statements need not be sourced but are encouraged to be sourced.
    • Masem has the right to edit/remove any statement or part of for civility, unverifiable claims, etc..
• Result to be calculated by straight instant-runoff voting.

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

• Support as proposer Let's just get going. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - We can not rush this matter if we are opening this vote up to anyone and everyone from all across wikipedia who have no clue about this matter, theres no way the vote can begin in 3 days! lol. Although i would be interested to see a show of hands of people here who just want the current article names to remain the way they have been since the birth of wikipedia and for us all to go home. Arbcom never said we had to put this to a community wide vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support, as I've been whining about it for weeks. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Anything to finally get on with it and shut up the most tendentious editors. — ras52 (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral People cand do what they want on the issue of pro/cons, I am not wasting my time wading through the stuff above. But if we ever get this sodding poll off the ground, I am linking my personal rational from right next to my vote signature, in a wording of my choice, in a location of my choice, to support my reasons for my personal vote. Anybody who wants to discuss its wording can do so on my talk page. Nobody is going to tell me what can and cannot be in my rational beyond behavioural policies, or template it with crap because they think I am an evil POV pusher. If people want to take issue with that stance (including Masem), we can discuss it as a formal Arbitration Ammendment, because there is some bizarre and unprecedented stuff going on right now, and none of it being discussed by more than what? 4? editors. MickMacNee (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Gee, that's collaborative. If the rules are "no personal rational[e]s to be placed next to the ballot, will you complain when yours is moved? Or will you be nice about it and let it be moved? (I agree about the disclaimer header, but it's harmless.) -- Evertype·✆

• I'll simply argue my case that this bizarre 'rule' is not standard on Wikiepdia, has been decided by a paucity of editors, and serves no purpose but to aggravate good faith people who have endured this process for far too long, who simply want to register a vote on a poll on the agreed options. MickMacNee (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Mild Oppose.. Support. I realise you're getting frustrated with the tendentious editors (to which I'd repear my advice - apply the adminitrators' advice and simply ignore them). Three days notice is too short, though. There are only three position statements published. Give it a week instead, and I'd support. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Edit to add - 27th is better, 29th would be better yet, but changing to support. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bastun and BirdWatcher (in part), I would also plead with you and Evertype to allow the moderator to lead the process. Its important that the process is completed properly and the result is sustainable, it can't be driven with people with a position on the subject (even if that position is not extreme) --Snowded ^TALK 23:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Plead? I don't see anyone else drawing up ballot papers and trying to get this moved on. Do try it. You'll enjoy all the senseless roadblocks people will throw up no matter what you do. If the moderator would lead the process I would be delighted, but he does not seem to be interested in that, else he would have made some rulings and set some dates some time ago. Right now... this process has no shape, no deadline, no focus. -- Evertype·✆ 06:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• respond - I have no intention of trying it. I see a moderator who is giving guidance but allowing time, and a couple of editors who are on one side the debate forcing the pace. --Snowded ^TALK 07:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is something that should not be rushed, we have set deadlines several times in the past and all that happens is theres a panic and we miss the deadline. Id rather we just get it right before trying to rush to the polls. lol @ BirdWatcher =) BritishWatcher (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral, (edit conflict), I have to be neutral as my input into this page has been almost zero of late. Masem should review the situation, and make a lead from there. Tfz 23:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that if we were able to agree on the pros and the cons by discussion, then we would most likely have been able to resolve this entire issue by discussion? Get real people! The pro/con statements will never reach consensus, a good effort was made and it was nixed. Since then, no-one has provided anything substantive and there is little sign anyone will - instead editors editors appear more interested in arguing about them, than actually providing them. So lets ditch them and let everyone have their say whatever the hell they want to say in their own user space. If you want to write utter garbage in support of your vote (and providing questionable sources to support utter garbage doesn't stop it being utter garbage), go right ahead. The chances are 99% of the people are not going to read it anyway, and of those that do most will see it for what it is. The pro/con issue is a solution looking for a problem. Rockpocket 23:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Rockpocket. It's not about pros and cons. We drew up a lost of those previously, but naysayers said their nay. Not ONE of those naysayers has drawn up a list of pros and cons, either. They just TALK about it. At this stage I don't see much positive coming from people who oppose starting this poll. Snowded wants the process "to be completed 'properly'" which means little. The result of the poll -- which will be decided by community-wide ballot -- will be "sustained" for two years. BritishWatcher wants to have two weeks to write his Position Statement. What's he been doing for the last two weeks? If you've got till the 27th to write your Position Statements, there's no reason to cry foul. -- Evertype·✆ 06:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not even intend writing my own position statement, i think less than 1/5th of the people who take part in the poll will bother to read any of them anyway. This is why i strongly support pros and cons which appear on the ballot or which are clearly linked next to the option which are likely to get seen by more people and in simple bullet point form are more likely to be taken in than long user statements. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Lets have the substantive vote asap. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redking7 (talk • contribs)
• Support - The bias in the ballot paper statement has been largely removed. (If BW is struggling with his position I'm prepared to write it for him:) Sarah777 (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Comment: Coming as it does during what has been a product and positive discussion its not Bold its disruptive. It is also another sign of the panic here today as we move closer to putting together the Pro/Con Statements. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A better discriptive would be 'exasperation'. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My reason for asking is because if we are to go ahead with a process for "fact checking" of statements (of which there are only three so far) then it will take some time. We will need a clear run at that business.

The vote was supposed to have started several weeks ago by now, and a number of editors have expressed a desire for it to just go ahead already, so, before we begin work on "fact checking" pro/con statements, let's see a show of hands.

(I've moved this discussion down to a comments area so we can keep a clear eye on the "show of hands".) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How can the vote start in 3 days time if we are going ahead with having people write their statements and needing to fast check everything then pick points out for the pros/cons.. That cant all be done in 3 days, it will take a couple of weeks. This vote will lead to articles being in a certain place for 2 years, i do not want us to rush into it without making sure the facts are clearly presented for everyone. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No "fast checking", no pro/cons using this way. Just go ahead with what we have. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Rannṗáirtí, you need to back up a teensy bit. You need to set a deadline for people to file their Position Statements, allow time for (for instance) you and me to move any where they need to be or reformat carefully if they are not in the prescribed format, allow time for Masem to read them for content (say, 48 hours for all of that). Then the poll can begin 24 hours later. Stick to the 21:00 deadlines. Give 7 days FROM TODAY for the Statements to be written. That means.... Statements submitted by 2100 UTC on Wednesday 29th, any processing done by 2100 UTC Friday 31st, and Poll starts at or before 2100 UTC Lá Lúnasa, 1 August. -- Evertype·✆ 06:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

the 27th instead of the 24th is far more reasonable, i dont have too much problem with that aslong as the deadline can be set back if there is a delay with "fast checking" or disputes about certain points. A week is certainly long enough for people to submit their own statements, but im not sure how long fixing everything up after those are completed will take. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

27th is better, 29th would be better still. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the dates as suggested. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The question is: Should the information given to participants in the poll be sourced/referenced and policy based rationales for each option, as opposed to POV/soapbox statements without the need for references by editors involved in creating the problem. I'll go of now and put together some more sourced/referenced and policy based facts for an article I created yesterday. I could save myself the trouble and not use sourced/referenced and policy based facts at all but hey I'm a Wikipedian and thats how we are supposed to do things here.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

How does one get 'more involved', when the process has become confusing. Most of the time, I haven't a clue as to what's being disputed over. All I'm interested in, is having Republic of Ireland moved to 'Ireland (state) or Ireland (republic)'; Ireland to 'Ireland (island)' & Ireland (disambiguation) to 'Ireland'. The rest is jus mumbo jumbo (to me). Unfortunately, I don't have the time or intellect to figure out all these mazes. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well stay out of it and stop with the comments that do nothing to help. I watch the page but couldn't be arsed to get sucked in to the nonsense that is being portrayed as collaboration. BigDunc 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Now there's an idea. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is usually only one sensible vein flowing through a page like this, and plenty of cacophony and dross swirling around it. It can be an effort to get back into "the pertinent issues" when one loses touch for a few days. Is it worth the effort to get engaged again? Maybe so. Tfz 18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Support: Per rational above.

I made it pretty clear weeks ago that I did not support any kind of pro/con statements on the page, sourced or not. So I hope you don't include me in the above comment about editors who 'have not done a tap for this process'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to chip in with my sympathy for GoodDay's sentiments - "All I'm interested in, is having Republic of Ireland moved to 'Ireland (state) or Ireland (republic)'; Ireland to 'Ireland (island)' & Ireland (disambiguation) to 'Ireland'. The rest is jus[t] mumbo jumbo (to me)." I have plenty of intellect (as I'm sure the more modest GoodDay has too) to understand the real issues - its as simple as voting on three article moves. Unfortunately, empty cans make the most noise, hence the reams and reams of the above. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

All of us know how we are going to vote, the problem is this vote is open to everyone and anyone, many of whom will not know the facts, there for the arguments for and against certain options must be explained to them. If this was an internal vote just by all people who have signed up for this process, then we would of voted and finished by now. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet you have done nothing to provide any text that could go on the ballot. Since that's the case, it seems to me that if you can't be arsed to do that kind of (thankless and frustrating) editing work, it seems rather pointless for you to oppose the timetable proposed above. -- Evertype·✆ 09:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At the moment points for and against are not allowed on the ballot paper, i supported attempts to try and draft a reasonable intro that was balanced, but that failed as the statement overwhelming was stacked against the current setup which is unfair and unacceptable. I do not see the need to make a statement because all of the major points are ALREADY covered in statements written by others, if none made the case then i would have written one. I have certainly not been the only one to oppose steps that have been taken, in part the reason why we have gone round in circles so much is because certain editors here have rushed to get to the vote, not taking into account other peoples points of view and simplying thinking their way is best, not even allowing the chosen Mods to set the pace and shape this process.

This is a big vote. A bunch of editors who have strong points of view on this matter and in no way could be described as neutral have cried and cried for years which has led to this process. Now because a small minority have cried so hard the future locations of these articles could be any of the options on that ballot paper. If "Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland" was not one of the options, i would not have a problem with the deadlines or rush certain people want to take. But that awful and disgraceful option IS on the ballot paper, there for i have supported efforts that aim to guide people clearly about the implications and reasons for certain options. Without such advice many people who do not know all the previous arguments might make an ill informed vote, something i think should be avoided. All i want is the clear facts .. Pros and Cons for each option available for ALL to see, that isnt much as far as im concerned as this vote is for anyone and will result in article positions staying a certain way for 2 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, we worked very hard on the Pro/Con list, and I think it's quite unfair for you to characterize it as "stacked". You know what else? Just as many people think that "Keep Republic of Ireland where it is" is as "awful and disgraceful" as you think that "Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland" is. Until you accept that reality, you can't say that you're collaborating. And it goes the other way too. Both of these "awful and disgraceful" options are on the ballot because they are both valid options. It doesn't matter a fig that you loathe one of them. It's valid. It doesn't matter a fig that Sarah777 loathes the other one. It's valid. And both of them (and some others) are going to the greater community, because that is what we agreed. -- Evertype·✆ 14:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I said the attempt to draft an intro statement was stacked, not the attempt before that with the pros/cons list. The intro statement was overwhelmingly pushing against Republic of Ireland which was unfair, i said it should be balanced. I fully accepted certain editors feel strongly about it being at Republic of Ireland and until recently i was not going to be putting that as my first choice, i wanted the compromise of Ireland (state). At several stages in the past 6 months i have said we should scrap the two options which cause problems (Republic of Ireland and ROI at Ireland, if we got rid of those two then there could of been a friendly sensible debate about the article locations and if that failed we could of just gone to a vote without the need for any position statements. But that didnt happen, so we have those on the ballot paper. Now i dont see the big problem with wanting there to be clear pros / cons to each of the options which is all i have supported but i accept its hard to implement and takes time. Thats why i opposed the rush to hold a vote within 3 days and said i support the 1 week limit for statements then move forward giving some time to sort the layout / links to peoples statements and agree on the pros / con points. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I find that rather patronizing. I think most editors are eminently capable of educating themselves before voting. They don't need to be spoon fed. The real issue here, I suggest, is those who have expressed strong feeling about the subject - one way or the other - are terrified that they are not going to get the outcome they want, and thus want to convince the electorate of the merits of their preference by legitimizing it. Its no coincidence, I think, that those editors who have not expressed a strong preference are the ones that don't feel the need for a pro/con statement. When (if?) someone gets around to actually proposing a pro/con statement, I'll offer my opinion. Until then, I'm content to leave the talking shop to those who like to talk; because no progress is being made. Rockpocket 05:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well said. -- Evertype·✆ 09:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Most editors are capable of looking and finding the facts or making a reasonable judgement on the vote. But the problem is the word "most" in your sentence. At a previous stage when people wrote statements (many months ago) there were two points of view that were very closely divided. That means it is not unreasonable to presume that a small number of editors who vote could tip the balance a certain way and decide the outcome. There for it is not good enough to just say, most are capable so lets just get on with it. People should be given the pros and cons for each option clearly so they can decide for themselves, NOT simply be left to vote with no clear information accept a dozen huge user statements which most people will not be prepared to vote. I would happily of wrote a Pros and cons list to certain points but the process of how we move forward has not been clear. Masem above has said the mods might try to draft the pros/cons points from users statements, that seems like a good neutral way to proceed as far as im concerned. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The main reason for my actions are because i strongly oopose one of the options (Republic of Ireland at Ireland so i want to ensure that people can clearly see the negative points for that option in a fair way with the other options being treated the same way. For me it has not been about pushing for one option, its been against one proposed option which most people here do not support, but when we open up the vote to anyone and everyone, not all will be informed and some will take a simplistic approach without fully considering the options and implications. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And Sarah777 (for instance) strongly opposes one of the options (State at Republic of Ireland), so you're even. But she's working on her Position Statement. Please do likewise. You've got six more days to write up all the points you want. If you don't, you can't say that you weren't given the chance to make your views known. -- Evertype·✆ 14:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I accept some hate that option as well, which is why all i have asked for is fair pros/cons to be displayed for each option clearly, and before that i just wanted a fair intro statement which presented facts not one that strongly attacks just one option (like the statement attacked ROI which was unfair). It is not like i have been seeking just the cons to be written for Republic of Ireland at Ireland, ive always said the pros / cons for each option should be displayed, my concern has been to ensure people can easily see the basic points for and against options because i can not believe most who vote will bother to read pages and pages of user statements. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

More inane pontificating. Those who have not expressed a strong preference find it difficult to support their preferences with references and sources or find policies to back them up which explains their silence. It laughable to say that they’ll only offer an opinion when editors provide their pro and con statements backed up by sources/references and policies after saying that none of these are necessary. So you have the editors who will not and refuse to support their opinions with sources wanting to pick over the supporting references of the editors who do.--Domer48_'fenian' 10:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Archiving

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

POV statements - a reassessment

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

What makes mine not a POV statement, just because I don't say vote for this or you're evil! doesn't make it any less a statement of my "point of view"? The distinction between pro/con statements and position statements is an artificial one, based more on format than substance.

Also, would we not have more but didn't you remove yours because you didn't want to be at a "party of two"? Maybe others are of the same mind and are merely holding back? I do suspect however that despite all of the loud noises, few have actually given thought to what they are going to write. But so what? If they are not willing to put word to paper then that's their loss, surely - and it should not be allowed to stall the process. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We have three and two halves one half right now. C'mon Scoláire. Put a statement in. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 14:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If I were to put back the link I had, it would be two in favour of option F, and a probable in favour of some other option. That wouldn't make it more balanced. Similarly, if there are people "holding back", which I doubt, and they are all going to come in a rush at the end to support the same one or two options, it will only make it even more skewed. Imagine the (quite possible) scenario where there are fifteen POV statements - twelve in favour of p, three in favour of q and zero in favour of r, s, t and u - what kind of message is that going to give to the voter? If all six options are equally valid they have to be seen to be equally valid. Failing that they should be taken off the ballot. All I'm saying here is that we should plan for these eventualities - lack of numbers or lack of balance - now instead of trying to figure out a solution with hours to go and risking another false start. Note that I don't want to stall the process; I'm only suggesting that ditching the POV statements may be the price we have to pay for keeping it on track! BTW I'm not saying that your submissions are not written from your point of view, only that they are not my idea of a 'POV statement' i.e. a statement in favour of or against one specific option. Scolaire (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While I'll probably add to it and tweak it a bit, I'm in the process of preparing a statement here. It'll need formatted a bit. Valenciano (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, Valenciano! Reliable sources and all! I guess you and Bastun have that one covered, then. No need for me to stick my oar in. Scolaire (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's wrong of him to say that RoI is a "perfectly acceptable" option. If its acceptability were indeed "perfect" we would not be here. His phrasing just calls anyone who has a (valid, as far as I can see) objection to RoI dunces. -- Evertype·✆ 07:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that's the point of these position statements. I'm not necessarily agreeing with him, but it is important that, once tagged with the template header that indicates this to be a POV-based statement, there's nothing incivil about that. I expect others will be stronger either way, but I have a hard time justifying any harm from that. --MASEM (t) 11:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Infelicitous, but you're right, the template header sorts it. -- Evertype·✆ 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Since all the cool kids are doing it, I decided to put a statement in: What's in a name? I decided to utilize extensive footnotes because, to paraphrase the Domer Dalai Lama, sources are necessities, not luxuries ;) Rockpocket 01:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody, for keeping me posted. That wasn't, however, the purpose of this section. In fact, the more people that post statements, the greater the potential for mayhem if it's discovered on the eve of the poll that the statements in total do the opposite of what they were intended to do - provide balanced information for the voter. Rockpocket, in your case do you see your statement as offering a perspective to a potential voter who is unaware of the history or the details of the issue? If so, what is the necessity of telling them to "calm the fuck down"? We all need to remain focussed on the voter, and to ask ourselves whether the final product will make it easier for them to vote, or make it easier for them to just not bother. Scolaire (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My general point is that Wikipedia will not implode if the "wrong" choice is made, because there is no wrong choice (or for that matter, no right choice). That said, I would rather only 20 people voted after giving it some serious thought, than 100 people vote after being swayed by some misleading propaganda one way or the other. If my statement puts someone off voting x,y,z only because editor Foo states is the other options are against policy, then its done it job. I don't apologize for that. I think its important the the voter should educate themselves and not rely on others (That is not to say all the other statements are misleading. So far, I would say most are very helpful. But they could be misleading, and the uneducated would not necessarily be able to tell the difference).

My pop culture nod to not acquiescing to "fussing and hollering" to get one's own way is not necessary (and may be too obscure for most to follow), but it was my preferred way of making that point. I don't envision it scaring too many people from voting. Rockpocket 07:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

[Domer48's] Statement in support of option A

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements/Domer48 --Domer48_'fenian' 10:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Replaced the ref list, the fact that its a talk page makes no difference. In my edit summary I said this is just a start to get the ball rolling. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It make a difference because:

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

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Hey, everyone. Please be NICE to Domer. You don't have to like what he wrote, but he's doing what everyone has been asked to do. He's free to write what he wants. Domer, I have copied your statement to where it belongs, so please continue to edit it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements/Domer48, and thanks for going to the trouble of preparing a Position Statement. It's important. -- Evertype·✆ 13:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldnt help but laugh after i saw "Please be NICE to Domer" by Evertype after previous clashes between the two of them. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I laughed myself, as I was writing it. But in fairness, he's making a contribution and people shouldn't bitch at him for doing so. (I did in fact ask him several times to do so.) -- Evertype·✆ 14:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What kind of patronising BS are you all going on about. I,m sure Domer doesn't need the likes of Bastun and BW being nice they never have and they never will and would just see it as the charade it would be. BigDunc 14:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Everybody needs other people to be nice to them. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 15:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I was being nice - and absolutely, all contributions welcome! (After ec with BigDunc's rant...) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As Part of the "Pro/Con Statement" process I've put forward some points. They are not part of the POV/Soapboxing Statements which are now being called "Position Statements." Now I asked above that a section be created for Pro and Con Statements and to date this has not happened. If editors, who seem to enjoy creating sub-pages wish they can knock one up and I'll post them on it. As to the patronising BS, I'd just ignore that. The frantic outbursts we witnessed above were indeed pathetic to watch by Evertype so there is no point in provoking more tantrums. BritishWatcher there has been no previous clashes between Evertype and myself. I've always remained reasonable and calm and don't go in for the grand displays we all had to sit through above. The pleading and imploring for Masem to intervene in a discussion in which they had not got a leg left to stand on prompting then the latest poll was just a bit too childish for me so I went off a put together an article. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia:Naming conventions & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The Government of the nation refers to itself as "Ireland", and not the "R/r epublic of Ireland".
• Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia:Naming conventions & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Today, the European Union note that the names of the Member States (not islands) 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.
• Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia:Naming conventions & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Ireland as the name of the State not the island and reflects current official usage by the Member States of the United Nations.
• Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia:Naming conventions & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view The UK Government use the Term Ireland to refer to the Irish State, not the island.
• Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia:Naming conventions & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.The American Government list “Ireland” in its Websites of U.S. Embassies, Consulates, and Diplomatic Missions.
• Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia:Naming conventions & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.The Irish Governments Diplomatic list contains 124 countries which have Diplomatic Embassies accredited to “Ireland”.

--Domer48_'fenian' 10:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, however, I'd like to point out that calling people "hypocrites", and "frantic" and "pathetic" is NOT "reasonable and calm", Domer. It is rude and boorish. -- Evertype·✆ 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I see Domer has deleted his Position Statement because he thinks that a Pro/Con statement is a different thing from a Position Statement. Well, whatever. I tried to be helpful. And even nice. -- Evertype·✆ 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

When calling you "frantic" and "pathetic" I was being very "reasonable and calm." It was and in my opinion is a perfectly accurate description of your wailing and balling because the discussion was moving towards agreement on the Pro/Con Statements and you were reduced to pleading and imploring Masem to step in. For the record though it was you who described yourselves as "hypocrites" above not me. However, the first one of you who challenges any of the sources/references and policies that I have put forward in support of any option will undoubtedly be behaving like "hypocrites" having yourselves said that you should not be asked to supply them with your POV/Soapboxing Statements at all. Your suggestion that the Pro/Con statement is not a different thing from a Position Statement is again in my opinion "pathetic" considering the discussions above. Trying to insult editors intelligence is boorish and I'd suggest you stop before you again make yourself look ridiculous. Now I’ll not be responding to anymore of your inane nonsense, and taking my own advice I’ll just ignore it. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Domer, you were engaging in a personal attack. You were not being "reasonable and calm". -- Evertype·✆ 17:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Domer, it's always better to see it written down, and the double taxation reference is a new one to me, I hadn't come across it before. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Domer, I've read your submission through. Can you just clarify for me how it is in support of option A rather than, say, option B? I cannot see any argument, referenced or not, for merging the 'state' and 'island' articles. Scolaire (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Scolaire having read through the other submissions, I find it curious you cannot see any argument, referenced or not with any of them. I find it curious that you did not need any of the editors to clarify for you anything in their submissions. Now mine is a work in progress, so why not in the mean time go off and ask the other editors to provide a rationale for their in some cases contorted logic. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right! The only reason any of us ask civil questions is to undermine your whole position! Don't answer my question, then, because I don't give a s**t! But do not tell me who to ask what to, ever, OK? Scolaire (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I really must point out to you that I never refused to answer your question, I simply told you that it is a work in progress. Now you’re completely over the top invective response does show how the creamy bitterness of vitriol and bias rises to the top with little agitation on my part. Likewise my suggestion to you address your comments to the others in the mean time, has been amplified by you into a command. This was followed I must say by a very chilly response, I feel like I been savaged by a baby goldfish, and will definitely give you a wide berth in the future. I’m really all a quiver and covered in Goosebumps. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Do you spend your spare time writing for Mills and Boon, Domer? "the creamy bitterness of vitriol" indeed! Furthermore, I think you mean "aquiver", rather than "a quiver", very different meaning. Anyway. My comments on this proposal are largely based around the misuse of sources to further a position.

1. The source provided does not support the statement made. The constitution says "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." It does not follow "...and not the "R/r epublic of Ireland." The qualifier is being used to further a position.
2. This statement misleads by omission. The document provides guidance for terms that "must be used by all the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union." Wikipedia is not a institution, body or agency of the European Union therefore that "must" is being used to further a position.
3. The source provided does not support the statement made. The source lists the names of member states. The island is not a member state, therefore it is not listed there. This source does not support the statement: "Ireland as the name of the State not the island". The qualifier is being used to further a position.
4. The sources provided does not support the statement made. They show the the UK Government has used the term Ireland to refer to the Irish State. They do not support the additional "...not the island." The qualifier is being used to further a position.
5. Yes, but so what? No-one is disputing Ireland is the name of the country. Countries do not have Embassies to islands, so no disambiguation is required on such as list.
6. Yes, but so what? No-one is disputing Ireland is the name of the country. Countries do not have Embassies to islands, so no disambiguation is required on such a list.

Thus, these are statements that further positions, ergo they are POV statements. Fine if you wish to put them in your userspace, not appropriate for the ballot, in my humble opinion. Rockpocket 03:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree. These could form a Position Statement, though of course Domer will come back and write a few paragraphs about what a pathetic whiner I am for not understanding that his "arguments" are "sourced" and "NPOV", and he will refuse to place his "arguments" on the Position Statements page. If he thinks this screed will get on the ballot paper he ought to think again. -- Evertype·✆ 07:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"However, the first one of you who challenges any of the sources/references and policies that I have put forward in support of any option will undoubtedly be behaving like "hypocrites" having yourselves said that you should not be asked to supply them with your POV/Soapboxing Statements at all." Yet another one pulls me up on splessing, very sad. Enough Said! --Domer48_'fenian' 07:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What's "splessing"? -- Evertype·✆ 07:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire penetrated by a bolt from Domer's quiver, possibly laced with creamy vitriol first

I think its a "witty" misspelling of spelling. Normally poor spelling doesn't concern me all that much (I make typos all the time, I'm sure there will be a few in this post). Its just that there is potential for serious confusion if people think you are a collective of spitting cobras rather than shivering with excitement. It was not clear why you blew Scolaire off with a — frankly — homo-erotic response (pictured), but I thought it would be better for all if I clarified your sementics.

Moving swiftly on, I think you should probably read up on the meaning of "hypocrite". The reason I am indifferent about demanding sources in positional statements is nicely illustrated by your examples. Demanding sources is not sufficient to stop POV laden statements, so why bother. The sources also have to be used appropriately and responsibly. You provide plenty of sources, but few if any actually support the position you take. Quite simply, bad sourcing is as bad as no sourcing (and maybe even worse, because it gives an illusion of legitimacy that no sources lack). So rather than call people hypocrites, why don't you edit your statements to reflect what the sources actually say? Rockpocket 03:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Witty, you say? -- Evertype·✆ 06:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I should make it clear that when I posed for that picture I did not expect it to be posted on the internet ;-) Scolaire (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Two thumbs up to that idea. But can we get a deadline for the end of the position statements? Are we going with the schedule that nearly every okay'ed above (position statements by Wednesday). Without a deadline there will be no ball rolling - just a group of twenty of so editors gathered around a ball wondering when it's going to start rolling. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's keep the deadline for position statements (at least, if you want those to be in at the start of the poll, and considered for use in these pro/con statements I've suggested), for next Weds as outlined. I still suggest that position statements can be completed after that, just that you won't have the same benefit if you had them done by the above deadline. Hopefully to get the poll going by that weekend if not sooner. --MASEM (t) 12:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem, you's the shiznit. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1. Editors who object to this should really be asked why they don’t what to provide fact/policy based rationales for the options they are offering to readers in this poll?
2. I’d like to ask them now, what are the objections to offering fact/policy based rationales both for and against each option to readers?
3. What is their reasons/motivation for not wishing to provide readers with the information that will help them in coming to a balanced and informed decision?

I'll be doing a bit of reading for an article I'm putting together so I'll be in and out a bit. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As usual, Domer, you are ignoring the facts. The pro/con statements which Masem refers to are now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements/Evertype. It is a falsehood for youto say that we did not try to draft such statements before. Those are the statements we tried to draft. Kindly refrain from further falsehood in this regard. It would be nice if you would lay off the "Soapboxing" malarkey as well. We know that you disdain any argument but your own. However, if Masem says that even your statement must be a "Position Statement" (sourced or not) then you will have the option of having your statement be a Position Statement, or having no input into the ballot document at all. That seems quite fair, to me. It puts you at no disadvantage than the rest of us will (gladly) suffer. -- Evertype·✆ 20:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to your questions:

1. I don't object to neutral, widely agreeable fact/policy based statement decided by consensus. However, we tried that already and it proved unsuccessful. Repeating the exercise serves no constructive purpose.
2. As above.
3. Are you still beating your wife?

Rockpocket 22:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• A POV warriors is an editor who refuses to back up their opinions with fact/policy based statements or can’t. All Editors agree that you can never achieve consensus with POV warriors. To look for consensus with them is futile, therefore to say you have tried and failed and can’t achieve consensus is a logical fallacy.

• All POV warriors rely on edit warring and disruption to make a point. In response to reasoned and rational discussion they rely on incivility, personal attacks including name calling. To avoid questions they use stonewalling, ignoring, deflecting or appearing to not understand the question.

• All POV warriors need to prosper is strength of numbers, and the ambivalence/ignorance or active/passive support of Admin’s. Isolated POV warriors are easily identified but can with the ambivalence/ignorance or active/passive support of Admin’s continue for some time to disrupt the project or have editors blocked.

• The only way to deal with POV warriors on an encyclopaedia is to insist on referenced/policy based statements. Providing them the opportunity to provide POV/Sandboxing Statements is never considered the "lesser of two evils."

The replies above are poor attempts to avoid answering the questions. So I’ll make it much more simple: Do editors of an encyclopedia accept the need for referenced support for information presented to readers, yes or no. Is it ever acceptable for an encyclopedia to present information to readers which is not supported by references and based on nothing other that the opinions of an editor, yes or no. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple answers. Do editors of an encyclopedia accept the need for referenced support for information presented to readers, yes or no? No, not in a ballot, which is an attempt to reach consensus, and does not therefore fall under encyclopaedic content. Is it ever acceptable for an encyclopedia to present information to readers which is not supported by references and based on nothing other that the opinions of an editor, yes or no? Yes, on a talk page, WikiProject page or ballot page, in the context of consensus-building. Scolaire (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment: Everybody in this discussion has expressed their point of view (POV), which is right and necessary for discussion. All but one have stopped short of open warfare, which makes you the only POV warrior here. Scolaire (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Scoláire; you're not the first to tell Domer that the ballot and the Position Statements are not encyclopaedia articles, but evidently he's selective about what he chooses to hear from other editors. -- Evertype·✆ 14:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet another large splodge of text from Domer repeating yet again what he's said already, and that no more than two editors occasionally appearing here would possibly agree with. Folks, please - administrators have already said that this sort of action (which I'd judge to be disruptive, but I'm not an admin) should just be ignored. Also - this page is for discussing process, not content or the merits or demerits of any one potential solution. No need to respond to rebut his arguments (which admittedly shouldn't be posted here in the first place, but instead on a Position Statement page). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bastun, I'm for pressing on as we've obviously agreed. Masem can be assured of the "major opposition" or at least "thumbs down" to an ad-hoc taste-testing of the Position Statements to provide a list of Pro/Con statements. Domer could write his stuff, and can have a Position Statement like everybody else, if he wants. Simple, easy, fair. -- Evertype·✆ 14:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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

As for the poor attempts to address comments to me instead of the argument I make, it is almost as ridiculous as the "lesser of two evils" nonsense above. I’m the one arguing for references/policies to be used, and the four comments above are arguing against, so that should simplify it. Getting them to address the questions I raised is proving as usual difficult, with clear signs of stonewalling, ignoring, and deflecting.--Domer48_'fenian' 15:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Lets simplify this for you Masem, you say “reliable sources give conflicting answers as to both the question as to if the island or country is most common, and the naming issues of the country itself” all I’m saying is offer readers the opportunity to see the conflicting “reliable sources” and make up their on mind. You and the editors above say no! --Domer48_'fenian' 15:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Domer is proposing that anybody with a point of view should be forced to 'source' it or withdraw their statement. Are you proposing we go along with that? How exactly do you suggest we apply that force? Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain. But, the impression I'm getting is that 'if' Domer's proposal isn't 'somehow' implimented, he (or others) may call the end results illegitimate. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be sure that no matter what we do, if it's not the result he wants he (or others) will call the end results illegitimate. Where does that leave us? Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Anyways, it was a thought. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Bastun's statement and Valenciano's work-in-progress are both adequately sourced. Evertype and Rannpháirtí anaithnid have chosen to provide arguments for and against every option, those the agree with and those they disagree with. There is nothing to stop you from finding sources for all of those arguments, GoodDay, if you wanted to move this process along. Scolaire (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to dig up & link sources to any statement of mine (PS: I'm not good at connecting external links). Besides, I don't need sources to back up my arguments: The country obviously doesn't cover the entire island. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually did laugh out loud! So much for "Howabout we go along with what Domer is proposing"! Scolaire (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the fate of my Position statement is in the hands of others. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem, you have said that there are conflicting reliable sources given for each option, and all I suggest is that we present them to the readers and let them be the judge. Now you again in my opinion seem to be deliberately trying to be misleading when you say that for me “to demand that position statements include sources is beyond expectation” when you know and everyone else here knows I’ve asked for no such thing. You like the editors above keep trying to give the impression that the “position statements” and the proposed “Pro / Con statements” are the same thing they are not, and you know it. These type of antics have slowed this process, please stop. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Masem, above you say that "the six options presented have been vetted by this community before this poll and are presented as all reasonable and possible options that can be inferred from sources." Now you are saying on the options and the sources that "we can try to include sources in them, but [you] don't think it will be possible for each case." To any reasonable editor this would give the impression that the options and sources were "vetted" that is, they were discussed and found to be "reasonable and possible options that can be inferred from sources." However saying that you "don't think it will be possible for each case" on the options to provide sources contradicts your previous assertion. Could you possibly direct editors to were these conflicting reliable sources given for each option, were vetted by this community, and explain why on the eve of a poll that it will not now be possible to provide sources for each option. I'm very much aware that we are "definitely including" POV/Soapboxing "position statements" and that it has yet to be decided by the editors who are opposed to the pro/con statements, and opposed to referencing/sourcing weather they will allow moderator-written pro/con statements, since you say that they "do need to be factual and not twisting sources." --Domer48_'fenian' 13:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

This is becoming quite tedious, and to any reasonable editor disruptive. If for what ever reason you are incapable of addressing the issues raised, it would be better not to respond, than responding to questions not even asked. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 15:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You're asking for information that everyone else appears has taken for granted and willing to move forwards from in order to establish consensus. Insisting on that information - especially if you are the only one - is what is disruptive and making this process difficult. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a sensible process and schedule now, Masem. Please help us keep to it. -- Evertype·✆ 15:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok Masem, I’ll take it for granted you know all the Pro/Con rationales for each option! I’ll also take it for granted that you are aware of all the “conflicting reliable sources given for each option” including mine, and that this will be reflected in your “moderator-written pro/con statements.” I look forward to reading them, confident in the knowledge that they "do need to be factual and not twisting sources." Now as any reasonable editor is aware at this stage, that consensus with those who insist on sources, and those represented by yourself who refuse there use, consensus as a precondition rules out pro/con statements therefore this discussion is pointless. I do hope though, that my pointing out any “deficiencies in the essay [arguments] whether that be lack of sources, incorrect application of policy, misinterpreted facts, or just a general POV statement” will not be viewed as disruption, and that if I request a supporting diff for any more of your generalising assertions, you’ll be more than happy to provide it instead of prevaricating. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

In my current review of some book, considered a novelty by some here I found this quote which has a striking relevance to this discussion. That it is from 1899, suggests that some thing never change. I would remind editors to keep in mind the points I made on POV warriors, as their comments also have a striking similarity.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

“ Many others have written on either side of the controversy, but apparently without having gone to the sources for information, since they make statements either without references or with references which lead to nothing relevant, and even give some references which, when tested, are found to be incorrect. The primary object of some of them at least being not the elucidation of what is admittedly obscure, but the furtherance of current religious or political controversy, they adopt a particular view at the outset. This they are determined not to relinquish. By a process of rejecting rigid facts, twisting pliable ones, and inventing some padding material, they make that preconceived opinion their final conclusion and obtrude it on the public, misrepresenting the purport of the documents and even tampering with their text. They then call for the peremptory closure of the controversy. Such controversy, being wrong in purpose and in method, can have no effect except a bad one. The question at issue, though small, is not to be solved by prejudice or predilection, but by diligent investigation of facts and rational deduction therefrom. Legitimately treated, it is of no practical importance whatever, does not involve either the religion or the politics of our day, and can be properly discussed only by keeping quite aloof from these. The question is purely historical. Laurence Ginnell, (1899). ”

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

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

Ahhh isn’t that nice but sad attempt at repartee, and as usual you’re as sharp as a cement block, or a bit of a thick-brick. Still feeling sore about me nipping your talking tough routine above short with my goldfish remark? So you can take that at least as an acknowledgement of my estimation in your ability at wit. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Scolaire comment was not a direct personal attack. They were attempting a bit of repartee and while it may have offended people who do have a good sense of humor I let it go. Now your calling their best attempt in humor trolling is a bit over the top. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course Scolaire's comment wasn't a direct personal attack. "you’re as sharp as a cement block, or a bit of a thick-brick", on the other hand, is one. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have good regard for Domer, and I have good regard for Scolaire. Will the above editor please stop and reconsider the dreary snide remarks that are becoming a hallmark of his/er editing. Tfz 00:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Claiming you've good regard for Scolaire while asking me to stop trying to get personal attacks against him stopped, and ignoring those attacks by Domer on Scolaire yourself - frankly, your argument rings hollow. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't ignore anything, AGF, thanks! Tfz 14:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

O rly? Point me at a diff, then. To quote Domer. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect, Bastun, I think you're letting yourself get more rattled by Domer than I am. I'm quite enjoying the schoolyard banter. I bet Domer is a big hit with the other boys in Fourth Class. Scolaire (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you've a thick enough skin, fair enough, Scolaire. The point I'd make, though, is that the next editor who falls afoul of Domer's creamy vitriol (accompanied or not by fanboi cheerleading), might not have as thick a skin and may well depart the project. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have a thick skin, then you shouldn't be on Wikipedia, or maybe go edit daffodils. Innocents get crushed pretty rapidly here, especially on the 'British & Irish' topics. Tfz 19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope your not saying daffodil lovers are pansys! I'll have you charged with, erm, something or other. You have been warned. Jack forbes (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

AGF. LOL! Tfz 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm guessing you're talking about Rannpháirtí anaithnid. Rannpháirtí is not a new editor. He exercised his right to edit as an IP for a long time before he reluctantly accepted that he would not be taken seriously until he registered. Hence the username (anonymous editor). If you're saying he has the same "beliefs" as Evertype, I think you're wide of the mark there, too. I'm thinking that Rannpháirtí is an ROI man and Evertype is an anti-ROI man. FTR, I have had disputes with both of them so I'm not "shoring up" anybody. Scolaire (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

When I posted the above I hadn't seen this. Well, well! Scolaire (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Schedule question from BW

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

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

Tuesday, the 29th? GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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

• Deadline for submission of position statements is 29 July 2009 at 21:00 UTC.
• 30-31 July and part of 1 August to be used as "preparation days" for formatting etc;
• Begin the vote on 1 August 2009 at 21:00 UTC.
• Notices to be posted at places agreed before.
• Poll to run for 42 days (extended to account for summer holidays) => ends: 12 September 2009 at 21:00 UTC.

• "Rules" as agreed before.

• Ballot paper to be as seen here.
  • Position statements' page as seen here.
  • Individual position statements to take a format similar to as seen here (i.e. health warning, nut shell, endorse/alternative statements).
    • Statements need not be sourced but are encouraged to be sourced.
    • Masem has the right to edit/remove any statement or part of for civility, unverifiable claims, etc..
• Result to be calculated by straight instant-runoff voting.

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

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

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

This was the list #Proposed locations for advertising of poll. not sure if there have been changes. Although i would like to see that section put in an archive box so it cant be changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No changes that I'm aware of. So - that list, and all current and past members of this Wikiproject, plus all listed at the original Arbcom case, to be notified. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, BW. That seems to be quite well advertised. Isn't there also a way to advertise something like this by placing the link to the vote on every wikipedians page? I may be wrong but I'm sure I've seen something similar before. Jack forbes (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was discussion of adding a notice to everyone's watchlist. Did Masem go along with that in the end? Is it happening? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd requested that a hatnote be placed on user's Watchlist pages (similar to the one you can see now for Trustee elections) but Masem doesn't seem enthusiastic :-( Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We can try, but there's editors that are resilient to any watchlist notification that is not a community-wide issue. This is not one of them. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you mention the seven year debate on this subject (at wikipedia) they might agree. Jack forbes (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Some issues with the above proposal

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

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

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

With regards #1, I'm with you. The island at Ireland (island) - should it require disambiguation - is about the least contentious of all the options on the ballot, while the state at Ireland (state) is contentious. If these have been truncated for brevity, then they have been done so in the worst way. Lets ensure the location of both state and island are mentioned. As for #2, the format of the final position statement list is not of particular concern. Whatever final version is used, could someone please make sure all the statements are listed and linked. Rockpocket 07:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Scoláire, regarding your first point. There are three places the ballot text is at right now. User:Evertype/sandbox, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Ballot_paper and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Ballot_paper_(draft)#Ballot. I have corrected the one at my sandbox and the one on Rannpháirtí's draft page in accordance with your comment here. -- Evertype·✆ 07:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Scoláire, regarding your second point, I don't find the text ""Enter a brief summary of the position statement here" on the page you're concerned about. -- Evertype·✆ 07:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would (still) like to see the whole bottom section removed. I did that here, and here I added the "Nutshell Text" to see if it makes sense to do that. Perhaps not. -- Evertype·✆ 08:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying hard not to get cranky now, but when I posted this morning, "Position statements' page as seen here" pointed to this page (I linked it wrong above - my mistake); now it links to this page and I'm being told "Enter a brief summary of the position statement here" is nowhere to be found. Apparently I am also being told that the draft ballot is in three different places which may or may not be in sync! In short, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. Now, I remember clearly when it was agreed that each statement would be labelled "statement in favour of X", "statement opposing Y" or "general statement". I cannot see where it was agreed that every statement would go in a single list headed "general statement" regardless of the POV expressed. So I'm going to ask again: revert to what was agreed or seek a consensus to change. And for God's sake, speedy delete all the redundant pages so that there is only one page to discuss and agree/vote on. Scolaire (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I acted out of turn, Scolaire - I changed the link from the [[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position_statements (draft)|"(draft)" Position Statement page]] to point instead at the [[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position_statements|"live" one]], precisely because people were getting confused between the two. There were several statements/placeholders on "live" that were absent from "draft". Don't know about the other changes. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so now I know why it changed. No, you didn't do the wrong thing. It just highlights the ad hoc nature of the whole thing that [username deleted] and [username deleted] are trying to get us all to accept as the final, agreed, ideal package. All I'm asking is: why is it wrong to let us make our own decisions based on a single, editable and agreed template? Scolaire (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• On point 1. I don't know how the "Ireland (state)" parts got lost. If it was me, then it was a copy-and-paste error.
• On point 2: The chronology was this:

1. Evertype started the position statements' page with a plain list of statements.
2. I edited it with additional "slots" for the various options. Evertype and some more objected to that, but did not change it.
3. When I made the bold proposal, I made copies of each of the relevant pages so that if the proposal flopped I would not have disrupted "live" pages. In making the proposal, I changed the layout of the position statements' page to take Evertypes' concerns into account.
4. Bastun raised concern that there were so many version of the different pages around the place. Evertype amended the "live" version, removing the "slots" for each option.

The "Enter a brief summary of the position statement here" text was intended to be a copy of the nutshell statement of each position paper so that readers could see what they were getting (rather than just blindly clicking on a user's name). It was added boldly as part of the "bold proposal". It has since been deleted by Evertype.

As you can see from this example, [username deleted] and I are not singing from the same hymn sheet and not putting forward one "final, agreed, ideal package". There is no cabal. --[username deleted] 19:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if what I said came out as "cabal"; that was not what I meant to say. My one and only concern is that we (all of us) are being asked to approve a go-live date of two days time based on a supposedly fixed ballot and a supposedly fixed list of statements, when in fact there are multiple ballots/lists floating around and they are being changed from day to day and hour to hour without prior discussion on this page. Whether you and Evertype are singing from the same hymn sheet is not the issue; whether the rest of us cand find the flippin' sheet, having given our tacit support to what turns out to be a nebulous collection of documents, is what I am interested in. So, can you address my question, please? Will you change everything back to what it was when we all knew (or thought we knew) what it was, or will you and Evertype each try to establish a consensus for whatever format is currently active? Scolaire (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Will you change everything back to what it was when we all knew (or thought we knew) what it was, or will you and Evertype each try to establish a consensus for whatever format is currently active?" Change what back?

• The ballot paper hasn't changed in any way since everyone started pulling their hair out over it three weeks ago.
• We may be going with an altered version of the ballot paper, which you participated heavily in writing. That's up to Masem since the ballot paper is locked.
• The position statements' page has had three major revisions. Which, in your opinion, is the "authoritative" version?

Keeping track of this page since a halt was called to the ballot three weeks ago has been a war of attrition. That war has cost a lot of editors, I know. Just because myself and Evertype have had the mettle to endure it doesn't mean that we are trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. It was the possibility of just that happening that motivated me to stay in and not succumb to attrition. It is precisely because I and Everytpe stuck in here, when you and others couldn't bear it, that what you gave your tacit support to is still what is planned to happen. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Once and for all, please give up the martyr act, and stop accusing others of copping out or not pulling their weight. I'm still here, in case you hadn't noticed. If you want to know what I'm saying, read what I wrote: "I remember clearly when it was agreed that each statement would be labelled "statement in favour of X", "statement opposing Y" or "general statement". I cannot see where it was agreed that every statement would go in a single list headed "general statement" regardless of the POV expressed. So I'm going to ask again: revert to what was agreed or seek a consensus to change." It could hardly be clearer. As far as the ballot paper is concerned, you have already admitted that there were three different versions going around, and that the one that you linked to in your latest proposal had serious errors in it. Am I to blame for pointing out the errors? Scolaire (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Once and for all, please give up the martyr act..." What martyr act? "...and stop accusing others of copping out or not pulling their weight" Where did I do that? I think you are imagining these things.
• "I remember clearly when it was agreed..." You do? Do you mean this discussion? That didn't seem to end in any consensus. If that's what classes as a clear recollection of consensus to your memory then you have more to worry about than me or [username deleted] hijacking the process (as we all do in a different way). But why don't you edit the statements' page? Is there something stopping you? And why are you berating me about it? I only changed it once - and that has since been reverted!
• "... you have already admitted..." That was somebody else. On both counts. Your memory seems to be acting up again. (It might help if you relaxed a little and loose the paranoia.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• "It is precisely because I and Everytpe stuck in here, when you and others couldn't bear it" - that martyr act, and that accusation.
• No, this discussion, where Masem spelled out the "in favour of" etc. format and the first three responses agreed (and yours didn't disagree on that point).
• "On point 1. I don't know how the "Ireland (state)" parts got lost. If it was me, then it was a copy-and-paste error." Is that not an admission of an error?
• By what logic is a request for clarity called paranoia? Which of us is paranoid? I am not interested in "berating" you. I am staying up late at night to try and make sure the poll is done right (well, not any more, it's gone midnight and I'm going to bed now). Scolaire (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...that martyr act, and that accusation..." - That's not a martyr act. And that's not an accusation. The tedium (as someone else called it) around here has been murder. I described it as a war of attrition. And I don't blame anyone for either being got the better of or not knowing what's going on anymore. I've been there too.
• "...this discussion..." That was 18 days ago! And you say you haven't gone away!? Masem has since spelt out half-a-dozen or so different variation on the theme. Deal with the current one.
• "'If it was me...' Is that not an admission of an error?" Yes, if it was me. Was it me? I don't know. Was it you? Do you know? Who was it? Who cares? It's been fixed.
• "I am not interested in 'berating' you." Then stop telling me to revert versions of pages that I didn't create.
• "I am staying up late at night..." I appreciate that. We both are. Good night. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

FTR, I didn't say that you made a mistake, or that you admitted to making a mistake, only that it happened and that you and Evertype both acknowledged that it happened. It's been fixed. Then I'm glad I pointed it out, aren't you? As regards the statement list, I still can't see where the current format was discussed or agreed, but actually that doesn't matter either. I'd like to discuss the current format now. I'll re-open the discussion at the bottom of the page. Then we can resume with clear heads. Scolaire (talk) 06:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It wasn't "discussed" anywhere in particular. Some discussion here, some discussion on it's own talk page. What you see now is version 3. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm cool with that, but I'm a littled bit puzzled by the question. You don't need my permission to "go over" anything with anybody. All I ask is that any changes that are made are notified and explained on this page. Scolaire (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If I don't ask you'll end up grumbling. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 08:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK, here's everything that I can think of:

• The actual ballot paper (and a [[page it transcludes).
  • The actual ballot page (or strictly speaking, the transculded page) has to be updated to look likethis page. (That's a Masem job.)
• The actual position statements' page.
  • Also see the statements themselves leading off from it, which follow a particular format that evolved in to a consensus (with the exception of MickMacNee - who ain't gonna be told what to do by any rodeo clown in a gimp suit!).
• I have a version of the ballot template in my sandbox that has an option for "My rationale is here" links. (See it working here.) Is that still wanted?

These can be deleted for clarity's sake:

• A duplicate of the statements page that can be speedy deleted for clarity. (Created as part of the "bold proposal".)
• I had an old version of the ballot page in my sandbox. I've just blanked it. Evertype's sandbox was being used as a "authoritative" version for a while. Maybe that should be blanked too?

With regards to "pro/cons" on the ballot paper, I don't really know what's happening. Masem is going to look at the position statements, concoct pro/con for each option out of them and put them somewhere. I don't know where. The deadline for position statements to be considered as a part of that process is tomorrow at nine Irish time. There is no end date for adding position statements (i.e. they can be added at any time during the vote.)

And that's about all that I know. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't blank what's on my sandbox or on the draft duplicate till Masem makes the move, to wit:

1. I've done a diff between the texts of the ballot itself. No differences but a commented-out comment.
2. I've done a diff between your preamble info-box and mine. They are nearly identical. They differ in the title of the infobox, and in a link at the bottom (where mine links to the right place and yours to a temp). We should agree on the title, and then ask Masem to move it to the transclusion-source for the ballot. -- Evertype·✆ 09:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What is happening?

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

Position statements should be made on a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position statements and linked from that page. The template should be taken from one of the existing statement pages so that it includes the agreed-upon headers/disclaimers, etc. Position statements can argue in favour of or against one, some or all of the options. By consensus, position statements need not be sourced - but obviously ones that are fully cited/sourced/verified will carry more weight than those without. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. How are editors supposed to know about this? Mooretwin (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

By following this tedious page, mainly :-( Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Might be an idea to place messages on project members' talk pages alerting them to the deadline for position pages and the current road map for getting the vote underway. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

People will still be able to add position statements during the vote, the deadline for the statements at the moment is really just for the ones which will try to be used by Masem to form the pros/cons list or sum up the positions.

One thing that does need to be done is placing the new info statement on the ballot paper, at the moment its the old one and not the short neutral one which doesnt mention options.BritishWatcher (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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

There isnt going to be arguing over the position statements.. we havnt seen any fights over the new statements being added now, so i dont see the big problem with allowing people to submit statements during the vote aslong as they meet the basic standard and are not totally misleading or just attacks on others. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if there is some oversight. It still strikes me as inappropriate, and just another thing to have to watch. however. I think that statements should be restricted to people who have signed up as part of this Project, and ALSO restricted to people who meet the voting criteria (nobody who joined Wikipedia since 1 June 2009. -- Evertype·✆ 12:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Definetly agree only those who can vote should be able to make statements. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with "late" statements being added. While they'll be on the Position Statement page, they won't be on the ballot page. I don't see that there will be any arguing unless blatantly false/misleading statements are posted. Most "arguing" will no doubt be done on the ballot's talk page? I do agree, though, that they should be limited to those who can vote. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

One other thing i want to check is the section on peoples statement for "Users who endorse this statement" and "Alternative perspectives". Are we meant to just be signing in these places if we agree / disagree with the statements? That seems like a good idea as it ads weight to reliable statements / weakens misleading ones, but i hope debates are not allowed on those position statement pages??? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if just agreeing with a statement adds any weight to it, maybe undue weight if the numbers are high in favour of a statement. Shouldn't the voter be allowed to read all statements and come to their own conclusions without being persuaded by the amount of agrees/disagrees? Jack forbes (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not being pedantic here, but what if I agree with 90% of the statement. Do I say agree and have no opportunity to explain the part I don't agree with, or disagree because not everything jibes with my opinion. A third choice of course would be to do neither. Jack forbes (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a norm for that sort of think, e.g. add a tag line to the effect of "except for the bit about X". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know, Rannphairti. I think that's what BW is asking. Jack forbes (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced by the whole "endorsed" thing. We wanted statements; we got statements. Now we want "weight" as well? As I said before in relation to statements in general, what if there's only a few hours left to the poll and a significant number of participants feel that the "endorsements" have had the effect of biassing the whole ballot? Scolaire (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. On the original "Statements" bit of the project (all those months ago), people could 'Agree' or 'Disagree' with statements. We did have people recording their "disagreement" with absolute, incontrovertible and demonstrable facts. Which I think quite nicely illustrated exactly where they were coming from, and thus served a useful purpose in itself... ;-) But on the whole I'm neutral/undecided on whether there should or shouldn't be endorsements. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To move my stuck record to a different band: we need to stop thinking in terms of "what we did on the project" and "what happens in a normal poll" and focus on what we are doing here. This is a ballot which numbers alone will decide, not the merits of the arguments. The statements are supposedly to educate the uneducated voter on the issues involved, not to thrash out all the old arguments again. Scolaire (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Choosing agree or disagree doesn't seem to add anything to the statements. Why are they there? For me it doesn't help the voter, who will surely (hopefully?) read it and decide for themselves. I think either an explanation for the agree/disagree should be permitted or it should be left out altogether. I have no preference for either one. Jack forbes (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would help the voter to see comments by others on position statements. Since we cannot reach agreement on collaborative statements, I think there needs to be some way to point out the community view of the merits or otherwise of individual statements. Comments, endorsements, etc. are the usual way of doing so (e.g. RFC, AFD, RFA, etc.)?

I think the concern about an army of endorsements arriving in at the last minute are a bit of a dud. This is a vote, it is force of numbers that will win in the end no matter how you want to dress it up. And I don't see any reason to "lock down" the endorsements/comments when the vote begins. Surely it would be better to leave it open for the duration of the vote?

We do need to agree on these things in advance though. That doesn't mean discussing them forever. It means that we need to agree on them. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal on position statements list

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

I more or less agree with you. It could become a soapbox though, especially if during the ballot period people will be allowed to add more. But let's think about this. Currently the plan is to randomize the user names. That would imply a list set in stone before the beginning of the poll, and evidently a second section for additions later. If that were not acceptable, then something like your scheme here could be appropriate, with editors listed alphabetically and some sort of summary. Then the question is... what should the summary be? The nutshell, or based on the nutshell (if the nutshell is too verbose or un-summary-like)? Had you seen this? -- Evertype·✆ 07:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem with that. Clean and clear. Reader knows what they're getting.

Good point from Evertype re: randomisation and additions during the poll. We could toss them up now and just go with "add your name to the bottom of the list" later. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a good question. Do we need to randomise? Should we randomise? The options themselves have already been randomised. The statements list should really catalogue the statements, should it not? I have done the same thing, but slightly differently, so that specific statements are in order of option dealt with, and general statements are separate. All future submissions can be slotted into the appropriate place, either by the submitter or by one of us. Does that not provide the maximum of information, most easily accessible, in the most concise way? Scolaire (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, No, I really don't think that's good. I think it's not wise to try to separate general from specific, since there may be overlap. (Plus general should precede in that event.) In that case alphabetical order would be random enough (no one chose his or her username with this poll in mind. -- Evertype·✆ 08:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I do think that the "nutshell" summaries are too idiosyncratic to use as a description, and your draft really highlights that for me, Evertype. "Read Shakespeare" looks dead cool in the context of the statement, but as a description it looks daft! A standardised description is easy enough apply, and it eliminates any chance of soap-boxing. Scolaire (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead cool indeed. -- Evertype·✆ 08:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here I alphabetized it. Perhaps it would be best to let this stet? -- Evertype·✆ 08:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with first come first served - gives people an incentive to get statements in early? Or proper randomisation? Not that I've any vested interested in opposing alphabetisation you understand ;) Valenciano (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Woo hoo, that would put me at the top of the list. And keep me away from Domer... ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 09:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this format. If I wanted one-line summary, I'd write a one-line position statement. And who decides what to say? For example: "Rannpháirtí anaithnid - discussion and background on various options" - the statement is clearly for Option F. --HighKing (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"...the statement is clearly for Option F." So why not edit it? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done the bold thing and edited it. Is it a fair summary now? Scolaire (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The notion that this is in any way a credible process has been well and truly dismissed. The “who decides what to say” was not the issue with me, that made no difference as long as what was said was factual. The POV/Soapboxing Statements being preferred over referenced/policy based ones despite my efforts should provide editors with the necessary information on both the motivation and purpose behind them. Having I believe highlighted enough irregularities all that remains now is to see Masem’s Pro/Con Statements. As they have indicated above the “information that everyone else appears has taken for granted” except me of course not being able to locate any of the discussions or being provided any links to them, they are all “willing to move forwards” without them. Masem will be including the “conflicting reliable sources given for each option” in the Statements and since they will be most directly responsible for both the process and the outcome its best now to leave them to it. HighKing why are you not surprised by Rannpháirtí anaithnid statement? Did you expect it to be neutral? --Domer48_'fenian' 10:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As in all collaborative processes, there's always going to be some give and take, and no single editor will "get their own way". I understand why you prefer sourced comments only, but IMHO this was practically unworkable TBH as we would have instead just ended up arguing over sources just like in countless discussions elsewhere. I have subsequently read the available position statements and found lots that I didn't agree with (even to the point where I prepared in my sandbox a list of objections to unfounded statements being made, etc), but in the end I decided that the best course was to let readers make up their own minds. But I'm not surprised at the statement from Rannpháirtí anaithnid, just the fact that it is "summarized" as being a general statement, whereas in actual fact it is not. It's another reason why I object to the one-liner summary because it disinclines the reader to actually read the position statements and instead they'll merely look at the one liners. With respect, the summary one-liners are not a good idea and I still oppose this version/format. --HighKing (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support a single line basic point next to each statement explaining which option a position statement is supporting or opposing. i think thats a good idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect, "i think thats a good idea" isn't a convincing argument. What about if an editor supports a couple of options? Or slightly favours one above another? Or objects strongly to one but doesn't care about the rest? etc... What's the point of a one liner anyway? Who gets to write it? --HighKing (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not care if you do not think my comment is a convincing argument. I am agreeing with someones suggestion. I would presume an admin would write it, as for whats the point in a 1 line It might be helpful if someone sees a list of 10 usernames, if they can see what option one is in favour of and what ones are against. Quite a few of the statements are against the worst option on the ballot paper, people may not see the need to read everyone against a certain option because they will have been convinced already. Anything you want to threaten me for here?? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Some way for a reader to know what their are looking at - as opposed to blindly clicking through a list of user names - is surely useful? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really follow your reasoning, HighKing. If I want to know why I should vote E, I go to the statements list; if I read there "HighKing - in favour of option E" I will read no further? Why? Surely knowing that HighKing is in favour of E will make me want to know his reasons for it? The alternatives to a one-liner is a no-liner or a multi-liner. A no-liner is just a list of strange names - why would anybody want to read them? A multi-liner is just a Babel of mini-statements - see this for instance. Scolaire (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Even less convinced by this explanation. You say "If I want to know why I should vote E, I go to the statements list" - so all that will happen is that editors who are already predisposed to one or other choice will merely reinforce their existing view. Given that I expect a large amount of editors turning up here (and it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that the majority of which may be new to this discussion, and thanks to the existing UK law and amount of predominantly British usage of the term, see nothing wrong with the term), then if they only selectively read position statements that have been pre-sorted into support for a choice, I expect they'll read a statement that makes them feel good about their predisposed choice, and vote without reading a position statement for a different choice. The attractiveness about a randomised list of position statements, for me, is that editors may actually read something that makes them think about more than their current world view. --HighKing (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What if they deliberately seek out views that contradict their own? Then they'll end up reading only those statements that are against the status quo. Your right, HighKing, this idea is a bad one! (Joking.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Maybe instead of a prose statement, we could have some standardised code to indicate what a statement is about. For example (not saying this is any good): "For: A, B; Against: C, D; Comment: E; No comment: F." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, we cannot make the people read the statements. If they want to know about any given option they'll read the statement. If they've already made up their mind about it, they won't need to. If they're confronted by a list of ten user-names with no clue what the statements are about, they won't bother. It's a nice idea that each voter will take the time to read and digest each statement, but they won't! No way. Scolaire (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Hearing everybody but one saying that one-line summaries are a good idea and a bald list of names is a bad one, and nobody complaining about the order they were in, I have boldly restored them. Let's stay calm, people. The discussion is ongoing. Discussion is good. Scolaire (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also agreed that one-line summaries are necessary and that a bald list of names is a bad idea. No preference on using an alphabetical list, reverse alphabetical list, first come first served, or randomised - though the latter seems fairest. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've come round to HighKing's view. If there happen to be a lot of Position Statements that say "vote for B" or "vote for F" or whatever, that's a kind of canvassing. Apparent or otherwise, it shows a bias. I don't believe that this is what this Collaboration ought to be supporting. And Scoláire, I was not the only one saying that the one-line summary was a bad idea, so kindly be a bit less acerbic. -- Evertype·✆ 15:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You were not the one editor I was referring to. You have only said now that you have come round to HighKing's point of view. Kindly be a bit less sensitive. Scolaire (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I came to that conclusion before I deleted the "summaries" which you reverted. I think this is very lopsided and I object to it. I would much rather the names appear on their own, and people can look at what they want and make up their own minds AFTER reading the Position Statements, rather than being primed aforehand. -- Evertype·✆ 18:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Strongly disagree. First - there's still a day or so left, and Sarah777 has promised us a statement that will be supporting (I presume) several of the "anything but Republic of Ireland" options. Secondly - Evertype's statement addresses all of the options in a neutral fashion. Thirdly - we were all offered the opportunity of presenting statements. The fact that some have chosen not to take up that opportunity (so far) should not discriminate against those of us who have done so. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It should not be about discriminating against people. This is a poll of options, not of editors, and the arguments are supposedly for the provision of balanced information, not a debating contest. I tried to have this addressed before people had gone to the trouble of writing their statements, but I was brushed off. If, by some miracle, all six options are fairly represented by the opening of the poll, then there won't be a problem, but if not, it's going to have to be addressed somehow. Scolaire (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And to show that I am willing to work towards a balanced view, I have now added a statement in support of Option A. -- Scolaire (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's good, but at least two editors now oppose the short summaries after the names, and have given a credible rationale against retaining them. I think that on balance that the summaries ought to be deleted. -- Evertype·✆ 18:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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

It's a little better, but it doesn't get around the reason I oppose. Scolaire's addition in favour of option A actually also makes it seem a little more balanced. I've rethought through all the previous suggestions, from having a "my reasons here" link when someone votes, to asking Masem to construct Pro and Con arguments for each choice. And I'm probably back here again. There's no perfect solution. Perhaps the best we can do is to put a banner on top of the statements encouraging editors to read as many statements as possible before voting. If it stands out enough, it might just encourage readers to educate themselves a bit more. And. Finally. I'd like to propose that the "General" statements are not randomized, but they appear on top. --HighKing (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to put it more in voters faces to read the statements. Where would you put the banner? At the top of the polling page? We could put a custom notice that appears when a person clicks tries to edit the page (i.e. cast their ballot), see only my talk page for example? On the statements page (encourage people to read as many as possible)?

I don't agree with what you say about "General" statements. I don't think there is anything unique about not making an explicit recommendation. They are all position statements. They all represent a POV. There is nothing unique about any of them. (Except my own, of course, which is obviously the Truth.]) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Other statements by this user"

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