:We would be polling the six options currently listed on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names (Draft)]], as opposed to the nine options that would be required if "Ireland (country)" were included as well as "Ireland (state)", or the twelve that would be necessary if "Ireland (Republic of)" were also included. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 11:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
:We would be polling the six options currently listed on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names (Draft)]], as opposed to the nine options that would be required if "Ireland (country)" were included as well as "Ireland (state)", or the twelve that would be necessary if "Ireland (Republic of)" were also included. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 11:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
==Pros and Cons==
For my sins I have written a set of what '''I believe to be neutral''' points regarding the pro and con arguments. PLEASE DO NOT FLAME ME. This is a thankless task. Please see the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names_(Draft)|Poll_on_Ireland_article_names_(Draft)]]. For what it is worth, everybody, I think that the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_(xxx)|Poll on Ireland (xxx)]] went well, and I am willing to do the same work (including notifying the communities) to finalize the Big Poll, if you are willing to have me do it. (I don't see much point in saddling Masem with the task as he is here to ''moderate'', not to draft and process documents.). With regard to the pro/con arguments I have given, when you review them, please do so with some things in mind.
#The goal is not to ''prove'' anything, merely to state what is believed by some factions.
#The goal is not to be encyclopaedic or utterly exhaustive. It is to summarize.
#My intent has not been to piss anybody off. I have genuinely tried to be neutral. If you have suggested edits to any of the bullet points, please make them. And make them [[WP:NICE|nicely]].
Thanks to those who have expressed their happiness with the way the '''Ireland (xxx)''' poll went.-- [[User:Evertype|Evertype]]·[[User_talk:Evertype|✆]] 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Everybody is invited to participate in discussions here. The discussion will be moderated by a panel appointed by ArbCom. Moderators can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted. If you have a complaint about a user, please try to resolve it on their talk page first. For any complaints, please always be specific and provide links.
Please, for the moment, refrain from discussing the individual Ireland naming options until we agree on a procedure.
I have replied to a post by Blue-Haired Lawyer on the manual of style about use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland in articles. He/she made what I think were fairly common sense proposals and my reply was really just re-wording simpifing of them.
My rewriting of Blue-Haired Lawyer's proposal is here:
In general the state should be referred to as Ireland. There are situations however when, for clarity and/or disambiguation, distinctions will need to be made a) between Ireland-the-state and Ireland-the-island and b) to avoid confusion with regard to Northern Ireland. In these situation the preferred means to do so is to call the island Ireland and the state the Republic of Ireland (this can be emphasised where necessary by use the phrase island of Ireland).
While the final decision to use one set of terms or the other should be determined by the unique contexts of each situation, the following rules of thumb will generally hold true:
In lists of sovereign states, when discussing economies, governments or other qualities of states, the state should be referred to as Ireland e.g. Economy of Europe, NATO
When describing the area served by an organisation that is primarily all-island, use the phrase island of Ireland in the first instance and either Ireland or island of Ireland thereafter e.g. Supermacs
Always use the official titles of state offices (e.g. the President of Ireland, never the President of the Republic of Ireland)
When writing about the state and Northern Ireland in the same context, use the Republic of Ireland (or the Republic thereafter) e.g. the border should be described as being between "the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" never as being between "Ireland and Northern Ireland".
For articles where historical correctness is important (e.g. The Emergency (Ireland)) the state should be called the Irish Free State for the period between 6 December 1922 to 29 December 1937. In the same kind of articles, for the period thereafter until the coming into force of the Republic of Ireland Act (18 April 1949), the state not be referred to as the Republic of Ireland (another means to distinguish Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island should be used as necessary).
Since there was no reply to Blue-Haired Lawyer's proposal, I've copied mine here to get some feedback. Obviously, more input than what is available here would be required to put these into the IMOS but since the contributors here represent a spectrum of opinion, I though it would be a good place get feedback. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think thats pretty fair in that ROI really does only need to be used when Northern Ireland is directly mentioned alongside it. There is one small thing I disagree on though. e.g. the border should be described as being between "the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland". In my opinion it should be described in general as "the border between the United Kingdom and Ireland" as that conforms to a more international NPOV. Everything else is fine though.MITH 09:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's probably a bad example for Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal too, but (to User:MITH) "Republic of Ireland" should also be used when the island is mentioned, not only when Northern Ireland is mentioned. ~Asarlaí 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if both the island and the state are mentioned then two things can be done. If it's a political sentence then island of Ireland should be the disambiguator and correct name of the sovereign state be used. If it the context is geography then ROI can be used.MITH 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good example of where ROI is needed. The opening sentence is ambiguous at present with the link to Republic of Ireland disguised by piping. Mooretwin (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the article is perfectly clear.MITH 23:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "perfectly clear": it refers to Ireland, but links to Republic of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"it refers to Ireland, but links to Republic of Ireland" Hmm. Strange that. Especially as somehow 95% of these links seem to do the exact same thing?MITH 23:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What point are you trying to make? If the article in question said Republic of Ireland, the meaning would be clear. Currently the meaning is ambiguous, and the link to Republic of Ireland is unhelpfully disguised. Mooretwin (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction mentions all three entities (ROI, NI, and the island), therefore Republic of Ireland should be used. Readers shouldn't keep having to click on links to find out what entity is being referred to. ~Asarlaí 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. I've made the edit. Mooretwin (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent rule of thumb: if the reader needs to click the link (or hover over it) to know which "Ireland" is being referred to then we need to use alternative wording. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article on the state currently has a good wording to that effect. It reads something like, "Ireland is a state in northwest Europe. It covers five sixths of the island of Ireland." Reads very well, is succinct and clear. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good proposal. I agree with it too. --HighKing (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I guess we are not going to discuss where those instances are piped to? Fmph (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consideration should be given to republic of Ireland, that is republic all in lowercase font. I'm not happy with uppercase, as it adds confusion. Readers are pretty smart, and can work that out. ''Tfz'' (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be of the opinion that we should use Ireland where possible. In the event that we can't then there is little to be gained from using republic of Ireland over the well-established Republic of Ireland, except to avoid using a capital that we might not like. That seems to part a little from NPOV IMHO. Whatever our opinion about Republic of Ireland, it exists and it is used. Avoiding it like that seems a bit "sneaky". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing 'sneaky' about using republic of Ireland. What's sneaky about it? The name of the state is Ireland, and I took a compromise position on my input here. My first option is Ireland. ''Tfz'' (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Republic should always be capitalised when writing Republic of Ireland. That is the state's official description as declared in the Republic of Ireland Act. ~Asarlaí 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, your quite right, Republic of Ireland is the states official description, but not the name. Don't agree it should always be capatalised, as it would depend on context. In the meaning of the 1949 Act, I agree, it should be capatalised. Tfz 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a comment from your friendly moderator, I believe that this sets a good standard for how to reference the island, ROI, and No. Ireland within the body of articles, and should be part of the final result from this project. We still need to come back and address the names of the various articles that conflict at "Ireland", and potential effects on other article names, but this helps towards the complete solution. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we can now formalize the establishment of a consensus for this approach, it would be a huge step forward. Or am I missing something? If not, could we poll the participants? --HighKing (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a diff to show the difference between the current IMOS and the proposed change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmph (talk • contribs) 10:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The example that the border should be described as being between "the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" never as being between "Ireland and Northern Ireland" was weak and controversial. I propose it should be changed to something like an increased number of shoppers to Newry should be described as coming from the Republic of Ireland, not Ireland, when referring to the state. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this confusion is just a myth, and the danger is more confusion. The border is generally known as the Irish border. Why choose neologisms, especially invented for WP. "Republic of Ireland" should be totally avoided for naming purposes. There is little excuse for not being able to rework wording to avoid that term. A much better option would be to rename the island to "island of Ireland", and work around that. I seriously think that Irish editors might be in danger of being overgenerous in what is conceded here to a 'particular' pov element, who resent the state using the name Ireland. Tfz 11:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that border bit is wrong. It was admitted that the example was a bad one. Another example should be given for the ROI/NI case as the border should actually be referred to as the United Kingdom - Ireland border.MITH 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the motives of many (if any) contributors here is any kind of resentment towards the name of the state.
BTW What neologisms have appeared during in this issue? What ones have been invented for Wikipedia? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border, Republic of Ireland being used for the name of Ireland is another. "I don't think that the motives of many (if any) contributors here is any kind of resentment towards the name of the state.", this has actually been 'said' by some of the editors involved in these discussions. Tfz 11:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither "Republic of Ireland" nor "United Kingdom" nor "border" are neologisms. Much less made up for Wikipedia. See here for examples.
What have contributors said? That they "resent" the state using the name "Ireland"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this what you are looking for. RoI for name of Ireland is neologism in my book, Roi refers to a description of Ireland as a 'republic', as opposed to a 'monarchy'. It's akin naming UK as Monarchy of United Kingdom, instead of United Kingdom. Tfz 12:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I think this what you are looking for." It is identical to this - and in both case the match is for "Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom border".
There is only one return for Monarchy of United Kingdom". It is and index entry for "monarchy, of United Kingdom".
"Irish border" is the common name. I don't know why the article isn't located there. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the article should be renamed "Irish border". There shouldn't be any confusion since it's the only (international) border in Ireland. ~Asarlaí 16:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When referring to the population of "Ireland" but in meaning the republic, it is always 100% correct to say republic but never 100% correct to say that the republics population count is that of Ireland, in the choice between 100% or less accuracy 100% should always be taken, no? Saying that the state in the south will have the full title (Ireland) in all counts is not always right. If there were no acceptable term of distinction it would be a dilemma but there is... Republic of Ireland, official description of the state (Republic of Ireland Act 1948). People may be of the opinion that Ireland "should be used as much as possible" but such as the case that "population of Republic of Ireland is 3.5 million" and "population of Ireland is 5 million", one should do anything possible to clarify, yes? It is not so much the case to decide which is more important, politically correct or most often used. It is the case to decide when and how to make the distinction between these two different entities. Maintaining only one requires the disposal or obscurity of the other. When describing geographical location, the terms are ambiguous, either can be used. When describing population, infastructure and politics, Ireland can only be 100% correct in reference to the whole island. Use of the term Republic of Ireland can be correct 100% of the time. ~ R.T.G 17:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there agreement on the proposal to alter IMOS as mentioned above? If not, why not? If this is the thing stopping us from moving forward then we need to be clear whether there are any issues. As I read it, there aren't many, bar sorting out how it applies to one or two one off circumstances such as Cork below.MITH 19:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under whose authority is consensus being sought? Have users been notified? When were we asked to agree or otherwise? Who is entitled to make this decision? What process is in place? Mooretwin (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(entering comment chronologically) I support rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's rewrite of Blue-Haired Lawyer's proposal, as stated at the beginning of the section.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two further points are needed to say that
where titles of potentially-ambiguous articles such as "Flag of Ireland" used "Ireland" rather than "Republic of Ireland", the lede needs to explain that the (in this case) flag is the flag of the Republic of Ireland, and not that of Ireland (the island).
where there is any risk of ambiguity, or of readers being misled, Republic of Ireland should be used, e.g. "RTE One is the oldest television station in Ireland" (which is quite untrue). Mooretwin (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland because Ireland is the state's common name.
Counter argument: Not all articles on states are located at their common name (e.g. China)
Summary: While not all articles on states are located at their common name, almost all are. If not they are located at their official names.
Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland because that is the state's official name.
Counter argument: (1) Most articles on states on Wikipedia do not appear at the official name of the state (e.g. France vs. French Republic); (2) The state's official name is ambiguous as it is also the name of Ireland, the island.
Summary: Most articles on states do not appear at the official name of that state instead they appear at their common names. Most states' names are not ambiguous.
Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland (state) because the Irish Constitution refers to it as a State.
Counter argument: Some people think that a state is a subset of a country.
Summary: Using Ireland (state) could mislead readers as to the state of the state.
Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland (country) because country is the common word for a sovereign state.
Counter argument: Ireland-the-island is also commonly called a country, there may be confusion between the two.
Summary: The entire island of Ireland and the state of Ireland can be considered countries by different interest groups.
Argument: The island article should be located at Ireland because the island named Ireland goes back much further than the state.
Counter argument: Using Ireland for the island prevents the current state from having an article under its Constitutionally-defined name and common name.
Summary: Both the island and the sovereign state have justifiable reasons to using the title "Ireland".
Argument: The current Ireland article should be located at Ireland because it is the primary topic. It is about more than just the island in a geographic sense.
Counter argument: Expanding a geographic article more to include non geographic information leans towards satisfying a certain POV as there is no identifiable obvious primary topic.
Summary: Some editors see the island as the primary topic, while others apply it to the sovereign state.
Argument: The article on the state must be moved from Republic of Ireland because Republic of Ireland is not the official name or most common name of the state of the state.
Counter argument: (1) Nearly all articles on states on Wikipedia are located at a title that is not the official name of the state (e.g. Germany not Federal Republic of Germany, Australia not Commonwealth of Australia). (2) There is no such obligation to move any one of these articles just because it is at the title that is not the name of the state. (3) The article cannot be moved to Ireland, because that is the name of the island, and Republic of Ireland is the official description and a commonly-used alternative name.
Summary:Republic of Ireland is a once off case. Articles are usually located at their common names and if not, they are located at their official names instead. In the Republic of Ireland's case neither is the case.
Argument: The title should be away from Republic of Ireland, because while use of the term Republic of Ireland could be declared as relatively common, its use is erroneous and is mostly done by the British media who have not changed their practices since the Belfast Agreement.this argument needs to be rephrased to avoid "negative arguments"
Counter argument: The phrase is used by books, academic journals and TV, radio and press in the Republic of Ireland, the UK and worldwide. There is nothing unusual about the of either Republic of Ireland or Ireland to refer to the state by the British press. Neither is it "erroneous" - it is not erroneous to call France France instead of the French Republic. The Belfast Agreement was a wide ranging agreement between two states: neither Wikipedia nor the press is bound by it.
Summary: While some believe its use to be erroneous, others believe that it is a perfectly correct term to use.
Argument: While the term Republic of Ireland was invented by the Irish Government, the Irish Taoiseach who passed it, John Costello made it clear it was not to be used as a name (here or here). Use of the term only spread as the British government refused to recognise the constitutional name of the country making ROI more common in the UK until 1998.
Counter argument:Republic of Ireland is commonly used by books, academic journals, TV, radio and print media in the Republic of Ireland, the UK and worldwide. It is not certain how Costello intend it to be used, but, whatever his intentions, it has widespread use as name for the state today.
Summary: While officially not meant to be a name, the description Republic of Ireland is sometimes used by people instead of its official and common name in circumstances where context is not clear.
Argument: The title Republic of Ireland may suggest to a reader that it is the name of the country, as every other country article either uses either an official name or the most common short form name; of which Republic of Ireland is neither.
Counter argument: Republic of Ireland is a common name for the country in question. Whether it is shorter or longer than the official name is of no consequence. The opening line of the lede and/or a hatnote can explain to the reader that the "official name" is Ireland. Doesn't really argue the point that ROI is not a name, nor the most common one even if it is deemed as one regardless of the facts.
Summary:
Argument: The title should remain at Republic of Ireland because it is commonly used by government, media and the populace whenever necessary to disambiguate between the state and the island, and the island article is already at Ireland.
Counter argument:Republic of Ireland is not the state's name nor is it the most common name, nor is it commonly used by government media and populace when disambiguation is not necessary. Also the location of the island article (currently at Ireland) is also subject to change under this process.
Summary: Republic of Ireland is usually only used when dismbiguation is necessary.
Argument: Wikipedia is supposed to educate and enlighten readers, and not confuse. A pretence by Wikipedia that 'Republic of Ireland' is the name of the state has no educational value whatsoever.
Counter argument: Some editors claim that readers might not be able to understand the complexity of one of two states on an island assuming the name of the entire island.
Summary:
Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland because the state owns 85% of the island.
Counter argument: The state does not control or claim 100% of the land surface of the island. The remaining 15% is Northern Ireland.
Summary: Area covered by Northern Ireland or the republic has nothing to with any potential article names on Wikipedia.
Argument: There is clearly a need to disambiguate between the island and the state, and use of the real-world name of the island and the real-world official description of the state allows us to do so without use of artifical disambiguators such as [Article (state)], [Article (island)], [Article (country)], etc.
Counter argument: It is better to change to our own article names by consensus or an agreed process.
Summary: We can use either real-world article titles or come up with our own.
Argument: The current name is unacceptable as it is a political imposition; it is neither the common name nor a legal or official name (unlike PR China).
Counter argument: The current name is acceptable as it is an official description introduced in legislation by the Irish government.
Summary: The current name is acceptable to some and unacceptable to others.
Argument: The name should remain at Republic of Ireland because that's the official name as denoted by current UK legislation
Counter argument: The rest of the world as well as every international organization from the UN to NATO to the EU recognizes the country by the name it choses for itself - Ireland.
Summary: So what. We should continue to use less confusing terminology.
Proposal to move forwards
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This proposal failed to achieve moderator support within the alloted timescale
The general opinion I'm getting from the comments above and on the arbitration amendment request that, although some users might like the Arbitration Committee to choose a particular choice of article title, most users believe that it is highly unlikely that the ArbCom will do this as doing so would be tantamount to settling a content dispute, something they have traditionally been loathe to become involved with.
It also seems that the moderators do not propose to force a particular means of settling this dispute on us. Originally I thought that this was a failing by the moderators, but after consideration I no longer think that. I expect that the moderators feel that by not endorsing one scheme over another they remain perceived as less biased. On reflection, I think this is beneficial.
Therefore we are left having to find a way of solving this ourselves. What I propose here is, I hope, the start of that process. It is not a specific proposal on how the articles should be named, nor is it even a specific proposal on how to decide that; instead it is an outline of how the whole process should work, and a mechanism by which we chose the way forward. It also seeks to establish ground rules and the start of a time line. What I am suggesting below may sound unnecessarily bureaucratic, however I don't believe it actually is. Partly the verbiage is because I have tried to spell out in detail how this should operate in an effort to avoid subsequent wikilawyering.
Ground rules (proposal)
Accepting this proposal
Users should indicate below whether they support or oppose this proposal.
IP addresses may not participate in this poll.
Users may change their vote at any point up to the close of the poll.
This poll closes at 23:59 (UTC) on the evening of Sunday 14th June. After the poll has closed, this proposal is deemed to have succeeded if:
more users vote to support than vote against it; and
at least two moderators vote in favour of it, and none vote against it.
Any discussion of this should be made in the relevant section.
Comments interspersed with the votes may be deleted by any user.
As a corollary, a vote to accept this proposal cannot be conditional on a particular amendment.
In addition to voting, users may propose amendments to these basic ground rules, an example of which is given below.
Amendments must be proposed no later than 23:59 (UTC) on the evening of Thursday 11th June and not altered after this date.
Amendments are decided by vote and are subject to the same rules as the main vote, including the closing date.
As an exception, there is no requirement for any moderators to endorse or not oppose any amendment for them to take effect.
In the event of several seemingly-incompatible amendments being accepted, the moderators shall, at their sole discretion, resolve the incompatibility; they may do this in any manner, including (but not limited to):
by deeming each of the incompatible amendments to have failed;
by only accepting the amendment with the most endorsements;
by synthesising a combined amendment combining the key properties of all the seemingly-incompatible amendments.
The moderators' decision (whether by unanimity, majority, or unopposed unilateral action) can only be overruled by the moderators themselves, or by the Arbitration Committee.
If this proposal has been endorsed, any successful amendments shall be applied to these ground rules and the result published here.
Selecting an on-going process
Any user may propose a process by which we decide how to select the names of the articles.
A user may not propose more than one process.
All processes must be proposed by 23:59 (UTC) on Wednesday 17 June, and not modified after this date.
Proposals may be made before the adoption of these ground rules (on 14 June).
A user may abandon a proposed process in which case it shall be removed from the poll unless another proposer can be found.
The rules above regarding comments and protracted discussion apply here too.
A process is only deemed admissible if, in sole opinion of the moderators:
it is not unduly biased towards any particular outcome (with that the status quomay be prefered in the event of a tie break);
it must clearly set out how the whole remainder of the process will work, including setting out a time scale for the process; and
it should yield a result no later than 1 Dec 2009, preferably earlier;
Processes may choose to address a wider range of issues than simply the names of the two Ireland articles.
However it should be noted that the Irish Collaboration Wikiproject only has a ArbCom mandate to make a binding decision on the names of those two articles.
The process to be adopted will be determined by single transferable vote, with each user ranking the possible proposals in order.
Users may choose to only rank their top few proposals, and not need to rank every proposal; there is no way of choosing a 'worst' choice without ranking all other proposals.
IP addresses may not participate in this poll.
Users may change their vote at any point up to the close of the poll.
The moderators' decision (whether by unanimity, majority, or unopposed unilateral action) can only be overruled by the moderators themselves, or by the Arbitration Committee.
Support - -- Evertype·✆ 06:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of ground rules
Any thoughts? —ras52 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were !voting on whether we should accept the "ground rules" or not, and not subject to them already? Anyway, here are the reasons I gave on why I opposed the IP proposal above: "(As a former long-term IP and writer of WP:HUMAN) If this is to be a vote then IP votes should not be counted in the result, however they should be able to !vote and contribute to discussion at the same level as everyone else." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it take until December to have an outcome! This process has already been going on for months. Any way, nothing new is proposed above. The statement process has already taken place. The arguments have been put. What was needed was a decision. December 2009! Is this process a ruse!!! I think so. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting some leadership at long last, if it takes to December then thats how long it takes. --SnowdedTALK 06:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why wait until December? Well we're not necessarily. I hope it will be resolved well before that. 1 Dec 2009 is really more of a backstop than an actual deadline: a proposal that is likely to have everything fully resolved by August would be accepted under these ground rules, whereas a proposal that faffed around until sometime next year would be disqualified. The last thing I want is for editors in favour of the status quo to force a proposal through that will, literally, run for ever (e.g. a proposal that says let's wait until we have 100% agreement). But equally, I'd rather take a while to do things properly and not rule out wider consultation simply on grounds of time. December is a compromise between the two extremes. —ras52 (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the "amendment" simply an example, rather than a specific proposal? Who is the proposer and why is everyone supporting or opposing it? Rockpocket 07:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was intended as an example, and as such I had deliberately chosen something that I thought there was broad consensus against. However I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to express support or opposition to it. At least that way we've thought about it before any future issues involving IPs come to a head. –ras52 (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a supporter of the status quo, can I say 1) I resent the implication that supporters of the status quo would try and keep this going on indefinitely - I've sure I've argued previously that we need a final decision to stop the pro change people from continually bringing up move polls every couple of months! 2) 1st December is too far away. We've been at this particular process since last year. 31st July would be more preferable, 31st August probably more realistic. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I apologise if I in any way implied that any specific pro-status quo user might choose to manipulate the process in this way. Perhaps there are users who would do that, and perhaps not; I'm certainly not suggesting that you or any other specific user would. The point of the deadline is to reassure users opposed to the status quo that the procedure cannot be railroaded in this manner.
On you second point, yes I agree that 1 Dec is too far away. I'm intending shortly to propose the process suggested above by BrownHairedGirl. Her process involves four stages: statement consolidation on problem 1, a vote on problem 1, statement consolidation on problem 2.1 or 2.2 (whichever is relevant following the previous step, and a vote on problem 2.1/2.2. My initial thoughts are that the statement consolidation steps should take a fortnight each, and the votes a week each. This would have the whole matter tied up by 3rd August.
However, others may have different opinions on how this should be resolved, and I wouldn't want to prevent someone from proposing a longer, slower process. That said, I shan't be voting for a process that drags out until 1 Dec unless there are very clear benefits to spending that long over it. 1 Dec is the point where we say: that's unquestionably too long—you're not even allowed to propose that.
But if you still feel I've got the back-stop date wrong, feel free to propose an amendment to change it. That's what's the amendment mechanism is for.
Thanks for the response. If we could finally resolve this by 3rd August, that'd be great. I'm wondering, though, if you're aware of this proposal to amend the prior Arbcom ruling, and this poll which was recently moved to a subpage of this project? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And of my objections to the completeness of that poll (see its Talk page)? -- Evertype·✆ 06:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amendments (proposal)
Example amendment: Anonymous users
Although given as an example, if a proposer can be found, users may vote for/against this as with any other amendment..
Replace the rules barring anonymous users with: IP addresses may participate unless an administrator deems them to be a sock puppet of another account that has already voted.
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.
The poll itself (proposal)
First, I do able setting up some ground rules makes sense, and thus applaud the above effort.
I suggest that the poll we need will be a three question poll - all other issues should fall out of that: (DO NOT VOTE YET I'm only seeking input)
Question 1: Which of the following options should be used to name the island of Ireland, the nation-state of Ireland, and the disabmiguation part for "Ireland"?
a) Ireland for the island, Ireland (disambiguation) for the disambiguation page, and the answer to Question 2 for the nation-state.
b) Ireland (island) for the island, Ireland for the disambiguation page, and the answer to Question 2 for the nation-state.
c) None of the above
Question 2: Which of the following should be used to name the nation-state of Ireland, presuming that Ireland is used either for the island or the disambiguation page and thus unavailable as an option?
Question 3: In articles relating to the nation-state of Ireland in which other uses of Ireland (such as the island, Northern Ireland, or the like) may be used or confused with the meaning of the world "Ireland", what term should be used to describe that nation-state? (This would apply to both article titles such as "Economy of (name)" and within the body of such articles.
a) country of Ireland
b) state of Ireland
c) Republic of Ireland
d) (other possible options?)
e) None of the above
These three questions, as best as I can tell from reading, are the core dispute, and smaller issues (such as the most recent discussion of when it's necessary to spell out the name of the nation-state of Ireland (per Q3) in articles) will fall out from that. This also reflects the fact that there is minimal to no consensus to have Ireland be the nation-state.
Please note if you have any other valid choices for Q2 or Q3, now's the time to voice them. This will be a straight-up poll; there will be discussion on a talk page but no need to discuss votes here.
If, for some reason, "None of the above" receives majority votes, then we'll need to come back here, but I think this poll (with announcements of it on WP:VPP, WP:CENT and elsewhere) will resolve 95% of the issues, the rest of sweeping the last bit of dust under the rug. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of the poll itself
Can I just clarify, are you proposing this as one possible way forward per the Selecting an on-going process section (above)? Or are you using your position as a moderator to say that this is how it will be done? I've no problem with either, but it would be useful to clarify things. If you're doing the latter, then we can abandon what I started above as it no longer have a role. —ras52 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking, as a moderator, does this poll make sense as part of the on-going process. I am not saying this is the poll. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would add one more option to Question 1:
Understandably, that's the logical third choice, but in reviewing all pass input to this project, it's the one with the snowball's chance of passing (this is a moderator opinion to simplify matters). But this is why I've left a None of the Above option - if for some reason everyone involved here has misread the discussion and people really want this option, then ok, we can go back and discuss this. If others think the nation-state option as Ireland should be included before the poll, then it's possible. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to use STV, then we shouldn't be presuming we know which options have a snowball's chance. IMHO, that will be most people 2nd choice, and will therefore end up as as the preferred option. Lets give people the choice, otherwise there's no point. We might as well ask the mods to make a decision. Fmph (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, that should then be an option, but I would have trouble justifying "Island of Ireland" as a renaming option for the island since I don't see any support for this; if we did include that, we'd basically need two more questions in the same manner as Q2 and Q3 for the nation-state. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Island of Ireland is used quite a lot, relatively speaking. Fmph (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely wouldn't go for 'Ireland (country)' for the state's name as there are at least 700,000 people in Northern Ireland who claim that their country is Ireland, the whole island. That is why they are called Irish nationalists. I think, if anything, 'Ireland (country)' should be one of the options under Ireland, the island. Odd how it has not appeared given that even all the Protestant churches are based on an all-Ireland structure. 'Ireland (state)' is my preferred option for the state, and 'Ireland (country)' or 'Ireland (island)' for the whole country. Dunlavin Green (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Masem: I probably didn't express my question very well. What I'm trying to establish is, are you suggesting this poll as one of the options in the Selecting an on-going process section above, or do you not wish to carry out the process I mentioned above? Clearly if one of the moderators doesn't wish the process I was proposing above to make place then it is not viable. That would strike me as a bit sad as it is the only suggestion that I've noticed that has received (so far) unanimous support. Nevertheless, as one of the moderators how you continue this is your call, but it would be nice to know. —ras52 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it as a user-proposed option under #1 of the ground rules. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question 3 should definitely be included, but I think it should be more detailed. Participants should be offered the same options, but the vote should be on rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's proposal. ~Asarlaí 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This would be part of the cleanup after counting the results that I offer. The core of rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's proposal above is that there are set names for the nation-state, island, and other factors, and once those are set, it describes the appropriate choices when to use them in articles. The latter aspects are important to recognized but less critical to the issue of the naming scheme here. If there is dispute that rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's suggested scheme is inappropriate, then we can work some more, but for this core poll, which, as noted, is 95% of the issue, let's keep it focused on the basic goals of the collaboration to get that resolved. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 December is a total joke. No decent reasons given why it would take until 1 December to decide the titles of 3 articles! Perhaps you should see my posting from months ago calling for an April or May deadline etc....1 December! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ps...who is the joker proposing "Ireland (soverign nation)" or looking for "other possible choices". Adding in options like that is simply pretending matters are more complicated then the are. The real choice is very simple:
Dab/IRL(island)/IRL (state) v
status quo.
Why the desire to throw out the months of "process" and pretend we are starting from scratch. The arguments have been well had and thrashed out. Lets get to a poll. Have the propsers even read the project page with its statements. Lets have a conclusion at the end of the month. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Superfopp that Q 3 needs to be thought about more. For example I'm not sure why "Economy of Ireland" could be considered ambiguous as geographical islands don't have economies (At the moment it's just a redirect). For actual ambiguous titles I thought that applying the state article title was the obvious solution. eg. History of Ireland (state) or whatever it turns out to be. Rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's proposal also needs to be brought in somewhere.MITH 19:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please can we keep focused on how we are going to decide this rather than reiterating the arguments for and against specific choices? If the arguments are so clear-cut against a specific choice then let's assume good faith and assume that people won't vote for it. —ras52 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re.: "Please can we keep focused on how we are going to decide this rather than reiterating the arguments for and against specific choices?" - It will be decided by way of a poll - The arguments have already been had out. Agreed. Lets get on with a poll. Regards. Its:
I disagree. The community needs a free and full choice of options under STV. That way we will get a true picture of which is the most acceptable option. Fmph (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that if STV is to be used, all reasonable options are to be considered. This will minimize future ambiguity on the results of the poll. (And yes, we're not talking about what options are best supported, this is just to outline what the poll should look like). --MASEM (t) 21:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ras52 you say that " if [I] want to put additional requirements on proposals, propose an amendment to ground rules to require them" I placed my suggestions under the title "Proposed amendments" could you explain were I should propose if not under "Proposed amendments." Masem I'll accept all "reasonable options" as long as they are not in conflict with Wiki Policies. That is, they are fact based supported by our policies of verifiability using reliable sources and subject to neutral point of view. This will remove future ambiguity and command the support of the Community and no group of editors. This will in my opinion Fmph give a true picture of which is the most acceptable option. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Example amendment: Anonymous users" section was intended as an example of how to submit an amendment. If you do something similar and append it to the "Proposed amendments" section (i.e. immediately below the example), you won't go far wrong. Make sure you make it clear which rules you are amending, or if inserting additional rules, where they belong. We can then vote on it in the same way as the example one. Also, if you have several orthogonal changes to propose, if they can logically be separated into separate amendments, that might be useful, especially if some proposals are more likely to be accepted than others. —ras52 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ras52. Can I just clarify, is it the opinion of all, that a polling is the only solution being considered as part of the Selecting an on-going process. Is there any alternative to polling and what are they? --Domer48'fenian' 07:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer48, So far as I'm concerned you can propose any process you like so long as it isn't overtly biased and will yield a result in the alloted time frame. I'm not quite sure I can see how a process without polling will work, but perhaps that's just lack of imagination on my part. But if you have any ideas of how a process without (or with less) polling would work, please go ahead and propose it. Irrespective of whether it is process finally chosen, it will be interesting to see how such a process might work. —ras52 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stongly oppose this type of poll as a means of resolving the problem, as it is still dependent on dividing up the issues and voting separately on them. As I have stated many times previously, the only way to achieve a fair and stickable compromise is to agree EVERYTHING as a COMPREHENSIVE package. The solution - it seems clear to me - lies in a compromise: change the title of the ROI article in return for an agreement that ROI can be used within article texts when disambiguation is appropriate. If there is to be any poll, therefore, it should be on a comprehensive package as was proposed on the Ireland Disambiguation Task Force. By dividing up the issues, we invite the majority (even if it is only a narrow 51% majority) to "win" on every issue, leaving a disgruntled minority; whereas a compromise means 100% win something but 100% also concede something. Mooretwin (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with Mooretwin's POV on this. There's no point on having a "comprehensive" package just to make sure some editors aren't unhappy. This process is about deciding what is the most NPOV and best solution. What makes editors happy or unhappy is irrelevant it's all about deciding what each individual aspect is best for the reader.MITH 10:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, why is a poll being proposed at all? Mooretwin (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Different editors think different solutions are best for the readers. Thats what this all comes down to.MITH 12:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct. And there is no consensus. Hence the problem. Consensus will not be achieved by a poll, which basically comes down to one "side" winning by force of numbers. If we compromise, however, we can achieve a consensus whereby we all gain something but also concede something. Mooretwin (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of this, this is a compromise. When all the issues and their resolve are put together and laid out, I very much doubt that any editor without an active interest in the area will find the results to be 100% in their favor, but instead will find a number of results that he or she is satisfied with, and a number that they are ok with and a few that they disagree with but understand the consensus process. That's the whole point of consensus is to find a solution that the bulk of involved editors can agree they can work with even if it is not their preferred choice. There's a reason that the call to use STV here makes sense, because we can at least consider editors' second and third options should they choose to provide that. If we were to try to define the "comprehensive" plan, there would exactly one possible option for each involved editor, and we'd never get anything done that way. This type of poll (the one I proposed) is the shortest route to establishing the baseline issues and closing this issue done for the long term. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a compromise if you separate out the issues to be decided upon separately, because all you achieve is a "winners takes all" scenario, and it does not encourage compromise. A "winner takes all" is not, by definition, consensus. If such a poll occurs, for example, I will vote for the same outcome in all three polls. In a package solution I would be required to compromise. Again, I ask: what is wrong with IDTF proposal which gained more support than any previous suggestion? Mooretwin (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mooretwin on this, there needs to be a reasonable compromise which will lead to both sides concerns being addressed. Certain options are only acceptable to some people if things in another of the questions are accepted. Perhaps it would be better to combine the 3 questions into one just with a far larger number of options which people could rank. So for example, people could vote for...
1) Change title from Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) using a pipelink of Ireland in most articles and text except for when there is a clear case of ambiguity because of Northern Ireland or the Island of Ireland, in which case... Republic of Ireland and "Island of Ireland" is used.
2) Keep title at Republic of Ireland using a pipelink of Ireland in most articles and text except for when there is a clear case of ambiguity because of Northern Ireland or the Island of Ireland, in which case... Republic of Ireland and "Island of Ireland" is used.
3) Change title from Republic of Ireland to Ireland and ONLY use Ireland in articles and text when talking about the sovereign state. Move the article on the island to Island of Ireland and always use the full title in articles text to avoid confusion with the state.
Ofcourse if we did something like that there would probably be more than a dozen options to choose from but atleast it deals with the whole problem, not splitting them into questions when certain things like the title and how to talk about it within articles is linked. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MASEM, IMO you have hit the nail on the head above, "establishing the baseline issues and closing this issue [down] for the long term." The base line issues have not been clearly defined. Any proposal must begin by clearly defining the problem to be resolved, and then providing a rational for the proposal which attempts to address the issue. I don’t think there is much support for a poll, and it appears that it is seen as a last option. Likewise, consensus on what the problem is has not been established. Some attempt at defining the problem was attempted here at the “Index of statements”. The statements can be divided into two clear groups, those statements which addressed themselves to the possible solution without defining the problem and those which addressed themselves to the actual problem, but not the solution. Would it be possible for the moderators to present what they define the problem to be, or ask the editors who put forward a solution/problem to attempt the opposite. --Domer48'fenian' 13:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is really only one problem. Ireland is ambiguous, but i know thats something you do not accept. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm i think you will find i did comment on content, i answered your question. You asked the mods to define the problem, i simply answered the question in its simplest form.. Ireland is ambiguous which is why all of these problems arise. My comment about you not accepting it wasnt meant in a nasty way, just recognition that you have disagreed with this point in the past. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland is no more or no less ambiguous than the use of IRA and PIRA in Articles and we reached a solution. So your assumption is wrong. Likewise NI is no more or no less ambiguous than IRL. As ras52 has said “Processes may choose to address a wider range of issues than simply the names of the two Ireland articles.” I’m trying to formulate a process that a) clearly defines the problem, and b) provide a solution that attracts the support of the community and no one group of editors. Consensus seems unlikely, and polling does not command much support. The solution is based on what’s good for Wikipedia, not to prevent disruption. Now you suggest that Ireland is ambiguous, and that is the only problem? Would you like then to be first to set out to clearly define the problem, using diff’s to illustrate the point. I’m sure every editor involved would benefit and would provide the moderators the opportunity of entering in on the ground floor so to speak, instead of having to pull together a number of strings in a process they inherited. --Domer48'fenian' 14:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you proved my point about you not accepting that Ireland is ambiguous, I have told you the problem very clearly. Ireland is ambiguous That is why there is a dispute about where the articles belong and how to describe the different things in the text of articles across wikipedia. Until you are prepared to accept this i dont see how you are going to be happy with anything that takes place here, because it goes against your core belief. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BACK TO COMMENTING ON MASEM'S POLL
Masem, I agree with what you have here. I commend you for doing a very good job with difficult material, but like Fmph, I belleve that Q1 should contain "(c) Ireland for the nation-state, Ireland (disambiguation) for the disambiguation page, and another option (Island of Ireland or Ireland (island)) for the island." I agree with him that the Single Transferrable Vote will solve any dificulty that might arise, and consider that all three options be available in the spirit of fairness. Clearly the vote will winnow out that option if it is not preferred. -- Evertype·✆ 06:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under Q3 you might add the Irish state and the Irish Republic which are terms that have some currency. -- Evertype·✆ 06:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, imo Question 1 needs this option added:
d) Ireland: an article explaining the general topic of Ireland, introducing and explaining the current ambiguity and modern day divergence between the island and the present state in prose format, and detailing at top-level in summary style, all conceivable Ireland/Irish topics, such as History, Geography, Politics, Culture etc etc etc, with sensible formatting to fork to both all Ireland sub topics, and other specialist articles (Northern Ireland being the most obvious). This is similar but intentionally not being proposed as identical to, the treatment of the ambiguity of the word China. Ireland (state): in detail coverage of the modern state only, with the bare minimum background/history bloat needed to understand the present state, and a logical top level home port for truly ROI only topic forks such as education/post formation history. Ireland (island): in detail coverage of the geography of the Ireland, and in detail coverage of any and all feasible Ireland (island) topics, such as telecoms cooperation, trade and transport, all Ireland sports, sinking island conspiracy theories etc etc etc, that otherwise in too much detail would unbalance the main Ireland article. This does give rise to three levels of coverage for some topics like Transport, but invariably, for most, the bottom level is already split between ROI/NI anyway, so it's no big deal.
This is an option that gets significant support when more thoughtfull people come to the issue, and are allowed to see the wood from the trees, the wood being the options most sensible and plausible to outside observers, the trees being the interminably persistant but ultimately circular reasoning of some of the regulars, who of course can only see one end all option, their 'piss everyone off' solution as they often call it, which bizarrely defines the word "Ireland" as having two totally separate meanings, much like Georgia. If any neutral editor were writing Ireland from scratch, they would never come to that solution - it is the devil child of years of pov/tendentious disruption, and is the sad end product of argument fatigue, the lowest intellectual common denominator.
This option would hopefully provide the true dam breaking 'compromise solution' under the single transferable vote system to break the inevitable no consensus result between a status quo/simplistic 2 option dab page poll. The best minor advantage from this option is that nobody will ever be able to edit war over whether just Ireland is a sensible incoming link from other articles: if editors at the incoming article themselves can't decide using the context a more sensible target for an incoming link, it can be just left at Ireland - the reader is not disadvantaged by being presented with a meaningless 2 way dab page, they can *gasp* find out for themselves. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen that option considered before (or if it was, it got drowned out), but seems like a potential sensible solution. We'd still need Ireland (disambiguation) as part of that. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is a good option which shouldnt be left out yes. Very good point about editors on other articles not having to argue about which Ireland a link should go to in certain cases where it could be about either or both the island and the state BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rannpháirtí anaithnid's voting proposal
Like many people, I think, I would like to see this process end. IMHO there is no likelihood of discussion ending on this page. I think a binding vote is the only possibility (as was used to in the case of Danzig/Gdansk). This vote should take place on a subpage of Talk:Ireland and be widely publicised.
In the case of Danzig/Gdansk, there were only two choices so a straight vote could determine the most preferred choice. In the case of Ireland/Republic of Ireland, there are many possible outcomes. I've taken a look at Masem's proposal above, but I don't see how it will lead to a genuinely preferred decision (or even how, at the end of, an indisputably conclusive answer could be drawn). As a consequence, I think a vote by PRSTV is the way to go. (PRSTV was recommended above by ras52 too.)
(For those unfamiliar with PRSTV, it is the electoral system used in Ireland. It's purpose is to determine the most preferred - not just the most popular - among multiple options. I've written a quick overview to how PRSTV works with an example.)
Ireland as dab page → Ireland (island) / Ireland (state)
Ireland / Ireland (island)
Ireland / Ireland (state)
These can, of course, be added to or taken away from before a vote is run, but - obviously - once the vote is opened we cannot changed the options on the ballot.
I think the vote should be run over the course of one month. If we get broad agreement, why not start running the vote within next week? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing, you may have given me reason to rejoin the Ireland naming discussion 'fully', again. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent proposal, but I disagree with having the arguments written beneath each option. ~Asarlaí 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nice proposal but having the arguments beside them is a bad idea. Just the options should be there.MITH 23:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll take the arguments out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Done. I've removed the "arguments" from beneath the possible choices. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I would be explicit about what content is ending up where (possibly a table format). There's also technically a 5th option, being Dab + Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland. I see no problem with this format to answer the basic naming question and leaving the other questions (what to distinguish Ireland (state) in article text)) --MASEM (t) 23:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think the options should be a bit more explicit. I propose it be worded like this:
A) the island at ___ / the state at ___ / disambiguation at ___
If we went ahead with a vote just on the article name itself, what is going to happen about the other concerns raised like how it is mentioned in text. We need this resolved at the same time, there cant be a gap between the basic vote on where articles belong resulting in the articles being moved followed by weeks of debate about how to handle the new articles in text, during which we will see some editors going around removing Republic of Ireland from where there is a clear need to use the term to avoid confusion with the whole island. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, the two votes should be taken at the same time. I suggest we use Rannpháirtí anaithnid's proposal as the basis of the second question (regarding usage in article text). ~Asarlaí 00:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be Ireland (Island) and Ireland (State)--De Unionist (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the options per Superfopp's suggestion. See sandbox. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A vote on this single issue will not solve the dispute, since the dispute is much wider than this and covers references to the 26-county state in the texts of hundreds of other articles, and also articles about, e.g. "Politics of the Republic of Ireland". I therefore oppose it.
The solution lies in a compromise between the article names and the other issues as per the Task Force.
As I've said before, while I believe the state article should be at Republic of Ireland, I'm prepared for that to change in return for an agreement on the use of RoI elsewhere. In the absence of such an agreement, however, I will oppose the change of the current state article name.
Mooretwin (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said below. (Status quo) should not appear beside the voting options. In the real world does it say Fianna Fail (status quo)?MITH 10:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In the real world does it say Fianna Fail (status quo)?" No for much longer! I've taken it out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BritishWatcher, I think (and hope) that we all know that some instances of the description Republic of Ireland will be used within articles for disambiguation. That's one of the things the description can do. It can be helpful. I don't think there is much opposition to the occasional use of that term WITHIN articles for the purposes of disambiguation. There would be opposition to a POV that tried to use it massively throughout most articles (which would be some people's desire evidently). But in my view Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's sandbox poll, with its Single Transferrable Vote, is an excellent way of settling the naming question. Specific rules for when to use the term Republic of Ireland within articles can be worked out, but I would not like to see you or Mooretwin blocking progress because of this. Mooretwin, I can equally take your sentence and mirror it, with clarifications: As I've said before, while I believe the state article should be at Ireland, I'm prepared for it to be at Ireland (state) and understand that there needs to be an agreement on the use of Republic of Ireland elsewhere -- though its use must be restricted to instances of genuine ambiguity. Does that help? -- Evertype·✆ 09:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regaining some focus
We seem to have two proposals on the table at the moment — Masem's poll with three separate questions, and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll with just one question. Rannṗáirtí has very helpfully produced a page for his (though it might be worth moving that to a sub-page of this Wikiproject). Can I suggest that Masem does something similar? A lot of extra options have been proposed for Masem's poll, and I'm completely lost track of which ones Masem has agreed to add and which are not. Domer48 has repeatedly said that we use a mechanism that does not involve voting, and under the previous moderators there seemed to be consensus against voting. However to date, I have not noticed any proposals that don't involve voting and that actually stand a chance of yielding a result. I would therefore like to encourage Domer48 to come up with a formal proposal too.
Second, I notice that several users (including both moderators) have not signed up to the ground rules. I said in those ground rules that they wouldn't come into force unless they had a majority of support and if the two moderators subscribed to them by midnight Sunday. Can I encourage people, particularly the moderators, to do this; or if they don't wish to support it, to say why not. (If the moderators would prefer to discuss that with me off-wiki, my email address is on my user page.)
Thirdly, can I repeat BritishWatcher's plea that we try to focus on the process by which we are going to resolve this, rather than going round in circles reiterating the arguments for and against Ireland the state and Ireland the island? I've not seen any new arguments raised, and anyway, the time to discuss that is after we have sorted out the process.
Finally, and rather more trivially, would anyone object if some of this page was archived? It is getting really rather long. I would suggest that everything before 2.23 This is not what I signed up for could safely be archived.
Agreed with the above comments, although id say archive everything from before we got the new moderators.. it was a fresh start we should of refreshed the talk page then. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will just comment that I have no problem with which poll, mine or Rannṗáirtí, just that I believe this is the path of least resistance to go forward; I have no strong ties to my own poll, and if Rannṗáirtí's is preferred, all the better. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Archive a good idea, agree.--De Unionist (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Fmph (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reserve the right to keen again if keening is warranted. -- Evertype·✆ 09:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1: Under which titles should be placed the island of Ireland, the state of Ireland, and the disambiguation page for "Ireland"?
A) The island at Ireland / the state at Republic of Ireland(status quo)
B) The island at Ireland (island) / the state at Ireland (state) / disambiguation at Ireland
C) The island at Ireland / the state at Ireland (state)
D) The island at Ireland (island) / the state at Ireland
Question 2: In some articles there are occasions when distinctions should be made between Ireland-the-island, Ireland-the-state, and Northern Ireland. Where it isn't necessary to distinguish between these (for example in lists of sovereign states), the state should be referred to as "Ireland".
Where it is necessary to distinguish between these, what term should be used to describe the state?
The first part is almost identical to the poll I posed, though formatted differently. The second part ... well ... it's a bit rulish, and most people won't adhere to it. But I guess if the result is community endorsed then it will be a good way of quenching edit-wars whenever the occur among users not familiar with the result. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the second part, there was good support for BlueHairedLawyers' proposal (see above). We could run a simultaneous poll about that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, having a vote for or against that sort of statement explaining the ground rules for how to use Ireland in text i think is a fairer way and the vast majority would support it so it would be a much more solid agreement. The trouble with the above suggested poll is the large number who think the country article should be at Republic of Ireland will vote for that to be used in text, the large number strongly opposed to it will vote another way, simply creating more disagreement. We should try a vote on the sort of proposal mentioned above by coṁrá. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question 2 cannot be poled. Only discussion can sort that out as Rannpháirtí anaithnid has pointed out above me. Also no need to put (status quo) in the vote.MITH 10:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again can I advise that separate polls on each issue are not organised as there will be no compromise and therefore no consensus. For example, if the above poll were run I would vote for A and A (no compromise). If a package is offered, however, I would have to accept a compromise. Mooretwin (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I always had supported a vote on Rannpháirtí anaithnid's proposal. Second, I assumed the poll would be using STV (ranking in order of preference)? ~Asarlaí 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on Ireland (island) vs. Ireland (state) (split from above)
I cannot see what the problem is with Ireland (island) and Ireland (state)? Why do you oppose this Mooretwin, you must have some specific reservations which for the life of me i cannot recognise?
Ireland is an island and Ireland is a recognised State so what's the difficulty. Certainly, I agree that we Irish, north and south, also use the terms such as the Irish Republic, the Republic of Ireland and the Free State daily in conversation and communication because that is what we all know it as.--De Unionist (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I cannot see what the problem is..." Neither side can't. I can't see what's wrong with things as they are. We've been over and over this for years. See the archives on this page and many other, we've been through this time and time again. There's no point any more, we won't achieve a consensus. Let's just vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not until I get an answer to my question by anyone who disagrees with using Ireland (island) and Ireland (State). --De Unionist (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it inconveniences ALL readers who wish to find the Ireland article because it sends them to a disambiguation page. It also doesn't solve the dispute about referring to Ireland within other articles. Mooretwin (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We must recognize, Mooretwin, that initially it will take work for us to do a lot of piping. I'm willing to help with that. Once the piping is done, we can watch for Ireland links and pipe them as an ongoing task for the Wikiproject Ireland. Regarding the use of RoI as a disambiguator within articles, what is your proposal? (Make it again, here, succinctly. Do not point us back to months-old discussion on another page, please.) -- Evertype·✆ 09:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bot could do all of that because it would simply be a case of changeling *all* [[Ireland]] to [[Ireland (island)]], *all* [[Republic of Ireland]] or [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] to [[Ireland (state)]] then finally *all* (few) [[Ireland (disambiguation)]] to [[Ireland]].
That's not the issue. The issue would be why would we move a page that got 1,763 hits last month (the dab page) over a page that got 200,905? There's no need for it. Nobody goes there. 151,456 people found Republic of Ireland quiet easily last month without it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Britannica solution"
IMHO Ireland is a primary topic (i.e. deals with the history, culture, geography, people of all of Ireland). The article currently at Republic of Ireland is a subtopic of that (in respect of history, culture, geography, people etc.) Some people are unhappy at the article on the state being at Republic of Ireland and would like it to be moved to Ireland (state). That would be fine by me. Dabbing the Ireland page would be my last choice, since it would introduce a needless step into the equation (everything you might need to know about Ireland is in the Ireland article, if you want to know more about specifically the state of the same name, go to article that deals with specifically with that).
Contrast our way of doing things with Britannica which makes no distinction between the state and the island, having only one article that is ostensibly about the state, but which actually covers the whole island (like a merger between our current Ireland and Republic of Ireland). I would be in favour of such a solution too (over the current solution). From experience though it wouldn't work on WP. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't view the island as the primary topic but I'd strongly consider the Britannica option as a good potential solution.MITH 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add it to the vote? (i.e. E: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland in Ireland) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk • contribs) 12:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend adding that as well as the option suggested by MickMacNee above (an Ireland article in addition to one about the island and one about the state). The benefit of STV is that providing more options (but not too many) can provide a clearer picture of what people are wanting; maybe it ends up that people's #1 picks are all over the place but #2 is one of these options - that might suggest a better consensus than the majority #1 if it's only by a few votes. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Although I don't really see the advantage of MickMacNee's proposal over Ireland/Ireland (state). Sounds like it would be just one more article to fight over to me. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done? Done where? What was done? -- Evertype·✆ 18:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a proposed "ballot paper" in my sandbox. I am amending it with suggestions from here. This all leads on from my proposal above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rannpháirtí anaithnid the suggestion by MickMacNee's is basically the same as the one you suggested above, and considered a possible solution by both MitH and Masem. I would be in agreement with the "Britannica solution" which makes no distinction between the state and the island, having only one article that is ostensibly about the state, but which actually covers the whole island (like a merger between our current Ireland and Republic of Ireland). This Ireland article would then be subject to MickMacNee's suggestion, with a brief outline on each heading with disambiguation headings on each directing readers to the Article which deals with the subject in more detail. --Domer48'fenian' 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I added MickMacNee suggestion to the "ballot paper" in my sandbox anyway. It would do no harm having it in a PRSTV vote. (I didn't mean to sound dismissive of it. Apologies to MickMacNee if I did.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, such a merger should only take place if Ireland were to be reunited. ~Asarlaí 15:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content of either article (island or country), being shifted to the other? is unacceptable. This is one bloke, who'll never consent to it. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If im reading the above right, I strongly oppose the suggestion that there should be a single article on Ireland covering the state and island.. thats deeply offensive and will certainly not lead to consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BritishWatcher, a single article on 'Ireland' is a nonsense and not the way to go. There has to be a proper determination which could lead to a consensus. It is about time an Admin took a lead in this. --De Unionist (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend re-reading MickMacNee's suggestion again (however, this is not an endorsement, just that it seems a valid option to consider in a STV poll). That is, while an article on Ireland will be a mashup of the island and the state and likely older countries that have been on the island (eg Irish Free State), there will still have to be subarticles on the island proper and the 26-county state proper; it's not an attempt to merge these two. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not how i read it although like i said i wasnt sure. I liked the idea mentioned yesterday or the other day about having a basic article covering everything about Ireland like is done with China and then a further article for the Island / State. But from the above conversation it sounded to me like an attempt to have a single article for both the island / state without sub articles being the main articles for the country / island. These options are going to have to be very well worded to avoid any misunderstanding. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is the option to have a single Ireland article, merging the island and state. I'm not so sure how much support that has, but I think it's fair to add it to the STV poll. That should give 6 options, which I think covered nearly every viewpoint stated here. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like this proposed article (assuming we'll be keeping the country & island articles). Afterall, the China article would be a precedent for it. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have before me a 9 volume set called "A New History of Ireland". The first volume is "Prehistoric and Early Ireland", edited by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, and there is no ambiguity about Ireland. All 9 volumes deal with the concept of Ireland the island. But to note, in Volume 9 (the most useful one), where a list of offices holders, office holders of the Republic hold office in "Ireland" and ones in Northern Ireland in "Northern Ireland". Whatever change happens in this process, I hope there will be general agreement that before the break-off of most of the island from the United Kingdom, Ireland is not ambiguous, and that no-one will argue for absurdities like History of Ireland (island); but it is true to say that probably in most minds, the concepts of Ireland and the state of Ireland are more merged into each other than they are separate. It's just unfortunate that merging the two is so unoperable on wikipedia because wikipedia is so large and can easily accomodate both separately. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's too bad that all the island counties didn't support independence from the UK. Wikipedia could've done without the year-after-year disputes. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears obvious that editors who were Polls apart, have reached or are reaching a consensus on the "Britannica/China solution." While no editor gets all they want, we all get to have an agreement which stays firmly within the framwork of Wiki. To continue now with a Poll which no editor really wants, flies in the face of the consensus staring stright at us. --Domer48'fenian' 07:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus?
"...a single article on 'Ireland' is a nonsense and not the way to go." - De Unionis
"...such a merger should only take place if Ireland were to be reunited." - Asarlaí
"...strongly oppose the suggestion..." - BritishWatcher
"I'm not so sure how much support that has, but I think it's fair to add it to the STV poll." - Masem
Let's stick it in as an option for a STV vote. If it's is consensus then it will "win" hands down. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a fair enough solution and I would give my endorsement to it also it appears some consensus is begining to form on this issue. Wikipedia is not a democracy and if we have consensus here can we not just take the next step and implement it instead of stalling and the whole affair becoming bogged down gain with endless arguments going nowhere. BigDuncTalk 11:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure people are clear on what this so called consensus is even on. Theres the China way on wikipedia, where theres a general article about the area along with links to the main article about the country. I could support that idea with a general article about Ireland with links to Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Island articles.
However the "Britannica solution" if that is what some people are supporting is totally unacceptable and no consensus on this method will be formed. It is not acceptable to have just a single article on the Island/country, just the idea of it is offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While editors are using terms like offensive to describe a possible solution we are at a total impass. This kind of loaded language is extremly unhelpful. Out of curiousity what is offensive about it? BigDuncTalk 11:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to be clear about my thoughts on this matter and by some other comments above its clear there is no consensus on the "Britannica solution". Its offensive because the Republic of Ireland can not claim ownership over the whole island and its history. The ROI is not the only country on the island of Ireland there for why should they be combined. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it ironic that an editor who is a firm supporter of the imposition of the term British Isles onto Ireland can be offened by a solution because their unionist/loyalist POV, suppose you just have to laugh at the hypocrisy. BigDuncTalk 11:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The British Isles is a geographical term just like Europe. Plenty of people do not like Europe here, it doesnt mean we are not part of Europe and can simply opt out of it. Having an article on the British isles does not prevent an article on the island of Ireland or the country, if it did then ofcourse that would be unacceptable. The Republic of Ireland does not include the whole of the island of Ireland, so i do not see how the "island" information can be combined with the sovereign state. In the case of Australia which is both a country and a continent its acceptable to have a single article, but Ireland is divided so the island of Ireland cant be combined with just one state. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding the above, Ireland the state has possession of 85% of the land of the island, and all of the seas around the island. Therefore Northern Ireland is actually inside Ireland the state and island. It is rather difficult for some to grasp/accept these precisions, and a consideration that would indeed justify the "one Ireland" article. Tfz 12:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first reasonable solution which does not go out side our policies, and a typical reaction by some editors. If a load of editors came on here to support this, all talk of a poll would go out the window. I'm not happy with it all, but the editors who want seperate article get them. What is wrong with the China article? I find myself in agreement with editors with which I'm polls apart on most issues to me that's progress! --Domer48'fenian' 12:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BigDunc, consensus isn't formed by insisting that there is consensus. Of the few editors that have offered and opinion, more have expressed a dislike for the "Britannica solution" that have said they are in favour of it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say consensus was achieved on this? Of the editors that expressed a dislike one is a new editor with 24 edits and a very strong POV that is currently blocked and suspicions of a sock have been muted about this editor too. But AGF their opinion is still noted. BigDuncTalk 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rannpháirtí anaithnid "consensus isn't formed by insisting that there is consensus." In this discussion that is all I've had from one group of editors, saying they have a consensus but not one can show me were this discussion took place! --Domer48'fenian' 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rannpháirtí anaithnid, slow down man, we will get this sorted in the end! However, I dont see any clear concensus - maybe a straw poll would help. regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs)
This "Brittanica" solution is only an option to be considered in a poll. I can tell from past discussion that it's not necessarily popular or editors' first choice, but it is a valid one to consider particularly in light of a STV-type poll. It should not be considered the target solution that everyone needs to agree on, just that it is one possible solution. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is brilliant. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vin, nothing wrong with a straw poll, but it seems some have only a poll in mind! Like I said, if there is a swing in numbers, we will see back tracking in addition to the digging in of heels that we are seeing. If twenty editors came here supporting it, I'll still be opposed to polling, Polling discourages consensus.--Domer48'fenian' 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that if there was consensus to come to a common solution among all, that would definitely be preferable to polling. However, my judgement here is that there is an inseparable divide between at least two of the opinions given (and not 90/10-like split, we're talking 50/50), and the fact that this has existed since the start of the project means it is not going to go away anytime soon with a magical solution.
Which is why, as a moderator, I strongly back the polling effort over attempts to discuss the issue in circles over and over again. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we're going nowhere. We've been here for six months. Where's another eight years in the archives of Talk:Republic of Ireland. The status quo is all we have but the dissenting voices are right, the status quo is not consensus. So even as someone who supports the status quo, let's take a vote on the options (the development of which, at least, has been a positive outcome of the past six months) and bind ourselves to whatever result there may be. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, my proposed option is not a simple merger of ROI/Ireland. That strikes me as wholly violating the NPOV by conflating the island with the state, and remember, Brittanica is probably just as concerned with saving paper as being neutral, so the comparison with what they do is weak. Sensible amounts of duplication does not harm us. The heart of the dispute is ambiguity, so none of the three proposed new articles of Ireland, Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) will be a Primary Topic of Ireland per se, that description will be wholly dependant on context. But for completeness, a simple merger should be included in the vote if we are going to be using STV. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Britannica solution" is a "simple" merger. I put the "MickMacNee" solution on the ballot paper, but I don't really understand it. If we have a Ireland (island) article (as well as a seperate Ireland (state) article), what would the new article at Ireland be about? How would it be differet form out current Ireland article? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the current Ireland is about the island. The suggestion seems to be that instead of that article just being about the island it becomes a general overview of everything like the island/ history / ROI/NI etc then sub articles about the Island, country, and Northern Ireland. It does seem like that option is simply going to create even more duplication, keeping the island where it is would be the easiest solution (although the country article still would need renaming) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will suggest the best course of action is that if this particular proposal is chosen, that we will want to spend some discussion to describe the bounds of it to keep duplication to a minimum after the vote. Think of it like the intersection in a Venn diagram, though, for purposes of the poll - it should describe elements of the island and the country (and it's past) that are normally associated with that body of land throughout time. (Again, I make no attempt to endorse this solution, only helping to clarify why I think it should be on the poll). --MASEM (t) 23:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...instead of that article just being about the island it becomes a general overview of everything like the island/ history / ROI/NI..." Eh, but the current article is about those things. From it table of contents: Political geography ... Wildlife ... History ... The Irish Free State, Éire, Ireland ... Northern Ireland ... Culture ... Science ... Sport ... Demographics ... Cities ... Transport ... Energy network ...
What would be differrent about the new article? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well i presume it just wouldnt go into as much detail about things like Geography, wildlife etc which could be moved to its own article but i dont know. Its certainly going to need a detailed explanation if this is put to a vote so we know exactly what we are all voting for. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there two articles on Ireland?
Why is there two articles on Ireland? --CarolDonegal (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having lived in England all my life, living in Ireland only four years that sounds crazy. Like most English people, on Ireland I was clueless. I live in Donegal, which is in Northern Ireland in Ulster. When my Mum and Dad said that I nearly died. Now I know there is Northern Ireland and there is Northern Ireland. Confusing? Well not as confusing as there is an island called Ireland and a country called Ireland. They are the same thing! It would have to have been a man to come up with that one. If I want to read an article on Ireland, that is all I should have to look for. There is only one Ireland, and only one article needed. --CarolDonegal (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Republic of Ireland cover all of the island of Ireland? If you have lived in Northern Ireland obviously you know this is not the case there for how can there be a single article on different matters? I live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland this country occupies the WHOLE of the island of Great Britain and yet there is still an article on both. Its not our fault the Republic of Ireland chose to name their country that of the Island.
Its also interesting to see this is ur first contributions here on wikipedia, i see the recent comments about lots of new users arriving to rig the poll is starting to come true. Will the Admins be doing regular Sock checks and banning those people trying to cheat? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She does live in Northern Ireland this actually shows an ambiquity with the name given to the 6 counties, Donegal is the most northern county in Ireland. For that matter Monaghan has a more northern point than almost half of the 6 counties Down, Armagh and Fermanagh. BigDuncTalk 15:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is crazy people taking this as anything other than a joke, come on guys. Who calls Ireland the Republic of Ireland? I live in Northern Ireland, it is in Ireland. I do not live in the United Kingdom now, and I never called it United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The name of the island is Ireland guys. Everyone in the world calls it that so lets stop being silly. I'm just a reader who wanted to get some information on Ireland, and I discovered there was two articles and a silly discussion. All I see is a small group of people playing a game saying there is an island called Ireland and a country called Ireland. Grow up please. --CarolDonegal (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Who calls Ireland the Republic of Ireland?" – actually, within the "six-counties", the "twentysix-counties" are never referred to as "Ireland". Whether they be republican/nationalist/unionist/loyalist, it's always referred to as "the Republic of Ireland", "the Republic" or "the south". ~Asarlaí 15:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice bit of WP:OR Asarlaí you speak for the whole six counties do you? BigDuncTalk 15:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's just from my own experience. But if you ever go there I guarantee you'll find that to be the case (not that it makes a difference on Wikipedia). ~Asarlaí 16:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I ever go there, do you know my history, my family history again a sweeping generalisation using YOUR experience and claiming it is the experience of the whole 6 counties. BigDuncTalk 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim it was anything more than my own experience. All I'm saying is that, within the "six-counties", I've never seen/heard 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. ~Asarlaí 16:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have heard it. BigDuncTalk 16:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if its NEVER used in Northern Ireland, which we know is simply not true, we can all accept that the BBC and other British organisations rightly or wrongly do use the term Republic of Ireland so its not like this is being made up by a couple of editors here. If this is moving towards a vote by the way are we going to get everyone registered on the members page and ONLy allow those registered to vote incase we do get a flood of new users to swing the result? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh [1] and [2] two political parties in Northern Ireland use the term Republic of Ireland. Even the SDLP which want a united Ireland uses the term. [3]BritishWatcher (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I sometimes call it "The South", it's neither here nor there. Don't see why BBC should hold any sway one way or the other, which is an arm of the British Government, who refused to recognise Ireland, and carried out an economic war against the fledgling state, so there is a "history" involved. We all know what the name is, and that it is described as a 'republic' in order to distinguish it from the monarchy that it once was. Let's move forward on this. Tfz 16:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC call the country the Irish Republic. Should that be considered as a title because they use it? If CNN decided they'd call the country "Paddy Land" should we acknowledge that also? The manual of style of the media from a particular country should have no effect on this process.MITH 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And ofcourse theres the fact that Irelands football team is actually called the Republic of Ireland[4][5] and people come here and lie through their teeth about it never being used and act like its a made up name on wikipedia. Ofcourse it is described as many things Tfz, but CarolDonegal came here saying its NEVER used. What a damn joke, i agree lets move on. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the football team is a completely different issue. Both teams on the island wanted to use the name Ireland. FIFA said none could have it and imposed a name on both team. Regarding the republic, it has no connection to the name of the country.MITH 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the football team is the only thing I know called by RoI, and please stop accusing people of telling lies, it's considered disruption. Enough of 'oneupmanship'. Tfz 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ROI is a term nothing more it has no relevence to the name of the country Ireland. BigDuncTalk 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a term, that is all im saying (im not making a case for the article being there). I am just saying in respones to
"It is crazy people taking this as anything other than a joke, come on guys. Who calls Ireland the Republic of Ireland?"
That there are plenty of sources and examples of Republic of Ireland being used. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Ireland is not the official name of the state, but it is the official description of the state. End of story. Let's not debate this yet again. ~Asarlaí 17:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've sectioned off this section as not particularly relevant to the one it was started in. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Donegal is the most Northern part of Ireland. It's seems like some guys want to say that the most Northern part of Ireland is in the South. That is how silly this is and can only be the product of a man's need to argue. The Ireland article is and should be about Ireland, but some guys from the North say NO, supported by some guys from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, guys leave your out dated politics at the door the world has moved on. --CarolDonegal (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Donegal is the most northern part of Ireland, yes. But your opening statement says Donegal is in Northern Ireland. Um, no. It's in northern Ireland - small 'n'. Subtle but important difference. BastunnutsaB 12:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we need to disambaguate Northern Ireland as it is confusing for the reader. BigDuncTalk 13:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they just need to know what state they live in? BastunnutsaB 13:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they know where they live it appears they are pointing out the need for diambag on the name Northern Ireland. IMO that name is more confusing to the reader than the claim being pushed that Ireland is. BigDuncTalk 13:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe we need to worry about this case in order to narrow down what options to vote. Primarily, this is due to the fact that I see no articles that talk about the geographic regions of the 26-county state (in contrast to, say Southwestern United States); because of that, if a user was seeking info on "northern Ireland" (lower-case n), they would likely first end up on "Northern Ireland"; from there, a dab note or (as done now) a disambiguation page can point to the general article on the 26-county state due to lack of a specific geographic region article. Should that article ever be created, the dab would just have to be updated to refer to that. However, clearly, unlike the present disambiguation between "Ireland" for island and state, "Northern Ireland" has a single most common meaning in English, and that's the state that is part of the UK, so there would be no need to go through this lengthy process again. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Northern Ireland" has a single most common meaning in English, and that's the state that is part of the UK" [citation needed] Ireland has a single most common meaning in English, and every European contry. --Domer48'fenian' 19:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because everyone who wants to move the article Republic of Ireland to the page Ireland seems to want to remove all the important stuff about the island. And says things like "The republic part is Ireland and the rest is not." Crazy, huh? (only read what OP DonegalCarol wrote, sorry) ~ R.T.G 22:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. in response to Asarlai ("in the six counties people say Republic of Ireland") Well, outside of football, they practically never say that because they always say "Down south" or "Free state". ~ R.T.G 22:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This really doesn't make a difference on Wikipedia. But anyway... in newspapers, news programmes, radio stations and common speech, I've only ever heard/seen "the Republic of Ireland", "the Republic", "the south" and "the twentysix-counties" being used. If someone said "I'm going to Ireland tomorrow" they'd be met with confused faces. ~Asarlaí 23:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Agreed the 'faces' and lol. ~ R.T.G 09:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing at 2:00p.m. (BST), Thursday. FF3000 (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emerging consensus
There appears to be an emerging consensus that,
(1) Ireland be a primary topic about island, ancient history, culture, art, tourism etc etc.
(2) Northern Ireland, though may be ambigious to some as in 'northern Ireland', keep its current title,
(3) Ireland (state) refers to to Ireland, the modern state,
(4) Republic of Ireland article refers to the '1949 RoI Act', and
(5) There is only one state in the world named Ireland, therefore disambiguation is unnecessary for 'Ireland state' related titles.
Some editors want detailed disambiguation guidelines in advance of any moves, but that will only stop the process moving forward, and details written in advance of a move will not work as they will lead to widespread disruption and Wikilawyering. My proviso to any move is that the term "Republic of Ireland" should never be used to refer to the 'Irish state'. All wording problems can easily be solved by good faith NPOV editing. The road ahead is clear. Tfz 13:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm whilst i agree with most of the above, i think Republic of Ireland should be a redirect to the country article (where ever that goes) rather than another article describing the ROI act. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that ROI should be redirected to the country article. BigDuncTalk 14:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it appears this emerging consensus is no where near consensus yet BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is where the RoI article must connect with, Republic of Ireland Act 1948. The very reason for this discussion page is for the untenable RoI situation be attended to. By "i think Republic of Ireland should be a redirect to the country article (where ever that goes) rather than another article describing the ROI act." is fundamentally going against the reason why this page was set up in the first instance. By taking that stance, you are adopting the 'Status Quo' here at Wikipedia, which has been deficient thus far. This is why ArbCom will have to come in and make judgment on the true consensus. Tfz 15:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm im sorry but the status quo is still a possible outcome of this dispute although i find it unlikely that will happen. This is to do with where the article on Ireland the country belongs, no matter where it gets moved to that doesnt mean there is going to be some new article at Republic of Ireland. from previous debates ive seen on this matter ROI would continue to act as a redirect. If Arbcom wanted to come and have a look where we are right now, im sorry but they would not find consensus here yet, even if some seem urgent to declare it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to the longstanding editors who have edited these articles over the years. Tfz
I generally agree with Tfz's numbered points above, except that I think that initially, RoI should be kept as a redirect to Ireland (state). Once we complete a cleanup run and change appropriate RoI links to I(s), we can re-point RoI to Republic of Ireland Act. That sound reasonable to anyone else? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is this 'apparent consensus' emerging? For the life of me, I can't see it. Fmph (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, several people have said we are close to consensus in the past few days, i must of missed it though because theres still some core disagreements. I dont have a problem with the country article being moved off of Republic of Ireland, however i strongly oppose this idea of having some different article at Republic of Ireland. It is a commonly known term for the country and deserves a redirect to where ever the country article goes, not just short term but always (considering its been at Republic of Ireland on here for years, we suddenly must now not even have it as a redirect??? seems crazy BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer Ireland to be a DAB but if thats where the consensus is going, I would back it. I agree with BritishWatcher that "Republic of Ireland" should be a redirect to the country article rather than another article describing the ROI act. Regards . Redking7 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) So we leave the reader to think that ROI is the name of the country when it is not and the 1949 RoI Act is just forgotten about. Are we not supposed to inform the reader not just pander to pro british POV. BigDuncTalk 18:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A DAP page on ROI would avoid any confusion there (it could make it clear that ROI is a description, something everyone agrees on. Equally a note at the top of the new Ireland(state) which says that ROI is the descrription and pipe-links to the 1949 act would work. --SnowdedTALK 18:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would make it more clear instead of a note on the top of the article. BigDuncTalk 18:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether, when a person types "Republic of Ireland" into the search bar, do they expect to be brought to an article on the declaration of the state as a republic or do they expect to be brought to an article on the state often called by that name (be it its official name or not)? I expect that, when a person types "United Kingdom" into the search bar, they expect to be brought to an article on that state, not an article on the 1801 Act of Union, despite "United Kingdom" not being the official name of the state. The same applies when a person types United States etc.
Why make life difficult for our readers for the sake of some pedantic argument? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put the DAB onto the article on the act, it is factually correct and it informs the reader which is the purpose of wikipedia. BigDuncTalk 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Rannpháirtí anaithnid has written above. If the article on the state is moved to a new title, Republic of Ireland should direct there. ~Asarlaí 19:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A new title you make it sound like we just made up a term, it is the correct name of the article and making ROI a redirect just perpetuates the lie that ROI is the name of Ireland it is not and should not redirect to Ireland. You are rewarding ignorance. Jus because someone ignorantly calls Ireland ROI doesn't mean we have to pander to this ignorance with a redirect. BigDuncTalk 19:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the official description of the state. Nobody is claiming that's the official name. ~Asarlaí 19:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid makes a very good point. UK doesn't redirect to 1800 Act of Union, United States doesn't redirect to United States Declaration of Independence and South Africa doesn't redirect to Constitution of South Africa. There are many other examples. In each case, these are not official names, but commonly used alternative names, abbreviations or descriptions of sovereign states. Its patently obvious that >99% of our readers would want to read about the state if they type these terms into the text box, they would not primarily want to read about the origin of the term. Can you justify why Republic of Ireland should be different? These sorts of redirects are not "rewarding ignorance" any more than redirecting misspelled terms to the correct article are. I have an idea, lets redirect Irland to Learn to spell. That would teach those ignorant bastards, eh? Rockpocket 20:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Its patently obvious that >99% of our readers would want to read about the state if they type these terms into the text box, they would not primarily want to read about the origin of the term." [citation needed] so obvious you'll reference it. This is a fact based discussion? --Domer48'fenian' 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a logic based assertion based upon a metric we can measure - edits. But lets not derail the "emerging consensus" on this issue. I'll happily continue to discuss this after the ROI article title is free to direct somewhere! Rockpocket 20:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be an emerging consensus that,
(1) Ireland be a primary topic about island, ancient history, culture, art, tourism etc etc.
(2) Northern Ireland, though may be ambigious to some as in 'northern Ireland', keep its current title,
(3) Ireland (state) refers to to Ireland, the modern state,
(4) Republic of Ireland article refers to the '1949 RoI Act', and
(5) There is only one state in the world named Ireland, therefore disambiguation is unnecessary for 'Ireland state' related titles.
Some editors want detailed disambiguation guidelines in advance of any moves, but that will only stop the process moving forward, and details written in advance of a move will not work as they will lead to widespread disruption and Wikilawyering. My proviso to any move is that the term "Republic of Ireland" should never be used to refer to the 'Irish state'. All wording problems can easily be solved by good faith NPOV editing. The road ahead is clear. Tfz 13:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I oppose any attempt to move forward with TfZ's proposal because it appears to be an attempt to purge Wikipedia of the perfectly-legitimate and normal (in the real world) term "Republic of Ireland". I refer to this statement: My proviso to any move is that the term "Republic of Ireland" should never be used to refer to the 'Irish state'. This is not compromise.
I oppose the move because it fails to deal with the fundamental issue of referring to the 26-county state in other articles, and also the titles of articles relating to the 26-county state and or the whole island.
I also oppose any move which involves dealing or voting separately with issues in the absence of an overall agreement about ALL issues.
The best compromise solution remains that put forward by the Ireland Disambiguation Task Force.
This is a proposed article for the Republic of Ireland with a disambiguation hatnote on the top for Republic of Ireland Act 1948 . Wikipedia is directed at the readers, and this article which is completely referenced has not been challenged by anyone on either WP:V, or WP:NPOV. It directly relates to the subject of the Article title. That we are again moving forward is to be welcomed. --Domer48'fenian' 19:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I said an "Emerging consensus" I did not say there was one. I based in on the comments of rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, MITH, GoodDay, Deacon of Pndapetzim and MickMacNee's suggestion in addition to BigDunc, Tfz and CarolDonegal. There are Editors here who are normally polls apart so was I not correct in saying "Emerging consensus"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs)
rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid we are talking about the RoI, why would we section off comments on the RoI? --Domer48'fenian' 20:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is quite remarkable that there hasn't (yet) been a rejection of this beyond the ROI redirect issue. In reality, this is not a sticking point for ultimate goal, which is to find a home for the articles on the island and the state that is agreeable. I would urge editors not to get too hung up on this one issue. If we can get anything near consensus for the other 4 statements we should be very, very close to a resolution. Rockpocket 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If fact, I would even go as far to propose that statement (4) be scratched from the proposal and left for discussion later since it has essentially no impact of where the article for the state would go. Domer was very keen to discuss this on the article page and - the reason why we couldn't - was because it would require moving the article that was already there. Once that is resolved by moving the current contents, the contents of ROI can be discussed without restriction. Rockpocket 20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the content at Republic of Ireland? That article is alright, it's just the name that needs to be changed. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is my I sectioned Domer48's proposal off. We can take the two parts separately. If there is consensus to move Republic of Ireland -> Ireland (state) then, after that move, we can discuss whether Republic of Ireland should become something else (be that a redirect to Republic of Ireland Act or a new article about the term). But for now, if there is consensus on everything else, let's solve one bit of our problem at least and have it redirect to Ireland (state) - at least for the period immediately after the move. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, lets park it for now! --Domer48'fenian' 20:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outdent - I see no emerging consensus of the kind described. I see a consensus about holding a Single Transferrable Vote on Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. I support that, completely and unreservedly. I do not favour any process which tries to winnow without STV. And I oppose any attempt to take parts separately. 22:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Also see no emerging consensus. And I'm wondering why Domer's proposed article is ok now, but when I put it in mainspace a week or so ok it first got prod'ed then deleted as a POV fork. What's changed in the meantime...? BastunnutsaB 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, Bastun, Evertype, could you please state your detailed objections to the "emerging consensus" in less than 100 words each? Thank you. Tfz 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current article named Republic of Ireland, is about the independant country called Ireland (the one that broke away from the UK). All I've ever requested (concerning that article) is to change the title to Ireland (state), I've never requested change or gutting out the content. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, I can't see any fundamental divergence in what you write, to what many of the other editors who want to move forward, have been writing. Tfz 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where, here? OK, but, I'm not limiting myself to 100 words. I did see an "emerging consensus" toward a particular type of inclusive poll, with Single Transferable Voting. I supported this, and have also assented to Mooretwin's and Scoláire's comments that we do need to acknowledge that some sort of use of the description Republic of Ireland ought to be used and usable within articles for disambiguation where warranted. I saw a lot of consensus about STV polling. Then I come back and see the rug pulled out from under that, with this new "emerging consensus" where inclusive options (which allow everyone to express their genuine preferences even though it is clear some of those will not end up as chosen options) are being abandoned. This jumps the gun. I object to it. I think Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll should be run, and if some RoI needs to be added to satisfy Mooretwin and Scoláire (who have a point) then that should be considered. (163 words) -- Evertype·✆ 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Now there is more stuff below. Tfz, was there any point in my writing my 163 words? -- Evertype·✆ 17:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a point, and very enlightening. There seems to be a need by some editors to use the string 'Republic of Ireland' as a "proper name", instead of its intended use by the Irish government, who created the term to be used as a "proper adjective". I cannot see any problem with 'republic of Ireland' for disambiguation in certain limited circumstances as you propose, but to allow "Republic of Ireland" onto any sentence where there "might" be disambiguation "needs" in the "subjective opinion" of an editor, is a licence for mammoth and unimaginable disruption at Wikipedia. All one has to do is visit Scouting Ireland in order to get a tiny glimpse of that scenario. Tfz 19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find the word "republic" or "Republic" on Scouting Ireland. I agree that there are some POVs which would wish to "disambiguate" aggressively and I agree that this would be inappropriate. Why? Because there would ALSO have to be an equally aggressive disambiguation to "island of Ireland" if that practice were to be consistent. (Having said that, isn't the legal "description" a proper name? The Act does not say "republic of Ireland", but rather "Republic of Ireland". Let's not be disingenuous.) But what remedy would you propose to the problem of over-use of "Republic of Ireland" as a disambiguator? -- Evertype·✆ 07:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again i strongly oppose this idea of creating a new article at Republic of Ireland, i will support the country article being moved to something like Ireland (state) but it will only be on the condition that Republic of Ireland remains a redirect. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Republic of Ireland' is a proper adjective, that's why it's capatalised. And as for the Scouting Ireland, did you read the 'talk page stream'. The whole episode was a complete waste of editors' energies, and that scenario can be multiplied by 1,000 by "nailing everything down". Wikipedia hasn't worked in the past by nailing everything down, and I can't see anything special in this case to warrant such an extreme stricture. Also, I can't see that Wikipedia will be nailed down by any such agreement or package, as every case is quite unique, and there can be no embargo on initiating any changes into the future. It's a non-runner. Tfz 12:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think this is probably going over old ground, but, since Tzf has closed his proposal above, let's summarise what came out of that discussion with a poll. I think we were close to something in that so let's just take a head count. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rannpháirtí anaithnid we are moving away from polling and moving towards a solution based on consensus. What we need to do now IMO is have a straw poll to gauge the current consensus. Editors opposed should be asked to outline their objections? --Domer48'fenian' 09:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point of this poll (or "straw poll" if you prefer). It looked like we were close to/had consensus above but that it got lost in the details of discussion. A head count will show if there was a consensus or not. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not actually closed, but a step forward on the path to resolving the issue/s. The poll below is a bit elaborate, and a simple straw poll as suggested by Domer would be easier to handle at this stage. Tfz 13:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree below seems a bit elaborate for a straw poll. BigDuncTalk 13:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How could it be simplified? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the poll be handles on one central location rather than on either Ireland or Republic of Ireland, seeing as any proposed moves (or retention of status quo) would effect at least two pages? To put this to bed once and for all, if and when a poll happens, it should also be advertised as widely as possible - including one of those banners you see occasionally when something major is on such as Arbcom elections or the poll on licenising. BastunnutsaB 22:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Here? I don't think participation here is wide enough (even despite being advertised). At least Talk:Ireland is a well visited page. (Talk:Republic of Ireland has as much going for it in that respect but I thought Talk:Ireland would be more "central".) Maybe a subpage of the ArbCom page that led us here?
Agree totally course it should be advertised widely. A big "ArbCom" banners would help. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have put together a sample Straw poll which I hope has simplified it? I agree that all decisions should be advertised for imput from the community. --Domer48'fenian' 08:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question A: What will we do next about the page moves?
Option A2, but see comment below (General Comments section) on where it should be run/how it should be advertised. BastunnutsaB 23:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Option A2 —ras52 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Option A4 - we don't do either of those things until we have a comprehensive solution that includes references in articles. Mooretwin (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think its fairest to have a vote with all the options available. ~Asarlaí 09:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Asarlaí, and I think that Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll is quite comprehensive. -- Evertype·✆ 17:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a tad confused (my brain is over-loaded). Which of these options would best match my previous comments? GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BugDunc, I don't get what you mean by "No redirect of ROI to Ireland" (probably obvious, but I don't get it). Can you explain? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep it is the obvious ROI should go to the act with a dab to the country. contary to the fine bit of OR by Rock above we don't know what editors are looking for when they type into their search bar so lets educate thats what an encyclopedia does. BigDuncTalk
I don't believe that is what I have done. BigDuncTalk 10:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then the distinction between "The China solution" (with discussion of what to do with ROI left until after the move) and A1 above needs to be explained to me. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question B: What will we do next about the use of terms in article?
Option B2 - we don't do something "next" about the use of terms in article: we do it at the same time in order to promote compromise and consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a tad confused (having a brain fart). Which of these options match my previous comments? GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what your previous comments were. Please study the options; they are pretty clear. -- Evertype·✆ 23:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
which ever method is used to decide this matter, it should be done before any of the articles are moved around following the results of question one. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We’ve had three suggestions which all revolve around what could be called the China solution. It has been broken down by Tfz above into five points, reduced to four leaving discussion on the RoI till we have gained consensus on the other four first. Those who have expressed a positive view for this solution include:
We could list the editors who have commented in a positive and supportive way to the suggestion, or
Use the support or oppose heading and ask them to sign.
We could then do the same with the editors who oppose this solution.
It would look something like this: This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look based on Editors responces.
I don't know what you are talking about. I would like to see progress made on Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. I really would. I don't believe we will ever get "consensus" by argument. This has gone on too long. I believe that a vote where people can rank what they CAN support and what they CANNOT support in Single Transferable Voting will lead to a workable solution. -- Evertype·✆ 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny thing is Evertype, consensus is starting to form, and not by argument but by agreement. Now I not two editors did not read my post before they said I was voting on their behalf, maybe if they did they could remove their notes to indicate that they have now read it and were mistaking? I thought this comment on the end This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look" coupled with my comments above would have been enough. --Domer48'fenian' 22:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no, it is not. It is a vaguely put hint about something you said somewhere about China (indeed your only link is to China, fat lot of help that is to us). There are no specifics. There is no precision. There is therefore no remedy. I don't agree to vague and imprecise "agreements". I want this nailed down, in terms of sets of options that people can rank freely. It's unlikely that anything on the two ends of the spectrum will win out, but there will be genuine remedy to this nightmare. Your sample straw poll was offensive in that you were deciding what people's opinions were, and innocent as you might have thought it, we have seen some people take offence, so don't defend yourself—take the criticism on board. For my part I remain convinced that Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's process is the only one that has a snowball's chance of getting us from here to there. I have seen nothing else which has its merits. -- Evertype·✆ 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Evertype if you were reading the discussions you would have seen it discussed here and that it was Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's suggestion, it's a pity you found the link to the China article a "fat lot of help" a number of us did find it useful. Again if you had been following the discussion you would have noticed that it was Vinny who suggested a Straw Poll which I supported along with editors Tfz, Snowed [17] and BigDunc [18]. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid asked "How could it be simplified?" so I showed them. So you see it's not "my" Straw Poll, and you may wish to reflect that in you post above. That you found a straw poll offensive, is strange, but far from deciding what editors opinions were, you'll notice I added diff's which expressed their views on the suggestion and not mine. Editors I don't think took offence, they just did not read what I had said. Now please don't feel the need to defend yourself, just correct your criticism of me will be fine. Thanks, and I hope that helps,--Domer48'fenian' 14:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This all needs to be agreed at once not dealing with one point and then coming back to do the others at a later time, i agree we need a clear set of proposals that everyone is committed to. I only intend to support the renaming of the country article IF Republic of Ireland remains a redirect. Now i dont know what method or process is simple to ensure but some form of vote on all the issues seems more reliable than a written consensus on certain points. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say "I only intend to support the renaming of the country article IF Republic of Ireland remains a redirect." Can you please be exactly precise as to what you mean? (1) Renaming of the country article to (options here) and (2) redirect to (option here). Ta. -- Evertype·✆ 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming the article on the country to Ireland (state) i will support only aslong as Republic of Ireland is a redirect to that article. This idea by some to create a new article at republic of ireland talking about an Act i cannot accept. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth I agree with you. Your view is common sense, and more neutral than the "avoid RoI at all costs" view. -- Evertype·✆ 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of polling vs consensus
We have two completely different proposals operating at the minute. One based on polling and the other based on consensus. It’s a very clear choice IMHO as to which one I’d prefer.--Domer48'fenian' 20:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we're lucky, folks? The consensus & polling will come out 'the same'. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From where I'm standing, the consensus seems to be a poll where someone else places your vote. Fmph (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to explain what you mean? --Domer48'fenian' 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are talking about GoodDay with his what will I vote comment above. BigDuncTalk 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see two polls. Both polling on the same thing. Domer48, have you contacted the editors you added to Support/Oppose in "your" poll? There is a natural concern when someone speaks on behalf of someone else that you may not always get it right. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rannpháirtí anaithnid did you even read what I wrote above? "This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look."We could list the editors who have commented in a positive and supportive way to the suggestion, or
Use the support or oppose heading and ask them to sign. We could then do the same with the editors who oppose this solution. Now do you want to remove your comment "Edit: Domer48, please do not !vote on my behalf --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá)" to indicate that you have read it? --Domer48'fenian' 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "Editors can add/remove/or move their names accordingly". Please do not !vote on my behalf in future. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
During a Straw poll editors can "add/remove/or move their names accordingly" Now I've made this nice and bold This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look since you still must not have read it. --Domer48'fenian' 22:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find Option A1, A2 & B1 confusing. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you GoodDay I really can't understand what editors have against the China solution it is simple and straight forward. BigDuncTalk 22:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not clear to me what the "China" solution is at this time, but I don't understand why editors (only Big Dunc, currently) are opposed to the STV option (A2) when it would allow such a proposal to be included. As it stands, it appears you are saying you will not tolerate ROI redirecting to Ireland under any circumstances. That generally isn't how compromise or consensus works. Put your preferred option on the table and, if it is a good solution it will fair well in a STV. Rockpocket 02:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The advantage of making RoI a redirect to the Ireland state article is that RoI will have moved a 'step away', and not be the state article any longer. The next step would be to discuss the contents of RoI article, and secure agreement to remove the redirect. In total, a 'two step' move, that editors would be able to handle more easily, and most here don't deny a 'consensus for change' exists. Tfz 02:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see the point of this - we should know what a straw poll looks like, surely, without anyone deciding what names to add where. Including the name of a girl who doesn't seem to know the difference between northern Ireland and Northern Ireland after living in Donegal for 4 years. My preference, even though its probably unlikely my preferred option would "win", is a poll conducted under STV. BastunnutsaB 22:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you guys think the "China" solution is, please see to it that that option is available in Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll and that should cover it as an option. -- Evertype·✆ 23:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rockpocket, I'm opposed to polling for obvious reasons Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The China solution has been outlined above, re-read the discussion and let us know what you think? Am I correct in thinking you are in favour of WP:POLLING over WP:CONSENSUS? BigDunc has outlined his objections on a RoI redirect, however you ignore comments by Asarlaí, [19], BritishWatcher, [20], De Unionist, [21], Mooretwin, [22], generally isn't how compromise or consensus works.
Bastun saying that "including the name of a girl who doesn't seem to know the difference between northern Ireland and Northern Ireland after living in Donegal for 4 years" is a bit unfair. Carol seems to know exactly what she is saying, and the confusion with Northern Ireland. How do you feel about an editor, who unlike Carol has been blocked twice in the past number of days and not a wet day in the place? Now I consider progress is being made, Rock, Evertype and Bastun like Snowded, would you like to add your names to the Straw poll sample because I’m not sure weather you support or oppose this solution? Thanks --Domer48'fenian' 07:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im opposed to the "Britannica" solution where there is asingle article which covers both the island and country. Im not opposed to a setup like China where we have a general article or one on the island which provides a link to the country article. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not adding my name to your "straw poll" because it is ill-defined. You have said NOTHING here about what you are polling. You talk about the "China solution" as though it were well defined, yet all you link to is the article on China. This is nonsense. Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's solution is precise, well-defined, and reasonable. Do you oppose it? Why? I already asked for you to cast whatever it is you think "the China solution" is in the terms of Rannṗáirtí's poll, and you just ignored what I said, asking me instead to sign your poll. Why should I? It's a pig in a poke. -- Evertype·✆ 08:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down! The discussion on this solution was outlined above, why not read it? This solution is exactly the same as Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's in the same discussion. It's a simple question, so why not just say No. --Domer48'fenian' 09:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly calm, thanks. You STILL haven't described this "China" solution in any detail. Saying "outlined above" does not tell me what you are talking about. -- Evertype·✆ 13:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you were following the discussion you would have seen it discussed here, although if you simply went to the China article which has been linked throughout the discussion you might have an idea. However if you were following the discussion you would have noticed that it was Vinny who suggested a Straw Poll which I supported along with editors Tfz, Snowed [23] and BigDunc [24]. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid asked "How could it be simplified?" so I showed them. So you see it's not "my" Straw Poll, and you may wish to reflect that in you post above. Thanks, and I hope that helps, --Domer48'fenian' 13:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, just so im clear about the china proposal. It is different to the Britannica one isnt it? Because its the Britannica one i find totally unacceptable, but quite like the China one. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's different to the Britannica one, the China solution will include sub-articles on each of the different sections. --Domer48'fenian' 14:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Domer: "How do you feel about an editor, who unlike Carol has been blocked twice in the past number of days and not a wet day in the place?" Sorry, no idea who you mean or what the circumstances are, and thus I've no idea of the relevance to this discussion. But as I'm sure you'd agree "incorrect" blocks have been handed out, so shouldn't preclude someone from participating here if they're not being disruptive. If we were to disallow anyone who'd ever had a block from participating - well, it'd be a lot quieter in here, I think... BastunnutsaB 08:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, "If you were following the discussion" (which you have slapped me with twice) is not very polite. I asked you what you meant by "the China proposal", and you STILL haven't been able to simply tell me. Your first link is about Britannia, not about China. If "the China proposal" were meaningful you would be able to summarize it here, rather than try to dazzle us with wikilinks. I asked for a summary. In fact I asked for a concise, and precise, summary in the style of Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll, so it could be evaluated as an option. I ask you for it again now. Can you supply it? -- Evertype·✆ 09:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A certain 'young' lady from the Irish Republic previously stated that they don't use the term Republic of Ireland down there! May I point out that they do:-
...and I particularly point out the following:- "Individual applicants must have been born in, or be resident in, the Republic of Ireland. ‘Residency’ is based upon the following definition used by the Revenue Commissioners (in which Ireland means the Republic of Ireland)" http://www.artscouncil.ie/en/fundInfo/funding_faqs.aspx.
Seems her country-folk differ in their outlook! --De Unionist (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Seems her country-folk differ in their outlook!" Agree with everything else but, just on that point, I believe the contributor was English - and, while she may have been a little geographically challenged, the general spirit of her contribution (that no-one really makes that big of a difference between "Irelands" unless they have to e.g. like to say what jurisdiction a person is resident in for tax purposes) is accurate of reality. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They may not do so in the south but they do in the north. Out of curiosity, how do natives from say Dublin, Cork or Athlone refer to Northern Ireland in general conversation and formally? --De Unionist (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it is verified that Ireland means the 'The Republic of Ireland' when properly referring to the 26 counties of the country, can we now seek a solution that gives such its proper place within the Ireland article. --De Unionist (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"They may not do so in the south but they do in the north." It was (from what he/she wrote) an English woman that made the comments you are referring to.
"Out of curiosity, how do natives from say Dublin, Cork or Athlone refer to Northern Ireland in general conversation and formally?" The North (capitalise or decapitalise at your preference) or Northern Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just the reverse up here in Northern Ireland, we refer to all things in the 26 counties as 'The South'. --De Unionist (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Just the reverse up here..." Quel surprise. You're at the other end of an island!Template:Joking --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outdent Are you aware that "in Eire" seems to be deliberately offensive? In the Irish language, the correct grammar is "in Éireann"; in English, this translates as "in Ireland". Thank you for your consideration.
There is certainly alot of justification for having Republic of Ireland contain the information about the country. Be that directly or as a redirect to where ever the article gets moved for. I see very little justification for having Republic of Ireland cover the Act or something along those lines. If i was to be looking for the country, i would look up Republic of Ireland because thats how most people know it here. (rightly or wrongly). BritishWatcher (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be perfectly honest about this. Naming the state by RoI is peculiar to sections in Britain. So that is a POV, no doubt. We have been over this so often, let's not start all this again. I think we need the moderator to tell us not to be ploughing the same ground again and again and again. Tfz 13:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Tfz, we can address this issue later as suggested by Rock. --Domer48'fenian' 14:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of compromise let's move on and deal with that another time. BigDuncTalk 14:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry i find that unacceptable, we cant move on leaving a very important point about what happens with Republic of Ireland as has been mentioned before, if we are to get agreement we need the full package at once, we cant just put off debating about certain matters to another time. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was this discussion not supposed to be all about Ireland island, Ireland country. So why is it about the RoI article now? What has RoI got to do with this discussion? --Domer48'fenian' 14:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alot because thats where the article on the country currently is. Ofcourse if the country article gets moved what happens to ROI must be decided as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The RoI article would then be freed up for proper editing. Naturally it would define the origin of the term RoI, and why the RoI 1948 Act was brought into law, and other instances of the term etc. Tfz 15:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of Ireland is not the same as the Republic of Ireland Act. If this is all going to be put to the vote then the future of the ROI must be included and i think quite a few people support the ROI being a redirect, short term or long term. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And ROI is not the same as Ireland. BigDuncTalk 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ROI is name used for the country Ireland. I know this is very hard for some people to accept but its true. Looking up ROI is far more likely to be looking for the country than some information on the Republic of Ireland Act. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that? It is OR you can not say what readers are looking for. BigDuncTalk 16:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone typing in "Republic of Ireland" is looking for information on the state. Otherwise they'd type in "Republic of Ireland Act" or "Republic of Ireland Act 1948". In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is a pretty safe assumption that they're not looking for information on legislation from the middle of the last century. BastunnutsaB 16:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then lets inform them ROI is not the name of the country and should not be used as if it were no matter what british pov pushers want. BigDuncTalk 16:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly everyone looking for the state will type in Ireland, and those are the true facts. Everyone knows the state as Ireland because that's what it is. Just look up Google, the vast majority of the hits link to the state. Tfz 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lmao Tfz, look up Republic of Ireland. Do the vast majority of results talk about the state or the 1948 Act? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is being stated as fact by a number of editors that when people type ROI they are looking for Ireland this is not proven and is OR, plain and simple. BigDuncTalk 17:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) It's highly likely, most people who type in Ireland, are seeking the 'country' (of course that's impossible to proove). GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A humble suggestion from your moderator
We're going back in circles again; no one is going to easily change anyone's mind about what is the "right" way to name these articles, and while I can guess what a consensus point will be, it is impossible to read for sure based on the amount of noise being generated.
I am going to suggest the following:
Stage 1: Prepare the Single transferable vote ballot that will address two questions; one is basically as already spelled out on User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/sandbox for what the island and 26-county state are to be named, and the second one to ask how should the 26-county state be called when it appears in article text but may possibly be confused with other meanings of the word "Ireland" - (basically with choices of "state of Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland"). I feel any other questions on this ballot at this time will be too difficult to address or are better suited to discussion after these two core issues are resolved. Unless there are any major objections to this step, I would like to see this completed by June 21, 2009 (We've been going over this enough, thus this is to try to get a time scale here).
Stage 2: STV Polling. STV polling on the above ballot will be open for 3 weeks (this allows it to go before and after US's Independence Day holiday). It will be announced at WP:VPP, WP:CENT, any ireland-related project and wherever else it should be listed. This would close this poll on July 12, 2009.
Stage 3: Vote evaluation. I believe that this can be done by the moderators but if someone has a problem, we can seek an involved admin to help. STV makes it rather simple but let's say this takes a week, so by July 19, 2009, we'll have the results.
Stage 4: Additional resolutions. The naming issue is 95% of the problems here. Other issues, like exactly when the 26-county state has to be resolved in article text, where ROI should redirect to (assuming it is not used by the winning vote result), what boundaries on content there should be if one of the "Brittanica" solutions are picked, etc. - these all depend on how the naming vote ends up, and doesn't make sense to talk about those under at this time. I think most of these can be done in a month without resorting to polling, so let's call this that by the end of August 2009 this project would have done its job of figuring out naming issues wrt to the island and country as much as we can expect to complete.
I think we need focus and while I don't want to force this project to go this way, I will point out that I've been watching everyone seem to approach to agree on a means forward and then suddenly break down. I don't know if everyone is amenable to a moderator-supported path forward, but here's my plan, so I'd like to know if there are any serious objections to the plan itself. (If you have an issue with the ballot or the like, that's a different issue). --MASEM (t) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Whilst i support the vast majority of the above suggestion, i can not support the idea of putting off certain matters until after the main issues have been decided. The issue of what happens to the Republic of Ireland article must be written into the voting options. I can only support renaming the article on the country IF it means ROI will become a redirect.. this really is a core issue and should be included in the main vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the vote points to a choice where the state is not at ROI, then yes, it will need to be a redirect. Of which article, that point will need determined but I do not be it is a critical factor at this point to wait for a vote to progress. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where ROI leads could be included in the main vote, this is a very important point which needs working out at the same time as there are several people above arguing for the creation of a new article on the term ROI or having it about the 1948 Act. If we put this off until after, then it could take a long time to get consensus on this matter. We should be able to choose like a sub option. 1) - Move country to Ireland state, 1a)- Republic of Ireland redirects to Ireland state, 1b) Republic of Ireland as a new article, 1c) Republic of Ireland rediects to Republic of Ireland Act. The Future of the ROI article is very important. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose opposeThe issue of redirects is very minor, not at all central as BW maintains. Once we know where the articles are, we'll know what to point to them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, the only strongly supported alternative name for the 26-county state seems to be "Ireland (state)" if ROI is not used, and to simplify matters, I personally believe that this option (as opposed to any other "Ireland (something)" name) is supported by other examples across WP, so any other possible names outside of "Ireland (state)" and "ROI" are unlikely to have sufficient support to be possible options. Now, if the country goes to "Ireland (state)", then we have to consider the fate of "ROI" which is fine in the 4th stage. But inserting what its fate may be in the current poll is adding just too much complexity to the issue. One thing I will add: I will urge no name changes on articles until Stage 4 is complete - in other words, if the vote is for "Ireland (state)", no one should move the current "Republic of Ireland" there until all aspects are closed and everything done in one mass block at least in terms of article names. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Changing my vote to support your proposal as you will encourage no action to be taken until all parts have been agreed. I support the renaming to Ireland (state) but i think people are underestimating how important it is that if that change happens ROI remains a redirect and not this 3rd article idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Masem all you keep doing is proposing a VOTE. WP:POLLING is not a solution. You have done nothing to encourage or promote a solution based on WP:CONSENSUS. --Domer48'fenian' 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I had confidence from what I've read and seen happen here that a consensus could be formed, I would be channeling the discussion that way. However, it is very clear that there are at least two camps, if not several other isolated editors, that will make coming to consensus nearly impossible and an extremely drawn out process. I don't think anyone wants to be here until December still arguing the core points. A vote in this case, as long as it is consensus-agreed to be done, is an acceptable replacement for actually trying to build consensus where it will likely never happen. I will admit that the vote could end in a stalemate or "none of the above" type option meaning that more consensus is needed, but I don't believe that will happen. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a sample Straw Poll above, showing editors moving away from long held positions. Now a couple of editors have not expressed an opinion yet. Why not ask their opinions on the proposed solution? It would help clarify things a bit and sure that would not hurt the process. --Domer48'fenian' 18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If editors felt that a drive towards consensus is working, they are free to reject my suggestion of going forward with a vote. I'm not forcing anyone to accept this solution but I do not a growing resentment for how long this process is taking and would like to see it resolved sooner than later, and thus presented a solution that should be completed in 2.5 months. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As I'm basically willing to accept nearly any solution. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly Support - Please also see suggestions by Fmph on the details of running an STV ballot on the question of the article titles, and suggestions I made to him in response. I don't quite know how a ballot on the second the question of what to call the Irish state in articles will work - or even if one is really suitable - since the nature of the question will not likely bear a single defined answer in all circumstances (as compared to the question of whether to move a page and where, which will result in one single defined answer). None the less we are going in circles here ... and not matter what we 15 or so here decide, we cannot dectate the outcome for the broader community who must be consulted on the matter. Since we are now as close to agreement on something as we every have been, I at least for one, would be happy to go back to the ArbCom and the community and say, "Here's what we found, now let's vote and end this once and for all." (FYI the tally from the poll above is currently 10/13 to run a ballot on the question of the page moves, and 6/8 to run a poll on Blue-Haired Lawyer's MOS proposal.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a plan for the article titles poll has already been laid out here. Most of us seem to agree with it, so let's get going already. ~Asarlaí 21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if there is to be a vote, then there has to be a compromise constructed around all the main issues, and a single vote on that compromise. The compromise is fairly obvious (RoI article name change in return for acceptance of RoI as disambiguator), but guidelines on the latter part of it need to be detailed (we had a fair effort at this recently). Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could run the poll/ballot the other way around (to the way it is usually phrased at least) i.e. run a poll on the suggestion for in-article use that had pretty much consensus here then, presuming that that would pass with the community at large (I don't see why not), we could run ballot on the article moves afterwards. That way your would have an assurance that any change to the page locations would not affect use of ROI etc in articles. Would that satisfy your concerns? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would satisfy my concerns - assuming I was content with the in-article guidelines - although it would provide no incentive for me to compromise on the article name, which is the whole point of my suggestion that everything be taken together. That is not to say that my inherent integrity would not lead me to compromise anyway, but the point is that such a process requires no compromise on the part of editors for they can vote twice for the same POV (for want of a better term). Mooretwin (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think there is a case though for this to be advertised to a wide audience on the watchlist banner, seeing as not letting unregistered users know about it is not going to be an issue. This is after all a binding solution per the arbcom, we cannot have people turning up saying they didn't know it was happening. We also need a serious discussion about what we can do to prevent the enormously attractive option of meat-puppetry (asking a bunch of people at a net forum to come and register an account and vote - not detectable as sock-puppetry, and not easy to prove without evidence). MickMacNee (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Anything to propel us from this Kafkaesque horror of a debate. I'm beginning to dream of the China and Brittanica solutions in my sleep despite still not having a f'ing clue what they are supposed to entail. I spent some time re-reading the above section to make sure it wasn't some elaborate parody. (Domer, do you realise you started a comment up there with Rockpocket, I'm opposed to polling for obvious reasons Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. .... and finished with .... Now I consider progress is being made, Rock, Evertype and Bastun like Snowded, would you like to add your names to the Straw poll sample) Poll the other one, it's got bells on!Rockpocket 03:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rock, if you are not able to read the above discussion and the China article, and see what is being proposed explains alot. If you don't understand something you oppose it, or ask for clarity like Bastun did. That their was a number of editors who did understand it, lends hope to the process. In any proposed poll, as it stands, because of your lack of understand on the China solution, you'll be unable to support it, but will be able to oppose it by supporting other options. Which is really the same question I asked above. So while "still not having a f'ing clue what they are supposed to entail" you still would not offer an opinion either way. If your "beginning to dream of the China and Brittanica solutions in my sleep" you may need to take a break, you don't want to burn yourself out. --Domer48'fenian' 07:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Have spent the last 4 weeks compromising, and now we are to ask a crowd to compromise the compromise so as to water it down even more. A solution should be a distillation of the arguments on this page. Tfz 08:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rockpocket. If any compromise has arisen in the last 4 weeks it is for a ballot with Single Transferable Voting, as a credible method for determining what options can be supported by more people rather than less. STV also allows people to express their preference (even where we may surmise that those preferences may be too polar to lead to the solution). (As an aside, I am not sure why Masem is concerned about the US Independence Day Holiday, but I would like to ask that the poll close on 13 July rather than 12 July so that it can avoid association with the Orange Walk.) -- Evertype·✆ 09:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the comments above by Tfz who I 100% agree with here. BigDuncTalk 09:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunc ive seen one side prepared to compromise supporting the fact that the country article should be moved away from ROI to Ireland (state), i havnt seen the other side try to compromise by accepting that ROI should be a redirect to the country artice. that seems a reasonable compromise and yet some seem to think it should redirect to an Act or have a new article about the term instead. Hardly shows a will to compromise and unless that is accepted i dont see how this can be reached any other way than by vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not followed the topic closely for many months, but my perception is that discussion has been going on for long enough and needs moving on towards a comprehensive solution. In a number of articles clarity and comprehensibility are beign sacrificed to ideology and people need to recognise that Wikipedia is here for people to build a better encyclopedia not for people to advance their own political viewpoint. Speedy progress towards a vote or other means of reaching a solution to this problem is needed and so I tend towards supporting this proposal even though I've not got a thorough enough grasp of the process to be sure that a bit more time won't help.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that if a moderator makes a suggestion and editors indicate “oppose,” to the suggestion, editors may be banned from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month and told they are disrupting the collaboration process? Per Remedies #2, though Remedies #1 still valid. I would find that hard to believe, when one views the efforts which are being made, with clear signs of progress. --Domer48'fenian' 19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. BW wants RoI included in the vote, so he opposed. I opposed the oppose, but didn't find it disruptive.
That's grand, I thought for a minute that an editor could be banned for responding to a suggestion. --Domer48'fenian' 20:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's not my call on what's disrupting the process -- it's the moderator's. He may disagree with where I drew the line above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is clear consensus here to move RoI to Ireland (state). Can't see why a vote is required for that part of the process. I also disagree with SarekOfVulcan templating the page, it appears to be a lack of Agf. It's not the first time that this particular editor has initiated a crises in this area of Wikipedia. This could all end very sour if SarekOfVulcan doesn't withdraw the menacing. Sad. Tfz 20:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Templating which page? *looks confused* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I call this [25], maybe there's another term for it. I'm not hanging around this page much longer if this is the future. Tfz 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No template involved. Hmmm... About the only thing I can think of, besides "reminding people about Arbcom sanctions", is WP:HARASS -- though I'd dispute that that's what's going on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Tfz. I for one oppose "Ireland (state)". We know from experience that this leads people to believe that Ireland is a state in the American or Australian sense, i.e. part of a larger entity in the same way as Scotland and Wales, e.g.[26] That is a far more serious misconception than what is the exact, official name. DrKiernan (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that this is credible. "We know from experience" that people think "state" means what it does in America? I don't believe this is the case. Plus Bunreacht na hÉireann uses the term "state". -- Evertype·✆ 09:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I agree. However the suggestion is that if that is what's voted for that's what we get. Regardless of the arguements, references, and supporting evidence. It's numbers that count, not WP:V, WP:NPOV etc...IMHO --Domer48'fenian' 08:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DrKiernan where were you? I wanted 'Ireland (country)' as the compromise, "but that's not perfect either, the purists maintained", but got no support, and that was a "compromise". My first preference is "Ireland", because it's the name, and because it covers 85% of the island. I'm pretty well finished on this page for a while, as it's going nowhere good, and now we are voting on a compromise. But the other side of the argument refuse to compromise at all. The solution will not be perfect, but I can see this ending up in a whole load of unwanted scenarios. Tfz 08:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A vote for "Ireland (country)" may be in your favour, since my understanding is that the main objectors to its use are Irish nationalists from Northern Ireland, who are the smallest of all the interest groups.
My current favourite would be "Ireland (republic)" as that seems to have the least number of opposers and the least number of valid opposing arguments. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Comment refactored to remove "they". DrKiernan (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a new one on me, "Ireland (republic)" , should the "r" be captalised? A community wide poll would lliminate doubts there. Tfz 10:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With STV we can express our preferences and so can "they". -- Evertype·✆ 09:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that there is support for a compromise where the article on the country moves to Ireland (state), but those wanting that need to understand that compromise is only going to be possible if ROI becomes a redirect. This idea of creating some new article at ROI or having it redirect to a damn Act which we all know most people wont be looking for is going to make compromise and consensus impossible. People want the country moved from ROI, fine.. atleast accept that ROI should remain a damn redirect to the country article. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that. If the others can't then at the very least the page should be another disambig page with links to the country, the act and the football team who use the name. I agree most will be looking for the country however.MITH 10:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't accept that either. BigDuncTalk 10:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most looking for the country type "I-R-E-L-A-N-D". British watcher is politically concerned with a British political POV that should have no place here at Wwikipedia. My interest is that Wikipedia should educate and not be at the mercy of pov-pushing. Tfz 10:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about keening again. -- Evertype·✆ 10:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't realised you had stopped.) Tfz 11:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not TFZ, Republic of Ireland is how many people especially in Britain know the country in southern Ireland. Just because you dont like this fact doesnt justify us not having a redirect to it. Your refusal to be reasonable on this matter proves that consensus or compromise is impossible and why we have to put it to the vote. Its so funny that u declare we are close to compromise, but when something is mentioned which u and ur friends dont like u raise hell and refuse to accept compromise. Compromise is clearly dead, bring on the vote BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with BW to a certain extent. The term is used for the country in the UK. Just because you don't like doesn't mean its not commonly used over there. It's just a redirect, I don't see what the problem is. It not being used as a title is a huge step forward, ROI being used as a redirect seems fair enough to me. A redirect does not suggest any political POV, it is just a redirect.MITH 11:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. RoI Has been the article on the state for years. That is unacceptable to some with a certain PoV. Now that there's a real chance of the article on the state moving from RoI, even to the extent of some mish-mash article combining the topics of the island and the state, they're still not satisfied, and seem to be intent on expunging the term RoI altogether. BastunnutsaB 11:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had compromised for RoI becoming disambiguation page for the term, but not redirect. Bastun, MITH, fundamentally I don't disagree with what you are saying. Do we have to call Ireland by RoI to suit some people in Britain. Wikipedia is a farce if that's the case, and certainly not a serious encyclopedia. Tfz 11:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would make WP a farce is making RoI redirect to an article on the Act, rather than redirecting to the article on the state. BastunnutsaB 12:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know full well that RoI for the State is British/Unionist POV. Even the British Government will not use it. In fact no country in Europe will or can us it and state quite clearly Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’. This is the English languge Wiki not the British. --Domer48'fenian' 12:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is disgusting how one sided the ability to compromise is. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying you have compromised on what? Changing the name from ROI to Ireland is not a compromise it is upholding wiki policy, it is NOT the name of the country simple. BigDuncTalk 12:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a big compromise from the current position which has remained for years. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, just out of curiousity, where did you get the idea that "Republic of Ireland" is a British/Unionist term? It was introduced by the Irish parliament as the official description of the state. Plus, as I've noted above, it's commonly used by Irish nationalists and republicans in the six counties. ~Asarlaí 13:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any new user not knowing about these side shows and simply voting on the ballot paper is going to interpret the litte arrows depicting moves/merges as meaning that Republic of Ireland will become a redirect. This is just standard Wikipedia practice. If anybody wants a change to that, that needs to be explicitly added/stated on the poll. MickMacNee (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, STOP - you are arguing around each again and again. This is why this process is taking so long, and it is not going to be resolved any time soon with consensus. Nearly every name option given is a valid choice, unfortunately, there can be only one named article where the country information can reside, with all other valid options being redirects to it. Consensus has tried to figure out what the best valid choice is, but all these discussions, as above, break down into "my valid option is better than your valid option", which is exactly why this process is been dragged on so long. Consensus is not going to change minds, so the only way to solve this - unless everyone is willing to wait out another 6 months - is to seek full community opinion on what they think is the best valid options. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not on the naming of the article its on the redirect. You say that "with all other valid options being redirects". That is all that i ask, i accept the article on the country needs moving and i think consensus could be reached on this without even a poll taking place, but there must also be consensus that Republic of Ireland which is certainly a valid option will become a redirect and not used for some weak article on "the term", it should always be a redirect to the country article but some people dont seem to want to accept that, yet they are the ones arguing for the vote to be cancelled so written consensus can be found. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rules for the vote
Seen as it looks certain this is going to be put to a vote, what are the rules going to be and the sanctions for those who break the rules? In a recent dispute over the title of the article which is now at Military history of Britain after the campaign to remove British Isles from wikipedia won a victory, there was clear evidence of vote rigging with external canvassing on an Irish forum. How is this sort of abuse going to be prevented in the up coming vote, are IPs going to be stopped from voting, what about new user accounts? Will there be regular checks for WP:SOCKS? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus for a vote. Tfz 12:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt say there was consensus, i said it looked certain this is going to be put to a vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an alternative proposel to voting, we could try that. You asked me to clarify a point on the Straw Poll solution, care to register your opinion? --Domer48'fenian' 12:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer you and a few others are unwilling to compromise or even try for consensus on matters relating to what happens with the Republic of Ireland article, there for we should put it to the vote as suggested. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a poll, can we have three questions rather than two? "Ireland (state)" in the first question could be changed to "Ireland (state/nation/country/republic/etc)", and then the third question could be to choose the bracketed disambiguator. DrKiernan (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On State / nation / country etc, i think we could have a mini poll on that before the main vote, the clear majority wants it to be state so i think we should probably stick with that. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with BW per DrKiernan above. BigDuncTalk 12:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the article as it is, it is just dandy. --De Unionist (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with restricting the voting to users registered before say, the end of April. If this poll goes on the watchlist notice, it will be seen by all registered Wikipedians, that is more than enough potential input to settle what is essentially an internal debate over policy, after the length of time this debate has run, the opinions of newly registered accounts, who arguably are just as likely to have no knowledge of Wikipedia policy as to be fast learners, are not going to add much. MickMacNee (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A vote carries no weight on Wikipedia, it is consensus that counts. --De Unionist (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is impossible to reach by the looks of some of the debate above, there for a vote is going to have to be used. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another matter which needs to be cleared up before the vote goes live is where it is going to be advertised. Is a notice going to be placed on certain wikiprojects informing people there is an ongoing vote? If a notice is to be placed on the Ireland wikiproject, it seems only fair to place one on Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shares the island of Ireland with the Republic of Ireland there for this involves UK wikipedians too. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy and a poll can only be seen as counter productive and therefore not the way forward. --De Unionist (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wonders will never cease I agree with De Unionist. BigDuncTalk 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that as laid out above, the results of the vote will be analyzed, and there may be more to consider if there are interesting patterns in it. For example, let's say that with STV, that a given option X "wins" 51% of the vote when considering first choices, but if we considered the second desired option of each voter, an option Y "wins" 95% of that vote. (and for the sake of argument, every voted submitted a second desired option instead of opting for none) I would be inclined to suggest that we implement option Y over the "winning" option X since there's wider support for that even if it is the second choice - this is why STV is very useful here. There is still room for discussion after the vote to use the results of the vote to decide on the best option among this group's contributors. Mind you, it may be absolutely clear that in the first choice round, X wins with 95% of the vote, leaving little question where consensus lies. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem it is obvious that there is no consensus for a Poll. Even if there was there is no consensus for which type of Poll or what options should be included. The fact about a poll is it all comes down to numbers. Arguements, and the strenght of arguements go out the window. Our policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV ect.. go out the window. Being positive, there has been movement. If I try, and put forward a proposel will you be willing to at least to look it over and give an opinion. I know we are not going to get 100% agreement, but I know that Wiki is bigger than this issue, and we already have the tools to address this, built up by the community over a number of years. We just need to be willing to apply the same standard for this discussion that we would expect for a Featured Article. All I'm asking is that you have an open mind to alternatives? --Domer48'fenian' 14:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it is discriminatory to begin with. --De Unionist (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If certain editors are prepared to accept compromise on all issues to do with this matter (Not just the new location of the country article, but the fate of ROI and how we describe Ireland in certain articles where its clearly ambiguous) then consensus is possible without a vote. But considering the strong opposition from some editors above to the future of Republic of Ireland as a redirect, unless that changes i dont see how a consensus can be reached and the poll is the only choice we have left. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, im sure the suggested pattern you mention will indeed happen with the clear majority of second votes going for Ireland (state) however we need to be confident about the rules before that vote takes place to avoid a dispute happening during or after the vote is counted. So if you and the other mods have views on Who can and cant take part in the vote, where it should be advertised etc, it would be really helpful if this could be detailed in the coming days. Also we need confirmation and agreement on punishments if someone is caught cheating. We are going to need to do regular sweeps of certain forums, and i hope admins will be doing regular SOCK checks because i have concerns about atleast one recent new user that contributed to this page a few days ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where: WP:VPP, WP:CENT for two as definite, as well as maybe getting a watchlist notification (doubtful, too small an impact). An RFC drop can't hurt either. Possibly WP:NC. Definitely, any WProject that deals with Ireland or the UK or such related topics. Also notification at the ArbCom case.
Who: No IPs, and to avoid socking, only to users registered before June 1, 2009. (I would alternatively allow for users registered before the end of the first week of the vote, as to prevent vote stacking at the end of the day, but I think it's easier that, by this point in the discussion, there are few new voices to be heard, and acceptable to limit it to existing users. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Masem, that clears up alot of my concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what universe does a poll showing 12 for and 4 against a vote show that there is no consensus for a vote?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(or maybe 13, depending on how you count Peter cohen's comment)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Domer: 12 in favour of a community-wide poll, 4 against. 3/4 in favour looks a lot like consensus to me.
@Masem: Those in favour of a poll seem to favour Single transferable vote. Above, you seem to be suggesting something else, some modified form of that. Assuming no option reached 50% + 1 in the first count, the least popular option would be eliminated and the #2 votes of those who'd voted would be transferred to the remaining options. And so on, until 50% + 1 was reached. That's how STV works (for a 'single seat election', anyway). What alternative are you proposing instead? I think everyone would want absolute clarity in advance.
Presumably you will be able to get permission to have a Watchlist hatnote set up to advertise the poll (aswell as a notice placed on various talkpages/project pages). There will presumably need to be some sort of statement or explanation of the various options, rather than just having participants face a list of options such as "Option X: state article to remain at RoI; island article to remain at Ireland", "Option Y: state and island articles both merge to Ireland; RoI redirects to Republic of Ireland Act 1948", "Option Z: state article moves to Ireland (state), island article moves to Ireland (island), Ireland becomes a disambiguation page", etc. If I'm correct in this, who will draw up the summary statements promoting each option? Participants here, proposers of options, you yourself? BastunnutsaB 14:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's 75% in favor. At an RFA, that would be considered within bureaucrat discretion to go either way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I propose is a mix of polling and compromise. Certainly if the 1st choice STV winner is one by a clear margain, there's no benefit for further discussion and we can move to the next step. But in the WP environment (where we may not be able to track votes easily, and thus there's certain +/- %ages for results), a 51% majority would sit uncomfortable with me unless we validated that that truely was the best option when you start processing the STV votes. And again, in the example I give, if everyone's split on a first option but their second option is strongly in favor, I would propose (not state, we're still a group consensus) that that's the best choice. In other words, this poll is not to absolutely resolve the issue but to validate what the community thinks of the proposed solutions. If the community clearly favors one option, then the choice forward is clear, but if they are nearly equally split, further discussion is merited. It still may be the 51% first choice option is the solution picked, but at least I personally would feel better that we agreed that was the case.
(Personally, I don't think we're going to see it that close, but I don't want to preclude this as a possible route). --MASEM (t) 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for the format, please see User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/sandbox which really only needs a lead section to describe the basis of the dispute. I disagree about any need for "summary statements promoting each option"; a lead statement can identify what the issues are, but being a vote and not a RFC-approach, we don't want to encourage discussion on that page (however, any discussion can be put to the talk page, and used in the evaluation if there's new options that someone puts forward). --MASEM (t) 15:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind voters that this voting process is practically irreversible, so if we are stuck with a heap-load of pov, don't say you weren't warned. Tfz 17:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, I wouldn't recommend "messing" with any established voting system. Once you deviate from the formula there are hundred of possibilities for how to make up the "95%" from your example above. (For example, if A got 51%, but we could get as far as 80% for B using some people's 2nd prefs, then what if we could get to 90% for A using other peoples' 3rd and 4th preferences? ... which would we choose?)
I would recommend setting a required super majority instead. The quota for winning a "one-seat" STV vote is usually 50%+1 but it is possible to set a higher quota e.g. 65% or 75%. (Note however that once any option reaches 50%+1 it is unbeatable by any other option so there is no point in counting all ballots to the very end.) It is possible, however, in that case that there will be no "winner" - but then again a "winner" of merely 50%+1 is not in the best interest of WP or resolving this issue.
There is also benefit to having multi-round voting. So we could for example have a first round of balloting by STV that will result in 2 (or at most 3) options being nominated for a second round. Then have a second round of voting on those 2 (or at most 3) options using simple majority voting (maybe with a requisite of a super majority e.g. 60%). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rules for a vote written up by Fmph
The following conversation took place originally on User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid. I have copied it here because it seems that it is more pertinent that it should continue here now. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of comments on the PRSTV ballot paper in your sandbox:
I'm not sure the 12 month block is necessarily enforceable just on our say from the project. It may be that other admins and bureaucrats would not view things the same way and enforce such a draconian punishment. Given that, I'd suggest that the project should not try to pre judge the outcome of any disciplinary action. I'd remove that note entirely.
I think one thing that is missing is any notice of how the ballot will be conducted. It should say
is there a minimum number of participants required to validate the ballot
who will announce the result
how it will be announced
if a simple 1 vote majority will be sufficient?
will the vote transfer processes be open for peer review
who will execute any necessary page moves
when will they be performed (I'd suggest 7 x 24 hours after the result is announced)
Just my thoughts Fmph (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're bang on:
If we were to have set punishments, we would need to get ArbCom to agree to them and enforce them. My reasons for having set (draconian) punishments in there was to warn off any attempts at manipulating the vote (there is already bad blood, I'd like it cut out on all sides - having draconian punishments no only warns off possible frauds but, more importatnly, reassure each "side" that the other wouldn't try it and that they have a come back if they did).
I think a detailed (but not too overly lawyerly) "what will happen" section is a great idea. I is important that we all are on the same hymn sheet about what we can expect. I didn't write one because I didn't want to clog up the "ballot paper" with rules, maybe they could be written up on a subpage. Maybe you could sandbox one up? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no special insight into ArbCom, but seems to me that if we come up with a blocking criteria through consensus pursuant to their instructions to settle this, they'd probably accept it as valid. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right. But frankly I think a blocking policy/criteria are the least of our problems. Fmph (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm just addressing the point as you raised it -- ArbCom has delegated the content dispute to us, so if consensus says this is necessary, it probably wouldn't be challenged. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's good. Especially using software to calculate the result. It will take a lot of the trouble out of it. I have two comments though:
I think there are simpler ways to vote than "A6 B1 C2 D4 E3 F5". I would have difficulty remembering what rank I put 'A' at, for example, if it was far down the line. I would prefer to vote "B, C, E, F, A" for example. However, I think we should allow either method for voting. If a person's vote does not follow one of these methods then I think an assigned moderator should be allowed to reformat the vote so that it conforms to a style (if it is intelligible) or strike it out and ask the user to recast their vote (if it is unintelligble) to avoid confusion among the tellers.
I agree that three tellers should tally the the ballots but I don't think that all three should calculate it. This is because there are times when STV requires random selection (for example if two options have the same number of votes but one needs to be eliminated). Therefore the three tellers may come back with three different results despite recording the ballots correctly. I think instead three tellers should independently collate the ballots into three independent ballot files for OpenSTV according to a pre-agreed format. An assigned moderator should then check that these ballot files are identical using a diff utility. If the ballots files are identical then the moderator should run the results and upload the ballot file they used and a copy-and-paste of the output of the results to WP. The first result from OpenSTV is final (should there be any discrepancy between random selections etc.)
Finally, should we set a minimum quota requred by a "winner"? e.g. must have 1st prefs or transfers from 66% of "electorate"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adds: I also think that most (if not all) of the "rules" should be hidden using a Template:Hidden ... this is so as not not put people off voting by hitting them with a load of text. We should still show a "how to vote" section because people may not be familiar with STV. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to try and move thing forward
Following on from my comments above, I've attempted to provide a proposal here, considered opinions would be welcome. --Domer48'fenian' 20:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought ur proposal was going to be based around the China solution not the Britannica one. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer. You have managed to confuse me even further. You say "following on from my comments above", yet above you proposed a solution by stating: We’ve had three suggestions which all revolve around what could be called the China solution. It has been broken down by Tfz above into five points, reduced to four leaving discussion on the RoI till we have gained consensus on the other four first. Among those five points was:
(1) Ireland be a primary topic about island, ancient history, culture, art, tourism etc etc.
So if that was your preferred so-called "China" solution, why are you now proposing:
To create one Ireland article, by merging the current article at Republic of Ireland with the Ireland article.
These are clearly very different proposals, so how does one follow on from the other? Moreover, if the former was "China" what is this? Perhaps you can understand why I am wary of supporting any "named" solution, because it is entirely unclear what exactly the name refers to at any given time. Rockpocket 02:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simple really, I took three suggestions which all revolve around what could be called the China solution. Out of that, I formulated a solution based on all three of them. Don't worry about being confused your not alone, having gone a step above the Britannica solution, to the China model, BritishWatcher still can't get it, it is the China solution. I'm a bit confused also, having provided a section titled "Comments against:" on this proposal here, you along with two others, place your comments in the "oppose" section. A simple format, with simple instructions, and you can't get it right? You sign at "oppose" and you place your comment in the section titled "Comments against," GoodDay managed no problem to get it right. Now Rock just one question, you say in your comment "Nope. Ireland is ambiguous." Please give us the Diff to were the consensus was reached on this, lets see "The way we address ambiguity" and how the Community dealt "with it in a neutral and sensible manner," I've asked you before so please don't just "ignore it" because both myself and MASEM can't find it, and it would help. --Domer48'fenian' 07:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I think I see the problem with the Comments against section, Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Please address one point at a time. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions. Is that what's wrong? --Domer48'fenian' 07:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the proposal you made does not sound like the China solution to me it sounds like the Britannica one. China solution is a basic article about the region / area known as China at China and a link at the top of the page / a mention in the intro linking to the article on the sovereign state. Now i find that method reasonable, but its not what u proposed. What you proposed is to have a single article on the country / island which is the Britannica solution which several people made very clear they strongly opposed.
The China solution in this case would be ... A general article at Ireland about its history, geography, division as two countries etc with a link at the top to the main article on the sovereign state which would be at Ireland (State) and a link to Ireland (island) which goes into detail about the island itself. That creates another article which im not sure we need. The simplest solution to all our problems would be to do the following things then we can all go home, before everyone withdraws from the process as is happening below.
3) People agree to the previously mentioned proposal on when Republic of Ireland can be used in text (like on articles talking about Northern Ireland).
Thats it, thats all that needs to happen as far as im concerned. Now im being attacked below by certain editors who have gone out of their way to push their own agenda here and yet im fully supporting the above compromise. Its not like im being difficult and saying the article on the country MUST remain at Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Insult
This page is an insult to Ireland. It really is difficult to endure. I am out, and this is my last post here. Do what you want, go to a vote with people who don't care, and forget the folks who do care. Tfz 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz I can understand your concerns, but I do have hope that common sense, or the Community will step in a some stage. Here is an Admin, whom I've had disagreements with, and find myself now agreeing with, "Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a vote holds no merit. Consensus and reliable sources is what matters, not voting. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC). I know this process turns all of our policies on their head, and that this process is pandering to POV's but consensus and reliable sources is what matters, not voting.--Domer48'fenian' 07:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is time I made my last post on this subject the response from BW is typical of the editor go ahead and push through the pro british POV, I too refuse to take any part in it. Not one valid reason on policy has been made and force of numbers is being used to achieve british POV, shame on editors who I thought at least had a neutral bone in their body but I was sadly mistaken. BigDuncTalk 08:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might I just add, my POV is I'm an Irish Nationalist and I don't think BritishWatcher is, or the process is, too unreasonable.MITH 10:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny, because I originally thought BW was an Irish nationalist (i.e. he would be watching the British lol). As for this section, all I can say is, Don't feed the divas (it would of course need to be modified to deal with storming out of a process, not the whole project). MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I’m caught between a rock and a hard place here. While I feel like a member of the SDLP under the old Stormont, lending creditability to a corrupt institution, walking away means nothing changes. What’s being done here, turning this whole project on its head, subverting the policies of the Community such as WP:V, WP:NPOV and providing for a POV charter in the form of a Vote, other Admin’s and Editors are presented with a choice. Do they sit on their hands and ignore it, or do they step up to the plate. Yes we have had to contend with personal attacks, snide remarks and inane arguments, condoned by both Admin’s and Editors but that just illustrates how devoid of arguments they are, and rely on numbers. While I think this whole process has provided ample evidence of this to date, it still has the potential to show much more. The better the arguments, the more irrational they become. I’ll stay on the proposal page, and see how it goes while just ignoring this farce.--Domer48'fenian' 13:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, your opinion here seems to be that consensus is fine, as long as it comes out your way -- otherwise, it's votestacking/meatpuppetry/nationalist POV. That's hardly conducive to getting this resolved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite agree and I resent those comments by User:Domer48 concerning Stormont. This is simply WP:NPOV gobbly-gook..if the boot's on the other foot and all that! --De Unionist (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second humble request from your moderator
Ok, right now, there's too much confusion to push the above vote suggestion that I gave, so let me try something else:
I am proposing, based on everything I've read, that the following likely has the best chance of gaining consensus without approaching a vote.
Blue-Haired Lawyer's means of how to refer to the state when potential confusion arises with the island and N. Ireland should be used. (see [#Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland in articles|above] for the details but primarily using "Republic of Ireland" when confusion may arise particularly with "Northern Ireland", "Ireland" alone in all other cases.
Hatnotes for dabs and additional redirects will be added as necessary (eg, Ireland (state) may need a Northern Ireland dab hatnote).
I'm not necessary saying that this is the best solution or my preferred one (I'm staying neutral), only the one that as I read everything seems to be the one that all answers gravitate towards.
Now, here's my request. Below are "Support" and "Oppose". This is NOT the final resolution on this matter, I am only trying to judge if there's a chance of gaining consensus on a solution or if a vote is really necessary. Thus, this is not committing you to this solution (I will ask a more binding "do you agree to this" at a different time).
Vote Support only if you agree with everything I list above with absolutely no cavaets. Think the country should be at Ireland (nation)? Vote Oppose. Did I miss a critical aspect that needs to be resolved? Vote Oppose. If you are still voting Support, please don't comment further. However, if you do vote Oppose, please explain why, and be explicit - explain every reason you feel this is not the right solution. Let's use this to see how far we are for a possible consensus that may be buried beneath everything. Please do not comment on people's Oppose votes in the Oppose section, if you feel the need to comment, use the Discussion section below.
Again, your vote here is not binding, this is not the final resolution on the issue, only a means to judge what the next best steps are. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Please do not add any comment besides signing your name here. If you disgree even with one tiny part of the above recommendations, please vote Oppose and explain in detail
"Ireland (state)" sounds like a state in the American or Australian sense. DrKiernan (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Ireland for the state and Ireland for the island have worked fine for years and there has been no consensus to change; I would not favour any change to that if it was brought in by a select few editors here rather than by a community poll/RfC-type procedure. BastunnutsaB 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this poll because in putting it in the field, the moderator has himself made choices about which options might or might not pass muster. For everyone in the community to feel they have had a fair say, only an STV poll can lead to a result that everyone can consider to be inclusive and fair. Even if I might be able to accept the options in this poll, there are others which I might prefer, and I object to those options not being given a hearing. Please let us finalize the STV poll and hold that. -- Evertype·✆ 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Having said that, and given Masem's comments below, I believe that Ireland (disambiguation) should be at Ireland, and I disagree with the suggestion that "state" would be interpreted as a US, Australian, or Mexican "state". Ireland is a state, and "nation" and "country" are less appropriate in terms of a formal description. -- Evertype·✆ 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just let it remain at Republic of Ireland. The term is incorrect and I do not like it but it is a term that is used and it is much better than Ireland (state) which has a different meaning in different parts of the world. The anti-ROI editors cannot even agree on a solution. (formerly user T*85)76.118.224.35 (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Ireland (state)" sounds stupid. Either Republic of Ireland or Ireland would be better. FF3000 (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unhappy about this process. This isn't STV. It is you crystal-balling the result of the STV. Now STV allows everyone to express his or her favourite preference and to rank other options in terms of acceptability. In my view, if we have an STV poll, everyone will be able to express their preference. No one can say it was rail-roaded. So... why should I vote in this poll, which begs the question of the STV poll? (Note I am not saying anything about my opinion of the accuracy of your crystal-balling. But I saw consensus for an STV poll. Did you not?) -- Evertype·✆ 14:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is consensus for an STV poll. However, there are a couple of people screaming loudly in an attempt to drown out that consensus, so he's trying this instead.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw editors strongly against it, and if we had gone through with it, using the results of the STV poll, those editors against using STV in the first place would likely continue to complain that it wasn't a proper solution. This current poll is by no means meant to displace the STV, but right now, based on comments, there is a hint that a consensus may be much closer than it appears. If we can reach consensus without the STV, great. But if this present solution shows no chance, then the STV is still the next best route, with the assurance to those against the STV that we tried a consensus driven solution and it failed. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable editors strongly against STV? Who? What cogent arguments have they offered against it? I can say, for my part, I don't like your poll here because it doesn't offer what I consider to be appropriate options. I think there are preferable options. Since those options are not on offer, I feel that my views will not be heard. See? That is why I have supported Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's STV poll. I saw more consensus for that poll than against it. It seems to me that the STV poll is a superset of what you have offered, and therefore it is that which should be polled. It may whittle down, even to what you crystal-balled, but in good faith I think you have jumped the gun here, and I would request that you proceed with the STV poll. (I have seen two editors quit the process entirely because there was going to be an STV poll. Why would they quit? Because they were shepherding it into something that they preferred? I think STV allows us all to really say what options we can support, and that's they way to determine consensus. Accordingly, I feel that I should not vote in your poll, but wait for you to you should hold a proper poll which is in fact more inclusive. -- Evertype·✆ 15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that many more people supported the STV poll than opposed it. -- Evertype·✆ 15:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) With the exception of the decision to not vote, I agree with everything Evertype has said. There are 75% of us in favour of a community-wide STV poll, which is as close to consensus as makes no difference. Only 25% are opposed, and three of those four are pushing a solution that would never get community consensus in any case. I appeal to you to reconsider this poll and proceed with working out the details of the STV poll. BastunnutsaB 15:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disagreeing that the majority supported the STV poll. The 25% against however felt that consensus was not sought first; I cannot predict their behavior but the last thing I want are people to continue to argue that whatever solution results is invalid because they did not agree to that method of selection. Their call for an attempt to gain consensus is fair; I am making one last check to see if that's even possible. If this request (again, not a binding final consensus) clearly shows that core differences are insurmountable to achieve consensus (a fact that I do believe may happen, but let's let it speak for itself), then I can then say, without reservation, that the STV process is the only reasonable option opened for us, and those that naysayed it will need to understand that we've tried consensus and failed. In otherwords, this is a simple check of dotting our i's and crossing t's to make sure that if/when we use the STV poll over consensus that we have a valid reason to do so.
Also, I will remind people that both consensus and STV polling seek to find a resolution that nearly all participants agree to but not necessarily their first choice. The above may not be your ideal solution, but it may be one you can live with. If it turns out we can gain consensus on that, then we've met the goal. STV will result in the same; the ultimate winning solution may be the 2rd or 3rd choices for some editors, but this implies everyone can live with it; the only difference is that we introduce some hard numbers to the equation to undeniably show support one direction or another. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that after an STV poll we may end up with the solution you have proposed, as I said. But the community deserves to make that determination via the STV poll. I'm not comfortable with your having done so. -- Evertype·✆ 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested with the STV poll, that result is binding since it will be a community wide poll. And note, I am not proposing this solution, this is the solution that seems to have the most support from all comments that I've read. Also, I'm not saying that what I've written is the final solution that consensus must agree too. Maybe it's clear that if I changed one provision to something else, then that will be closer to consensus; I'm putting down a possible solution that is the lowest common denominator but if there were to be consensus it may shift from that. So don't take it as a be-all to the end solution. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From a process point of view, it is you as moderator cherry-picking, when Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's matrix is far more inclusive and allows everyone to express their preferred set of options themselves. -- Evertype·✆ 16:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain. I am 99% confident that achieving consensus is not going to happen and that we will be going to the STV poll. But, there is 1% that says "maybe there's a chance". Given that it is not a snowball's chance and that there are legitimate concerns that going to STV bypasses attempts to build consensus, this quick poll is to help make sure we have done our homework and that the STV is the only way to close this process. After this is completed, presuming no consensus is met, then those resisting the STV and insisting on consensus building will have to realize that it is just impossible and that this is the next best solution. As it input is going now, that 99% confidence is still there for me, but I will wait to see what happens. Also, I needed some baseline solution to start with, and I picked the one that I believed based on reading comments has the most likely support from everyone; it certainly isn't cherry picked (it's basically one of the options on the STV poll) and I have no opinion if its the best solution. The oppose input that gives me what changes needed to be made from this baseline solution are more useful than continuing to ask everyone to say what their solution is; it's a means of mapping the same information but from a more concrete point. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I have accordingly modified my opposition vote above. -- Evertype·✆ 17:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't oppose the proposal, but I don't support it either. I will accept the will of the community if that be it. Fmph (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto - in a way - I supported the proposal because I think it is a fair compromise to those who (for whatever reason) can't bear the article being at Republic of Ireland, but we've already been over this. There is no more to discuss because we've been around in circles many times already. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd prefer the disambiguation page be named Ireland & the island page be named Ireland (island). However, my primary concern, is the RoI page being moved to Ireland (state). GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun has a good point. Republic of Ireland has worked for many years. "Ireland (state)" sounds absolutely ridiculous, it should either remain at "Republic of Ireland" or be moved to "Ireland". --FF3000 (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closure
Since I've got the major opinions of the parties involved, and the "oppose" positions are pretty clearly not a position that can be made compatible (two different directions in which to name the 26-county state), I will consider that any chance of consensus happening to be beyond measure. In otherwords, any attempt to achieve normal, discussion-driven consensus on this matter is not going to happen in the immediate future. This means that polling is our next best solution. Unless anyone has anything contrary to this to offer, I will propose a revised schedule for the STV in a day or so (it won't start Sunday) and we will go from there. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good, the discussion here is beyond repetitive. Is this going to be based on user Rannpháirtí anaithnid's sandbox?[27]76.118.224.35 (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, yes. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the STV poll proposed by Rannpháirtí anaithnid is the only option now. ~Asarlaí 01:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been to date, no policy based process offered as a solution. ArbCom have stated in the section titled Purpose of Wikipedia that "use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. On the section titled Conduct and decorum ArbCom state " Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." I hope with the process I outlined that I have addressed that and prevented this type of conduct.
ArbCom make specific reference to Naming conventions in their "Final decision" and include both a link and quotation:
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
In my proposal I have addressed this and offered a number of verifiable reliable sources to support my proposals. This format, both the process including the "guidlines" in addition to a proposal is open to all editors to copy. In otherwords, any attempt to achieve normal, discussion-driven consensus on this matter is not going to happen in the immediate future,unless it includes a policy based solution. That requires the application of Wiki's long standing policies. Editors must support their opinions with verifiable reliable sources, and discussions should not be driven by simple POV pushing. I'd like the mods to consider this process, considering it has never been attempted throughout this process, thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 13:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would really love it if there was a consensus driven by policy. From reviewing the background of this, that was tried and failed because there are multiple valid solutions that are driven by policy, but the division to pick between these options is tied into nationalistic issues that go beyond WP that make any attempt to achieve consensus effectively impossible. We cannot sit and wait for consensus to eventually form - this will just drag the issue further and further. However, as a near-majority of all parties involved agree to use a STV poll to end the debate, that's the best route to go after. It is a completely fair option given the breakdown of achieving consensus by normal routes without resorting to implementing the failsafe option of the ArbCom resolutions. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem please provide a diff for were this consensus driven by policy was tried and failed? I've been unable to find it. ArbCom have said this is a content dispute. So please show me were are the multiple valid solutions that are driven by policy? All that is being offered is a poll based on every editors personal POV, with the most editors "winning"! That is the term that is being used "winning." I know for a fact that if you remove all the POV and bias, insist on references this will not drag the issue further and further. If you forget about my proposal, and just look at the process it allowes for no room for time wasting, no room for nationalistic issues, no room for off topic discussions, no room for point scoring, no room for incivility or no personal attacks and just sticks with the facts. Wikipedia has developed policies over a number of years to provide us with a "a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia," and prevent groups of editors from pushing an agenda. If you try to put your own POV on spin on things, the first question an editor is asked is to back it up. I'm not willing to conceed that Wikipedia's policies have failed, but I accept that editors have. I'll attribute this then to those who are supposed to be here to uphold Wikipedia's policies and have failed. --Domer48'fenian' 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redking7s violating rules laid down by arbcom
He keeps trying to start or continue a debate at Talk:Republic of Ireland on changing the article title there. In the message from Arbcom it said "Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process." Could a moderator please check the history of ROI and see if Redking7 needs warning or banning. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not breached any such rules. As per my posting on the RoI talk page (Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC):[reply]
According to the above, the reason the "title" discusion was archived was because, apparantly Arbcom state:
"Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.
Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process."
The above has no baring on the discussion that was archived:
it did not concern the naming of "Ireland articles" - it concerned the naming of one article, the "RoI article" - which discussion was raised in the appropriate place, the talk page of the RoI article; and
Therefore, the above discussion should not have been archived. Can some one "de-archive" it? This appears to be an attempt to impose censorhip. Regards. Redking7
I consider Redking7's actions in violation of what Arbcom has stated, though 1) I will check with them on that and 2) consider this the only warning since one could read, in some degree of good faith, that there was reasonable action to start the discussion. However, I will consider any further attempts to try to start a discussion about Republic of Ireland, which is clearly one of the potential targets for a move or redirect per this project, to be disruptive. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem - I strongly disagree with what you have said but take it in good faith - I understand you are a moderator. Have you asked Arbcom? I am confused about what you say about the above being the "only warning" when you are not even sure whether there has been a breach of ArbCom rules...but I guess you will square that off in your own way.
More generally, Does ArbCom wish WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to be used to censor article-specific discussion on article-specific talk pages? I would find that extraordinary because:
it is a golden rule of Wikipedia that matters concerning an article (including its title) can (and should) be raised on the talk page of the article concerned - this is really important;
WikiProject Ireland Collaboration relates to the naming of lots of articles - it is much easier to reach consensus on one article than it is on a whole range of articles - it would be bad for the community if progress on one article was linked to conensus being reached on a whole range of articles;
there is no reason why WikiProject Ireland Collaboration cannot take place in tandem with article-specific discussions on their talk page - thats the best way to ensure progress is made and a "win win" is created for all of the community;
on what basis can WikiProject Ireland Collaboration be used as a way of "censoring" discussions of article-specific title matters;
many editors feel that WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is now being used as a way to supress the discussions which have taken place on "Ireland" articles for a long time - and simply "park" the ouststanding issues on one page visited by fewer and fewer editors (as the Project's credibility has ebbed away over the months);
similarly, WikiProject Ireland Collaboration has been in place for quite some months now (its first three Moderators resigned); it has made no demonstrable progress; and has not set a deadline for when it will conclude (i.e. it could continue to run and run with no decisions around article titles (i.e. imposition of the status quo));
such "censorship" type-restrictions would be fundamentally undemocratic and ultimately don't pass the Wiki "smell test" or whats right and wrong. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Masem - Could you give me the link to the ArbCom page where you are asking (or have asked them) so I can raise this with them directly. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with some of those sentiments above RK. --De Unionist (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redking, im sorry but i dont understand how you can continue to believe such nonsense. How can this project be successful here in resolving the Ireland naming dispute if another poll is being conducted on the Republic of Ireland talk page aswell with the intention of moving the article. :::: Now its debatable if there should be complete censorship, simply ignoring the crap on the talk page and preventing any attempt to implement the outcome of the vote there would be enough but following the previous attempts by certain editors to bypass this process ArbCom ruled very clearly that this is the only place to resolve these matters.
It is simple fact, pushing a debate about article titles on the Republic of Ireland talk page is violating their ruling, there is no way what you have been doing isnt that, the question is what should be done about it. The best of it is thats all such a waste of time, because the people here would vote there against any change on the Ireland page until this is resolved here anyway. So why bother? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the request for clarification to ArbCom which I just put up. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BritishWatcher - I think my above reasons are more than enough reason to show ArbCom has not prohibited discussion of any aspect of an article on its talk page. You seem to think its nonsense to think things can proceed in tandem, but in particular: the Project page concerns a number of articles - not just the RoI article - some Editors may have no view whatsoever on where the Island of Ireland page is located etc...but they are entitled to express their view here on this talk page on where the RoI article should be located. They are very separate questions. As the above reasons I gave show - progress on one article should not be held ransom to a consensus being established across a whole range of articles. The sort of censorship you are advocating is simply not the "Wiki" way. Regards.
Use of sub pages of WikiProject Ireland Collaboration
I do not know if there is a general rule on these matters, but are there restrictions on what you can and cant do with new pages created at Wikiproject Ireland collaboration? Right now , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/proposal for Ireland Article is being run like a dictatorship or as though its the users own space. Is this fair or even acceptable? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored various comments per WP:TPO. I would think that further removals would constitute disruption of the process, and hence be ban-worthy. Masem, your opinion?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the people that are removing content said they were not going to continue to be involved in this project earlier, they must of both changed their minds. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jumpers, my comments have been deleted from that proposal page. Is there somebody peeved at me? GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I've found them. They were moved to that page's discussion. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the multi-party edit warring, I've protected both subpages for 24 hours. Get a consensus here over whether comments can be freely removed before the protection expires, please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, where to start? Um... questions, comments and points of and for clarification should be allowed? Per WP:TALK. BastunnutsaB 20:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now the same editors who have turned this discussion into a carnival are attempting to do the same with the process I'm trying to develop. Having clearly indicated on each section on the proposal page "Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions" and equally clear guidelines on the talk page "Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Please address one point at a time." Editors have attempted to turn this attempt at a proposal into another point scoring match, and add comments which have nothing to do with the proposal. Now since this is my attempt at a proposal I've tried to moderate the discussion in an attempt to produce a productive and disruption free area in which to work. I wish to be able to proceed hassle free with this process but have had it blocked by an editor who has do nothing but snip at me, and had a block place on me which had to be overturned. All editors are invited to help, but they must do so in a way that does not attempt to undermine or stifle my efforts. The guidelines are reasonable and conducive to rational and informed discussion. The alternative is the type of discussion that has taken place on this discussion page. When this process has reached a stage were it is possible to present it as a formal proposal I will. --Domer48'fenian' 20:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could 'at least' have the proposal page's talk-page unlocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, there was edit warring on both pages. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Your the one edit warring. And abused your tools again. --Domer48'fenian' 08:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have opened up a new discussion, its HERE. It sounds as though you are trying to create a rival process rather than just making a proposal in an attempt to get consensus. I havnt seen any violations on that page, many reasonable comments are getting removed. As i said before its like a damn dictatorship on there, how on earth do you expect to develop consensus in that kind of hostile environment. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps (Domer) it's best to move all the content of that proposal page, to this WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Domer, you are not a moderator - you do not have the power to remove others questions, comments or requests for clarification - especially when you are making comments, asking questions and requesting clarification yourself. And you also appear to be addressing the editors, rather than the comments. BastunnutsaB 20:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments which were removed from the proposal page, and added and commented upon on the talk page. [28][29][30][31]. None of which addressed why they opposed the proposal. They ignored the guidelines, and Rockpocket edit warred[32][33] to put them back on.
Comments removed from the talk page, [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. Notice how two of the comments are from editors who agree with me.
SarekOfVulcan edit warred on the talk page to put the comments back in: [42], [43], [44], and on the proposal page, [45], [46] and then protecting the page. It is wrong for an Admin to use their tools in an edit war, they were warned about this already so they know they should not have been the one to protect the page.
This is the type of conduct which has plagued this process, and it really needs to stop. My genuine efforts are being undermined and I need to be able to at least try to resolve the issue free from this type of conduct. --Domer48'fenian' 20:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the intrest of fairness this post should have been moved to the Proposal page. --Domer48'fenian' 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
But the we have Rockpocket another Admin, ignoring the block on the page to again [47][48] inserting their comments which the section which was removed has nothing to do with the proposal. --Domer48'fenian' 20:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your deleting my 'conditional support' at the talkpage, is understandable. I was concerned about my comment being 'moved' on the mainpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline clearly states: "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (bold in original)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the WP:TPG, and tell how your contrabutions helped.
Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject.
Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal).
Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.
Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors if you wish. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article.
Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out. Avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions. Talk pages with a good signal-to-noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation.
Keep discussions focused: Discussions naturally should finalize by agreement, not by exhaustion.
Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article.
Guidelines I prepared: "Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions"
You abused your tools again, and have done nothing but snip at me, you were told to leave me alone. --Domer48'fenian' 21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SarekOfVulcan is WikiStalking you, I have noticed it, but naturally did not want to bring it up, but now that it's mentioned. Tfz 21:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Domer, either this is a proposal you are putting forward, in which case the moderators can remove comments/questions/whatever if they deem it necessary and the page will otherwise operate under WP:TPG - or its something you're preparing privately that isn't yet ready for "public consumption" - in which case, move it to a sandbox off your userpage. BastunnutsaB 21:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mind Domer removing my comment, get over it. 'Collaberation', is that a joke? Tfz 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back Tfz, i thought you had left us. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have, to the overall process here, which is dead in the water, unless some enlightenment hits the page. Tfz 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to offer the missing verb here? -- Evertype·✆ 21:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could offer a few missing verbs, but I don't want an enforced wikibreak. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor of your experience, Domer, is well aware that, personal attacks or libel aside, it is not acceptable behaviour to alter another editors comments to change their meaning. Move or refactor if you must, but do not change. Now, if you consider my comments problematic, I have a talk page you can contact me on. However, it is not acceptable to simply change my comments to suit your own agenda or interpretation. That subpage is not in user-space, therefore it is not yours to police. If you continue to edit my comments by adding or removing words, I will move that you be blocked until you stop. Simple as. Rockpocket 21:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comments above: You edit warred [49][50] to keep your snide remarks in ignoring the block on the page to again to insert them. You removed a block to carry on with this, and now you want me blocked! You just could not stand the fact that I was making progress in a genuine effort to move this on. Per WP:TPG "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." So you work away, and scupper my efforts, at least I tried! --Domer48'fenian' 22:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for goodness sake, you honestly think you were making progress? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was not aware the page had been protected when I made that edit. Not that it matters. Even if I had known it was protected I would have still made the edit, I will not tolerate anyone changing the meaning of another editor comments. Its extremely disrespectful. If you are not familiar with what is acceptable refactoring and what isn't, suggest you leave name space policing up to officially appointed moderators in future. Or if you wish to moderate yourself do so on a page you don't have an obvious conflict of interest.
Finally, if you genuinely think editing other's comments to suit your agenda is "making progress in a genuine effort to move this on" then you are clearly deluded. Once the page is unprotected I'll be withdrawing both my !vote and my comments and I encourage everyone else to do likewise. Then you will be free to edit the entire page at will. Rockpocket 23:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that if you want to make a subpage of this project for a proposal, that's fine - but you better state that you are doing this here, otherwise, as happens here, it looks like a submarine attack on the process and thus disruptive. Thus, I urge you either to avoid doing this (you're free to put stuff in your own sandbox and then propose it here), or if you feel you need to, be blatant that you have done so as soon as possible. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem was this not clear enough? Was it not blatant enough? The part highlighted is the part of Rocks contrabution that was removed. "Nope. Ireland is ambiguous. The way we address ambiguity is to deal with it in a neutral and sensible manner, not ignore it." So saying "I will not tolerate anyone changing the meaning of another editor comments" is about as beleivable as saying you did not know the page was Blocked. That you admit that you would knowningly abuse your tools in a dispute is telling, but to say I edited "other's comments to suit [my] agenda" is a joke. Why, because you go on to say "Once the page is unprotected I'll be withdrawing both my !vote and my comments and I encourage everyone else to do likewise." So you admit you abused your tools to insert your snide remark, but will wait till the page is unblocked to remove them. I've provided all the diff's above, so why not explain to editors what my agenda was, because you've all ready show them what yours was and that's to "encourage everyone else" into withdrawing their vote, and so scupper my attempt to move things forward. It looks like a submarine attack on the process and thus disruptive.--Domer48'fenian' 07:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I don't give a toss whether Domer, Masem or anyone else moves my comments from one place to another, even from project to talk space, if it justifiably assists the process and they inform me why they are doing it. What I do care about is this type of bullshit whereby the meaning of my comments are altered. I wrote and signed a statement (that should be blindingly obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of English), and Domer changed it to appear as if I was making the exact opposite point (i.e. questioning the verifiability of the same statement). This is a serious no-no anywhere on Wikipedia (how would you like if I went to your userpage and changed all your Pro-Irish rhetoric to Pro-British, for example?) It takes a fair amount to upset me, but that is seriously uncool. I hope our moderators will make it explicitly clear, going forward that sort of behavior will not be permitted. Rockpocket 03:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing this discussion
Reviewing this discussion I agree with Rockpocket. Domer's edits have been provocative at best, disruptive at worst. I regret to say that as he shows no contrition, a sanction might be in order (assuming that ArbCom and this process have any teeth). -- Evertype·✆ 07:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure don't you know that's whats on the agenda, and we will get more like you lined up to say the same. Will get consensus to block an editor from the likes of you, quick enough. The thing is though, the diff's are there and the project page I was working on to illustrate what I was trying to do, but letting the evidence get in the way has never stop any of you before. Why should now be any different? --Domer48'fenian' 07:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The likes of" me? You might recall that I initiated the request to have ArbCom deal with this unholy mess. I think it's hilarious (in a sad, sad way) that I have both you and Tfz on my back. Seems to me that you both have preferred solutions and want to "win". This is why I support STV and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. It allows ALL OF US to express our favourite preferred solution and then also to rank other solutions which might be acceptable to us. Everyone will have a fair say. No one will have to vote on a poll that doesn't offer his or her preferred solution. It's the only balanced way forward, as far as I see it. But you're not interested in a compromise, just in your Fenian ideal. (And no, my noticing that you have a Fenian ideal doesn't indicate to you what my view is about Ireland or partition or anything.) At the same time Tfz has bitched about me more than once; indeed on your own Talk page Tfz has said "Certainly BW, EverT, or the editor with the peculiar long name (as Gaeilge :-) offer little positive"—which seems to be more a personal attack because we favour a poll that offers all of the options rather than a cherry-picked poll that presupposes "consensus" based on what "intelligent interested editors" decide on ahead of time. Since I "offer little positive" I must not be an "intelligent" editor in Tfz's view. But I "offer little positive" because I share the consensus with others that a STV poll makes sense—and since Tfz evidently opposes that, I get to be damned. -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype, you have been noisy as BW has been, that's not a personal attack, many of your inputs have been belligerent and arrogant imo, and you have attacked today again. The editor with the long name has attacked in the past, by calling me and another editor a troller. BW has been libelous on a least one occasion and is belligerent in many of his posts too. So much for collegial collaboration. There is a menacing approach on this page by many of the editors, and spurious claims without citations are allowed to remain so as to muddy the waters. As I said the page is going nowhere good, and quite obviously you do not like my efforts to move things forward, and get consensus from the "intelligent" folk here. Veiled, and not so veiled personal attacks by Evertype to the integrity of other editor's inputs into this page. I have listed only a few, as I don't have the time on hand to list other ones. [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56] -- Tfz 10:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of the things you consider "belligerent" of me seem to me to be more or less defensive, such as my taking offence at Domer's "the likes of you" comment, which lacks civility. Menacing? What's menacing about advocating an STV poll which allows everyone to put his or her favourite configuration of article names first, and to rank other options accordingly? It is simple. It is easy to list all of the options. It ought to be easy to get people to express their opinions, whether Unionist or Nationalist or whatever. What's wrong with this? What are your own efforts leading to? I don't see any specifity in much of what you have been saying, though you talk about "consensus". Can you be specific? (And I do see you saying snide things like I and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid "offer little positive", and I remember the bit where you mocked me for saying I reserved the right to keen—though you were nice about it this morning). -- Evertype·✆ 22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My words were changed by a so-called pro-Brit editor while I was on my holidays about ten days ago. Did I get mad? No! Did I get even? No! Did I get sad? No! You guys, thanks fore reminding me to change back his edits, as I had forgotten all about it. But maybe I won't bother, depends. Tfz 09:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol why is it people are always picking on me, im starting to get the impression some people here dont like me very much :( BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're ok if you didn't shout so much when you want to make a point. If ET wants to quote private conversation here, then he opens the door one more time, that's all. I can leave it there. Tfz 17:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages aren't private. And you're the one who lumped BritishWatcher (with whom I may have often disagreed) in with me and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid, evidently just because we differ with you. Note, please, that I really have not been pushing a "this is the only solution" POV. I have been advocating a means for getting to a common denominator. -- Evertype·✆ 22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caoineadh
Ochón is ochón ó. -- Evertype·✆ 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype, most of the editors here wouldn't understand that, but Touché. It's pretty apt at times. Tfz
I offer something positive, then? -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dry your eyes you play a major part in what is happening at this farce. BigDuncTalk 12:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you say this because you disagree with me (whatever you think my view might be)? My support for an STV poll according to Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's template is there to allow you, as well as those whom you consider to be your enemies/opponents/whatever to offer a range of options which you (and they) feel that you (and they) can support. In what way is this unacceptable? It is certainly a more neutral approach than others I have seen. -- Evertype·✆ 22:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's that phrase in English? GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No direct translation, but it's a way of saying that you're very sad. Used mostly in laments. FF3000 (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ag caoineadh is crying, and ochón is a keening cry. BastunnutsaB 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would be a better way of putting it. FF3000 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Alas and alack, ah'. I guess. Oy vey. -- Evertype·✆ 22:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Months later...Is this process just a ruse?
Some relevant recycling: Is this process just a ruse to ruse to stop the "disruption" caused by the RoI/IRL dispute by pretending that a process is in place to resolve the conflicting viewpoints? I hope this is a genuine process that will lead to a prompt decision but it looks unlikely to me. In particular, the ground rules on the project page state "Decisions for the WikiProject will primarily be based on the consensus of members". Is some one seriously suggesting a consensus will emerge? If no consensus emerges, does that mean there will be no decision (or another decision to make no decision as before)? What reason is there to think a consensus will emerge when it has not done so before? Is there a timeframe for this process? How long will it run? What is the deadline? I think those running this process should answer these questions and set them out on the project page. Participants can then take a view on whether this is a credible process. After all, who runs a project without having a clear timeframe? It goes without saying, I hope the project is successful. It should have credibility. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Time, unfortunately, is proving my original scepticism right. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
If it's a ruse, it's an effective ruse. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it getting anywhere? well it certainly looked like progress was being made and we were close to having a vote in the coming days, that was until certain incidents have hijacked the conversation so the vote looks like its going to be delayed. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it does get anywhere, I want to be informed so that I can take part in the vote or whatever. However, what is in danger of happening is that the more protracted things get, the more likely that the final result will reflect the views of the most stubborn rather than a genuine consensus.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See here. We'll likely have a timetable for a Single transferable vote poll on Monday. User:Masem's intention is to hatnote it on the Watchlist page when it goes live, so noone will miss it. We probably would have been a good bit further on if it hadn't been for distractions... BastunnutsaB 17:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying there is going to be a poll on Monday (to end when?) and lead to what outcome (? - perhaps months of more discussion because no consensus will emerge) is not a timetable. Indeed, there have been plenty of votes already casts - see the statements linked to the project page! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know folks (and it kinda tough to say it), perhaps we should leave the 3 articles--in-question where they are. It's been years now & Republic of Ireland, Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation) haven't yet got a consensus to change. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is above, Redking7. It will likely be similar to this with *very* wide community input (alert message in the Watchlist, etc.) leading to a binding outcome. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite agree, there will never be a consensus. --De Unionist (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any faith I had in Wikipedia has been shattered, that editors could not devise a system to gain consensus. Reverse process of elimination could have done it, with time factor involved. No structure, and this is what we get, one of the biggest "washing of hands" I have ever witnessed. Be careful what you wish for, my faith in the moderator is sinking pretty fast too, maybe he has run out of purpose, I fear. He shouldn't have taken the project on if that is the case. Tfz 22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's process is a process of elimination. -- Evertype·✆ 22:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we'll end up with a result based on a political-pov of the most numerous, not what's best for Ireland, North or South, mark my words. Tfz 22:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the poll is truly community wide a certain amount of common sense may be applied, since the unrelenting sectarianism has failed to yield consensus. At least the STV vote will allow everyone to rank their first preference (which will doubtless fail) along with other options which are more generally acceptable. -- Evertype·✆ 23:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Tfz: And I think that's the first time I've seen you make a suggestion such as "Reverse process of elimination could have done it"... it was open to you at any stage to propose something.
@Redking7: Read the page above. The moderator will outline a timetable (probably) on Monday, not the vote itself. It will be a STV poll covering all the options. The ground rules will be decided, and the poll will be advertised for all registered users when they visit their Watchlist. And it will be a binding outcome. Maybe not the one you want, or maybe not the one I want, but it will be binding. BastunnutsaB 22:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just 50% fully support a poll, according to this [57], and not one of them live in the country being discussed, I discern. Mindblowing! Tfz 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conaímse in Éireann, a Tfz, ar a laghad. And the Wikipedia, and its articles on Ireland, belong to EVERYBODY, not just people living in one jurisdictionr or t'other. Note Bastun's comment below. -- Evertype·✆ 23:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would most certainly be very important for the poll to have more local support. That attitude wouldn't wash with me for one second. Tfz 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case you hadn't noticed, Tfz, this isn't a "local" encyclopedia, so "local" support is what it is -- nothing more, nothing less.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be letting the "local" newspapers in on the 'scheme', no rules about that. I'll be composing my press releases tomorrow. Tfz 23:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, Tfz, that one of the ideas floated was severe punishments for meat puppetry. See too that it is both a majority of "Gaels" as well a majority of "Galls" are in favour of a ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me we are not allowed to talk to the "free press". I won't be telling anyone which way to vote, so it cant be, to use your phrase, meat puppetry. They will invariably love this as it is something new, and Wikipedia will get publicity, either good or bad. Tfz 00:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything at Wikipedia:Canvassing that would be against it, but I would be concerned about it inviting a lots of new editors unfamiliar with policy etc. (I know it was floated by someone to limit balloting to established editors). Check with the mods (and ArbCom) for what their take on publicising it (in a neutral manner) off WP would be.
Why don't you draft up a letter in your user space (so you can keep "ownership" of it) and invite comments from contributors here next week. (Since it will be in *your* talk page, you will be able to tell people not to edit it or revert their edits if they do.) Then, next week, when we get a clearer picture of exactly how we are going to run this, you could finalise the letter and post it off to the Indo or Times or wherever. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why scare quotes around 'free press'? If you write neutrally and factually, then I'm sure the Indo, Examiner, Times, Metro and Herald AM will be beating down our door when they hear a majority of WP editors who expressed a preference, many of them living in Ireland, wanted to democratically decide whether the Republic of Ireland article should move to the place currently being used by the island page, or whether some other solution was possible. (How will you disambiguate between the two when you write your letter, I wonder?) They might be interested in knowing that the main opposers of a democratic vote appear to be - well, of a certain political persuasion. A really good journalist may well look at the contribution history and see where they've contributing and what they've been saying... I assume of course you won't be writing to just the one newspaper... BastunnutsaB 00:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit. Bastun, it was not my intention to scare you, sorry. Rannpháirtí anaithnid, thanks for the reply. No, I must demur from your invitation, the "Wikielite" didn't listen to me before, so I'm not going to put my "press release" here on Wikipedia for all to see in advance of issue. And all the Wikilawyering? "Thanks, but no thanks". Tfz 00:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New schedule for polling
Given the above last check on consensus which shows that this project will never come to one in a reasonable amount of time, I now propose that the following schedule be used for voting on this matter (This will follow, with any necessary identify changes, the STV poll as listed at User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/sandbox).
Stage 1: Final input on polling issues (questions in terms of format or process) up to June 27, 2009
Stage 2: Polling opens for three weeks from June 28, 2009 and will end July 19, 2009
Stage 3: STV results will be evaluated over the week, posted no later than July 26, 2009
Stage 4: Finalize any other questions as a result of the poll by the end of August.
Final page moves (if needed) or any other impact due to the results of the poll will not occur until Stage 4 is completed.
Again, I am working off the starting point that attempting to achieve consensus will be a much longer and convoluted process that this project no longer needs, and that the poll is the next best option to resolving the issue. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need 7 days of discussion before the vote? 76.118.224.35 (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. While User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid has listed most of the options that have been discussed here at the draft poll page, there are probably others - some people want RoI to move to Ireland (country), I think, and there may be more variations. There also needs to be a decision on the winning quota - whether 50% + 1 is enough, or whether that should be 66% or 75% or whatever. There are probably other issues that need to be decided in advance. BastunnutsaB 23:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@76.118.224.35 - I'd say yes - but less discussion and more preparing. This is not a simple 2-option ballot. If we are to ballot the entire community and the result is to be final then let's not muck it up. Better plan things properly and make sure we have everything running smoothly in advance.
Agreed. I was going to say that a week was too long, but if it's going to the full community, we should take the time to get it right. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Final page moves (if needed) or any other impact due to the results of the poll will not occur until Stage 4 is completed." - Thats a statement of a timeperiod before which they will not occur....what is the time period before they must occur if the poll calls for a move...? Does it mean that if there will be moves, they will take place before end of August? And who will enforce it...Are you a moderator? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redking, you are about to get stomped on hard by Arbcom, as soon as they read your attempts to wikilawyer on the Clarifications page. Going around making up red herrings about whether I'm a mod or not, when you know darned well that Masem is one, and he's the one who set up the schedule, is not going to help your case at all.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This timetable sounds good to me. I don't know whether Ireland (country) works as an option along with Ireland (state) and Ireland (nation) etc as this could lead to tripling the number of options in the poll. I think that the potential for readers of the Wikipedia to confuse Ireland with an entity Arkansas is a red herring. (Note that Pennsylvania is a commonwealth at one level of abstraction but a state at another level of abstraction.) Yes, the U.S. state might be a "federated state" whilst Ireland is a "sovereign state" but that ambiguity exists in the English language and is not the fault of the Wikipedia. Ireland's constitution uses the term "state". This can be handled in the introduction to the article with piping: [[Sovereign state|state]] just as [[U.S. state|state]] is used at Pennsylvania. -- Evertype·✆ 07:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a comment on the poll here. -- Evertype·✆ 07:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a few mods to RAs version and posted it into my own sandbox. I think mine is an improvement. Kudos to RA for the concept. Fmph (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult when you to make changes without indicating what the changes are. Can you? -- Evertype·✆ 10:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be teaching my grannie to suck eggs, but can I suggest the following:
The STV poll should be either on a project subpage, or on the main project page, with the majority of the current content archived.
We need to come up with a list of appropriate venues where notice of the poll should be posted
Why is notice of the poll being published at all....any selection will be wrong - if the poll concerns three pages, should the normal practice not be followed - advertise it on the three pages concerned (Island, State and Dab page) in the usual way. They are the only places where notice should be given....beyond those, you are into the dangerous territory of "politically" choosing who to notify. Lets just stick to the standard rules. After all, who is to say Australians, Canadians, French, Nigerian and Samoan users should not be notified too.....
In summary, here is the list of appropriate venues where notice of the poll should be posted:
As I understood it, this was intended to be a communitywide poll, and would aim to include Australians, Canadians, French, Nigerians and Samoan, and just about anybody else. Taking it out of the 'local' community would mean that an NPOV solution woul be more likely. Fmph (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poll location - aye, either of those works. Poll notice - aye, all of those, certainly. But aren't we also going to get a Watchlist hatnote similar to when Arbcom elections are on, or the recent poll on the license to be used? BastunnutsaB 09:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oooooooooooo. I missed the hatnote proposal whenever it was mentioned, but it sounds great. Fmph (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fmph, I'm not so happy about what you've done, because now we have a fork with two nearly-identical proposals. In this case I think it would be better if you offered the proposed changes on the Talk Page of RA's poll, and let him maintain editorship of the page (he seems to be even-handed). Would that be OK with you? Incidentally I dislike your voting procedure; it is quite confusing. But can be improved. -- Evertype·✆ 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have put together a proposal which I hope will move this discussion forward. I’m actively looking for the support of the community in this effort. While editors are welcome to participate, based on previous discussions I have place a number of guidelines on the proposal which are designed to prevent disruption, keep the discussion on topic and provide an environment conducive to rational and reasonable discussion. As this proposal is a work in progress which I will be placing before the community as a formal process, I will moderate the discussion according to the guidelines outlined on the proposal, however, if one or all of the moderators wish to adopt the process (this should not been seen as an endorsement of the proposal) it would be very welcome. The guidelines must be viewed as part of the process, and will themselves form part of the final proposal. I have placed my rational behind the proposal on the proposal page which is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Domer48's proposal for Ireland Article. --Domer48'fenian' 09:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same proposal you already put forward. It wasn't accepted. You were disruptive when you put up the previous one, and now you are threatening to be even more disruptive: "I will moderate the discussion according to the guidelines outlined on the proposal". I appeal to the moderators to refer this to Arbcom. BastunnutsaB 10:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very different proposal! Clarified guidlines. --Domer48'fenian' 10:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, granted, a different proposal. It is one option that can be included in the "Final poll" that the Project has indicated it wants to proceed with. Why not include it in that? BastunnutsaB 10:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Masem "I will say that if you want to make a subpage of this project for a proposal, that's fine - but you better state that you are doing this here." I have stated here on both occasions. You did not read the proposal before you commented, and as to the poll, I addressed this issue in my rational on the proposal page. --Domer48'fenian' 10:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already editors are trying to disrupt this proposal. Despite clear guidlines they still ignore them, [58], [59]. I used the exact same guidline as Masem on the oppose section asking editors to just sign their name and not to post comments and it is ignored [60]. This is being just plain disruptive. Next thing is to is edit war to put their unsourced opinions back in, and have their helpful Admin come along and block the page. While editors may not like the process or the proposal this type of carry on should not be condoned. --Domer48'fenian' 18:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, this is typical to what is powering the "show" at the moment. Countries stealing names [61]. I don't think Ireland ever stole anything. Talk about political agendas, is this the future of the poll? Tfz 19:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao, where is the political agenda in my comment? It is fact that the island of Ireland had the name Ireland LONG before southern Ireland decided to use the name Ireland for their country, perhaps they didnt steal it, but they certainly copied it =). Besides, i consider that page a complete joke and knew the trigger happy self proclaimed moderator would delete my comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You knew posting comments which had nothing to do with the proposal would be removed. So you were being disruptive to make a point. It's not the page that's "a complete joke" as indicated by Tfz above. Having a lets see which POV has the highest number of votes is a joke. --Domer48'fenian' 21:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were about ur proposal, i just knew you would delete anything you didnt want to hear as has happened before. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the guidlines say "Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Please address one point at a time. Moderator/Proposer will remove all infractions of this conditions." So you did exactly what you did before! You just can't seem to understand a simple instruction. You have to comment on an editor, and not the edit, you can't help yourself making sweeping claims and generalisations, and you could not provide a reference to save your life. It's because of this, that this whole talk page is a joke. Because of editors like you can't back up your POV. Now I know the guidlines cramp your style, because they were meant to. I trying to create informed discussion and personal POV's play no part. --Domer48'fenian' 22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of whether this is a good solution or not, who is going to have confidence in any outcome when the proposer, someone heavily involved with a self evident point of view, is also the self declared arbiter of what is and is not allowed in support or opposition? As we saw from the previous attempt, what we end up with is a propaganda piece where the arguments presented are massaged to suit the POV of proposer/moderator. Have you considered that just because Domer doesn't accept an opposing justification or citation as valid, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth considering? It may just means Domer doesn't want his proposal criticized.
Have someone neutral "moderate" your proposal, or let editors express themselves without fear of you editing their comments to suit yourself, and you might get people taking it seriously. Until then, there is a process being developed under the guidance of a neutral, ArbCom appointed moderator. I suggest editors engage there instead. Rockpocket 00:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The moderators should be helping out with the proposals, failure to act is a dereliction in their duties, and I blame ArbCom for their stark lack of leadership in this regard. This is why I have lost confidence in the whole process, and no doubt some form of result will be an outcome. But it will not be a NPOV outcome, it will have a very British bias I'm afraid. As can be seen from this link [62], there has been an unhealthy relationship with the UK ever since Ireland left the UK in 1922, however this is becoming history of late, but yet a residue remains. I fear these POVs will spill heavily into the Wikipedia vote, and give a 'politically' skewed outcome. We already have seen a microcosm of this today where an editor accused Ireland of "stealing" its name. From whom, I ask myself. For that reason I support editors who will work here to achieve a consensus, and an amicable conclusion. Tfz 01:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps we should ask both Irish and British editors to recuse themselves and leave it to the rest of us, without the weight of history on our shoulders, to decide on what the most neutral outcome would be. Up for that? Rockpocket 01:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would have no problem leaving the vote to a truly neutral, non-b.commonwealth, non-Irish, non-British elective body of editors to decide. Tfz 02:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it weird that the editors that are going to get notified of the vote are exactly the people who might hold some POV even if that is not their intention. If I was running the show I would have Irish/NI/British editors stand back and see what people from the rest of the world think.76.118.224.35 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rock do think anyone her for one minute considers you neutral, "leave it to the rest of us, without the weight of history on our shoulders, to decide on what the most neutral outcome would be." As per my comments above: You edit warred [63][64] to keep your snide remarks in ignoring the block on the page to again to insert them. Saying you were not aware the page had been protected, holds no water here. Because you also said "even if [you] had known it was protected [you] would have still made the edit." So then adding "once the page is unprotected I'll be withdrawing both my !vote and my comments" show how hollow your arguements are. Why did you not just use your Admin tools again to remove them, why wait for the unblock, when the block did not stop you putting them back in? Your real motive in my opinion is obvious, because you wanted to "encourage everyone else to do likewise" and disrupt my proposal. Not one of yeh could come up with a policy based reason to oppose it, and all you could offer the discussion was inane comments. Well the guidlines prevent the POV pushers from disrupting the proposal, and it seems to have worked. --Domer48'fenian' 08:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz, I agree with you 100%, "the moderators should be helping out with the proposals, failure to act is a dereliction in their duties." --Domer48'fenian' 08:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a personal attack here Bastun, seems you must of missed it. --Domer48'fenian' 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading that, it was an extremely rude and offensive piece, and AFAIK didn't get a warning from any admins, and not even from Bastun, although I told that particular editor at a later encounter that he was rude, and would ignor him. Tfz 11:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a neutral Admin would have spotted that and said something. --Domer48'fenian' 11:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, excluding self-declared British & Irish editors from a final vote would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested below (A serious proposal) that everybody who has taken part in the debate until now be excluded. Let the unaligned decide, free of pressure from within this debate. Scolaire (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took part in this poll in good faith.[65] My comment was not disruptive, inflammatory or disparaging of anybody else's point of view. It was deleted by Domer.[66] Note the edit summary. I don't think it is reasonable to require that editors spend the afternoon in the library before commenting. In all fairness, I would have to question the good faith of the initiator. Scolaire (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your bizarre and unreasonable dislike of being censored by Domer is not supported by reliable sources and therefore, obviously, is POV, OR, RS, WTF (and lots of other acronyms, too). If you don't agree with how Domer's interpretation of our policies informs Domer about how to moderate Domer's proposal then you are clearly disrupting the process, putting the entire encyclopaedia at risk and, very possibly, driving the space-time continuum to collapse. Rockpocket 20:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you also were unable to provide any sources to back up your opinion, only you edit warred to keep your POV in and outline above. It now appears that you are now reduced to a poor attempt at sarcasm to distract from this, which does not look well coming from an Admin IMO. However, I don’t think it is product to any reasoned discussion and could be viewed as disruptive.--Domer48'fenian' 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here again are the guidlines for the discussion:
Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Moderator/Proposer will remove all infractions of this conditions.
Here is the Editors comment:
In my view, the primary meaning of "Ireland" is the 32-county country which is currently partitioned between Ireland (the 26-county state) and Northern Ireland. The 26-county state article should therefore have an alternative title e.g. "Ireland (state)". Republic of Ireland - if it is not the title - should redirect to it, since "Republic of Ireland" is, in Irish law, the description of the state. Scolaire (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the referenced sources which contradict their POV: here. Their responce of "I don't think it is reasonable to require that editors spend the afternoon in the library before commenting" is a bit lame when one notices the policies cited against their POV. To then claim censorship hold no weight in light of the fact. The guidlines are part of the proposal and outlined above so it is my view that the editor simply wished to make a point. --Domer48'fenian' 20:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so "our" policies means Domer48's policies! Way to achieve a consensus, Domer! Scolaire (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's disappointing to see you reduced to trying to mislead editors. Our policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV and it is right to ask for WP:RS. Our polices mean references talk and BS walks. --Domer48'fenian' 20:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, Domer, say what you like, but spare me "disappointing"! Scolaire (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status of the other proposal? has it been dropped? GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or put it at on a Draft page so we can get everything sorted before placing it on a VOTE page. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be moved out of my/Fmph's sandbox anyway. WP:IECOLL/VOTE sounds good for an ultimate location, but maybe draft it up at somewhere like WP:IECOLL/VOTE (draft) (so people don't confuse it with the final thing before the actual date) then move it to the ultimate location when the ballot opens. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of any additional options
Currently we have six options:
A: The island at Ireland. The state at Republic of Ireland.
B: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
C: The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).
D: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state).
E: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.
F: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
Some editors have indicated preference for other options - e.g., use of Ireland (country); or "Ireland -> Ireland (island), Republic of Ireland -> Ireland, replacement of RoI with article on the term." These need to be collated and included.
Comments
Adding an option Ireland (country) would divide the vote for those who want it at either Ireland (state) / Ireland (country). I still think we should have a quick poll before the main one on if Country should be used or State in the main poll. This is something that should be decided before not after. On if the ROI should redirect to the country article this should be a separate question agreed after the main one IF the country article is moved. options for that would have to include - Redirect to country article. - Have suggested new article on the description or take to a disam page where the country is listed but also the Irish football team etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't know whether Ireland (country) works as an option along with Ireland (state) and Ireland (nation) etc as this could lead to tripling the number of options in the poll. I think that the potential for readers of the Wikipedia to confuse Ireland with an entity Arkansas is a red herring. Yes, the U.S. state might be a "federated state" whilst Ireland is a "sovereign state" but that ambiguity exists in the English language and is not the fault of the Wikipedia. Ireland's constitution uses the term "state". This can be handled in the introduction to the article with piping: [[Sovereign state|state]] just as [[U.S. state|state]] is used at Pennsylvania. -- Evertype·✆ 18:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the vote is going ahead, here is another to consider. Some people don't like 'state' as it's too much like a state as in USA, and others object to 'country' because the '32 counties' is the country of Ireland. There is a more neutral article name, Ireland (sovereign country), in that it describes the sovereign part of the country of Ireland. Entirely NPOV, and describes exactly what its supposed to describe. Tfz 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt have a problem with (Sovereign country) although it wont have the support (state) will have. Lmao @ "the sovereign part of the country of Ireland." How pathetic. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have issues with Ireland, that's your prerogative. Tfz 19:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Lmao" and "pathetic" and "issues" aren't helpful tropes at this stage, are they? -- Evertype·✆ 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have problems with Ireland, i have a problem with your wording there Tfz. The "sovereign part of the country", implying the other part is occupied huh? There is an island called Ireland. On that island there is a sovereign country called Ireland (described sometimes as Republic of Ireland) and there is Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom. If you had said the sovereign part of the island youd be correct, but ALL of the country "Ireland" is sovereign. Thank you BritishWatcher (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you have picked it up wrongly. You should have quoted more fully "and others object to 'country' because the '32 counties' is the country of Ireland". It's what some folk think, whether we agree or disagree with them. That's why we have a term here at wikipedia called "point of view". Anyway it is a good proposal. Tfz 19:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the majority "point of view" is that its not a good proposal. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the idea here is that it suits both POVs. Surely that must be a good thing? Tfz 19:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I don't think this is wise because (!) it multiplies the options in the poll, (2) "sovereign country" isn't a precise term (161,000 raw google hits) as the common and precise term is "sovereign state" (724,000 raw google hits), and (3), the State is self-described as a State right there in the same constitutional clause that has been used as strong evidence against the whole "Republic of Ireland" issue which is a primary cause of this entire debate. I really think that there is no credible argument against the word "state" except some sort of "lowest-common demoninatorism". and in fairness just stating "some people don't like 'state'" isn't enough of an argument to double the items in the poll, in my view. -- Evertype·✆ 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sovereign country" does have currency, and the whole idea of the poll is to give people the choice to select their preference, no our our preference. It's as common as "Ireland state" imho.Tfz 19:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
You've not made any argument. You've simply gainsaid me. The phrase sovereign country has much less currency than sovereign state, and I still believe that doubling or tripling the options in the poll is a bad idea. Ireland (state) is not credibly ambiguous, and having all the options repeated with both Ireland (sovereign state) and Ireland (sovereign country) just because some Americans might mistakenly think that Ireland was on the par with Missouri. Let's set the bar a bit higher, shall we? -- Evertype·✆ 20:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The time for arguments is now over and it's up to the voters/editors to select the term that's most appropriate. Neither term is particularily correct anyhow, for I have never seen the string "Ireland (state)" written anywhere, except here at Wikipedia. To claim a 'primary string' for disambiguation is a wide open debate indeed, and there is no 'right way', only 'better ways'. Tfz 20:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the solution to this problem would be to have a quick vote before the main vote starts. Just so we can see which option (country) (state) (sovereign state) (something else) should be placed in the main vote, rather than splitting votes by including different options in the main one. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what Tfz is saying is he wants:
A: The island at Ireland. The state at Republic of Ireland.
B: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
C: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign state).
D: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign country).
E: The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).
F: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state).
G: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (sovereign state).
H: The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (sovereign country).
I: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.
J: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
K: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign state).
L: A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (sovereign country).
I would like to see consensus on this before it is accepted. I oppose it, but will accept consensus. RA? Fmph? Masem? -- Evertype·✆ 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very messy and complicate matters yes, i also strongly oppose it. The quickest and simplest resolution to this problem is a quick poll on what term should be used in the main vote. (country), (state), (sovereign country)(sovereign state) etc. Its likely to be state that wins but atleast we will know its what the majority support. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My personal take is that these options have very limited support, but perhaps the solution is to have a single polling option covering all 3. So
X: ...... The state at Ireland (<dab-phrase>)
And post PRSTV, if that option is selected by the voters, then we re-poll on what the <dab-phrase> should be. But I doubt it will be selected. Fmph (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thats a bad idea. Scrub that. Instead add an Option G: None of the above. That may well prove popular with lots of people, and will allow the disgruntled to make a meaningful vote. If it proved to be the most popular option, then we would have to go back to the starting blocks. But we've been there before. Fmph (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally disagree with a "None of the above" - that puts us right back at square one, where we were in Decemeber. (It also leaves the status quo, which is my preference anyway - but I'd rather have the status quo retained by community consensus expressed through this vote than face another year of arguments, polls, edit wars, etc.) BastunnutsaB 09:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "none of the above" vote approach has been implied from the past - since a user does not have to rank all options and has been suggested that if they are totally against one option to not rank it at all, a user could submit a totally empty vote implying "none of the above". Yes, if that "wins" we're back at the table, but I see this as a necessary inclusion but a slim chance of happening. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody really need to see "sovereign state" or "sovereign country" in the poll? I have not heard anyone saying "Hey, I absolutely cannot live with 'state'! I insist on other options!" All I have heard is some people saying that some other people might be confused about the status of Ireland vis à vis subdivisions of the US or Australia. That's not a compelling argument to add 6 new options to the poll. -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a poll before hand to narrow down the Ireland (state/country/sovereign entity/intergalactic time traveller HQ) options. While in theory all options can be put in an STV poll, in practice too many similar choice split the vote for those options - hence, for example, why political parties usually only field a number of candidates equal the number of seats up for grabs in a constituency. I think two variations on the theme is the most we should include in the ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed before that instead of spelling exactly "Ireland (state)" in the options above, instead to say that the name is requested at a second question on the poll, and then to have another STV for that aspect. That keeps the options above manageable to six while still resolving this part. The only question is: if you support any option that currently is listing the country at "Ireland (state)", would your choice change if that was instead "Ireland (nation)" or something else, presuming that we're talking a disamb. phrase within reason? --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A concern with having a "Republic of Ireland → Ireland (xxx)" option in the ballot, with what "xxx" is decided afterwards is one option will represent many possible alternatives, which otherwise may not attract a single "bloc" of voters. Image, for example, that the "Ireland (xxx)" option wins the ballot with 50%+1 (and that another option have 49%). We might then have another ballot for what "xxx" is to be where "nation" wins with 33%+1 (not having even reached the quota!). That would mean that the "winner" for the ballot overall would have the support of only 17% of the community (and we would have thrown out an option that had 49% support).
If it was to be done, the ballots would have to be done the other way around i.e. first poll on options for "xxx" then the top options from that poll in the actual ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To reduce this as an issue, the wording of the second question would asked "Regardless of your response to the previous question, which of the following choices do you believe is the best appropriate disambiguation phrase to describe the 26-county nation called Ireland?" It removes the necessary tie in with the previous question. Now, there may be people that want the county to be at "Republic of Ireland" and refuse any disambiguation name, and will null vote here. That's ok as a result. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the issue. Imagine another ballot: one where the question is do you want a) chocolate or b) toast or cheese. The "toast or cheese" option is like the "Ireland (xxx)" option. It would attract an aggregate of votes (i.e. votes from people who want toast and votes from people who want cheese). In reality, people who want toast may prefer chocolate as their second choice. However, the consequence of having one "toast or cheese" option is that not matter what their real preference, the votes of all people who vote for "cheese" would be treated as if their second preference was "toast".
It would be better to split "toast or cheese" into "toast" and "cheese". In the same way it would be better to split "Ireland (xxx)" in to (say) "Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (country)". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I realize what you are saying, but I'm trying to judge this: how many people, given that they were separate options on the main question, would rank them in an order like this: "Ireland (state)", "Republic of Ireland", "Ireland (nation)". Based on the opinions I've seen here, I'm having a hard time seeing this type of opinion forming, though it could happen - the question is, is this likely going to affect the results? I'd rather keep the choices on the STV fewer to make it easier to understand the results, but if we need to address these at the same time, then maybe we have to do that. But I don't want to have one poll to decide on the possible name, and then a second to put that name into place for the solution. I really think that a two-question approach is not going to skew the results; maybe we can asked a secondary question that is "Do you feel the choice of disamb descriptor for the country article would have affected your choice in the first question?" - if there's more than a handful of responses here, then maybe we take the result of the disamb descriptor question and start a new vote using that. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue can be avoided entirely by polling the "xxx" options first and including the most popular options in the ballot. Either way we would have to run two polls. Polling the "xxx" options first avoids the possibility of a catch-all "xxx" option distorting the results. It's clearer too to vote for an known value (e.g. "Ireland (nation)") rather than an unknown, to-be-decided-in-future value. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should have a mini vote before the main vote to decide what term is placed in (----) after Ireland for the country article, such as state/nation etc. I think its far better to have a known word there rather than voting for something with may change as some people would support Ireland (country) but may not support Ireland (state) because of its like a US state rather tha a sovereign one, BritishWatcher (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This really pisses me off, BritishWatcher, and it seems to me as though this is a blocking tactic. I'll try to assume good faith however. I have given fair arguments for preferring Ireland (state) to {sovereign x) above. You're just back here reciting the unsubstantiated claim that "some people" would be confused by the polyvalence of the word "state". This is easily remedied. (1) in the poll, state that "In Ireland (state) the word state refers to Sovereign state", (2) in the eventual Ireland (state) article, clarify state in the first sentence and you're done. The term state should be preferred, because that is what the Constitution of Ireland calls it (so you can blame that), regardless of US and Australian practice. The words "country", "state", and "nation" are all polyvalent, but that problem is outside of the Wikipedia. Please, please, can't we get a move on? -- Evertype·✆ 08:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I provided evidence that it is confusing for readers. Your claim that it is "unsubstantiated" is wrong. DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that some people may have the preferences: 1. Ireland (state), 2. Republic of Ireland and then far down the line Ireland (country). Having one combined Ireland (xxx) option in the ballot and then deciding what "xxx" is afterwards means that by voting for Ireland (state) their second preferences automatically goes towards Ireland (country). It would be better to run the polls the other way around: to first poll on what "xxx" options should be included then include only the top two or three of those in the actual ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who? What people? Who is saying "I don't want Ireland (state) to be the option on the poll, I want something else instead"? What is wrong with using Ireland (state) given the use of the term in Bunreacht na hÉireann, and indeed, the historical Irish Free State? Which editors here are saying "I get confused every time I see the word state"? Where are you going to poll the (xxx) options? Community-wide? Here? I find this really frustrating. I see it as a way to prevent progress. -- Evertype·✆ 08:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I don't mind whether the vote on the disambiguator comes before or during the poll but I do think that Masem has a strong point that no-one who wants "Ireland (whatever)" is going to prefer "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (not the particular whatever they preferred as a first choice)". DrKiernan (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that too. -- Evertype·✆ 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it logically follows that someone who favours any "(xxx)" option would have every subsequent preference for any/every other "(xxx)" solution. I think it will end up distorting the poll greatly. In the event of a second poll then to decide what "xxx" means, we could very easily find ourselves in the position where the range of options are such that everyone is left unhappy. Far, far better IMHO to run the polls the other way around (and it's not as if it is extra work). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To give myself as an example, I would rank "Ireland (state)" above "Republic of Ireland". Somewhere thereafter I would rank a merge of Ireland/Republic of Ireland, followed by moving the state to "Ireland". "Ireland (country)" would be far down my list and I wouldn't vote for "Ireland (nation)" at all. Having one "Ireland (xxx)" option would force me to give my 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th preferences to the "country", "nation", "sovereign state" and "sovereign country" options despite them not being my preferences at all. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's clear. I'm saying that I don't see anyone saying "I insist on having options other than Ireland (state) in the poll". I have suggested that adding those options increases the size of the poll needlessly. If there is a NEED to be added, we should add them. But I think this is predicated on a big "some people might be confused by 'state'" pseudo-argument, since nobody is raising their hand saying they are actually so confused. -- Evertype·✆ 11:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave an example on the 17th June, and there must be others because I remember it being raised as an issue in the past. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having every permutation of "Ireland (xxx)" on the ballot would be insane (and despite STV theory, in practice it might split the "(xxx)" vote). IIRC the most likely options were "(state)" and "(country)". Was "(sovereign state)" a contender too? I too remember conceding that "state" might be misunderstood (by non-Europeans?).
I think we're talking across each other, Everytype. The argument I'm having is over two options:
a) to have "Ireland (xxx)" as the option on the ballot paper then, if that is selected by the vote, to run a second poll to decide what "(xxx)" should be (i.e. "state", "country", "sovereign state", etc.)
b) to run a poll first (here?) to decide the "best" one, two or (max?) three "(xxx)" options then include those in the poll.
I'm saying that I would be dead set against a) because it would distort the vote (by aggregating all "(xxx)" votes as if they were the same) and not allow for expression of preferences around the "(xxx)" options (e.g. like ranking "state" higher than "Republic of Ireland" but ranking "country" lower than that again). BritishWatcher was of the same opinion above. Masem thinks that a is the way to go. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, State is very poorly done here on Wikipedia, and gives all the wron impressions. Has the word "state" a more modern loose meaning, as it sounds like province/territory. "Country" I think is more common, but can't offer a citation on that at present. Tfz 11:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting pretty sick of this unsubstantiated guff. The word "state" is polyvalent. That means "it means more than one thing". In terms of Ireland, the term "state" is precise and correct, and is specified in the Constitution of Ireland. In the meaning A particular form of polity or government it is attested as far back as 1538 STARKEY England 56 Ther ys the veray and true commyn wele; ther ys the most prosperouse and perfayt state, that in any cuntrey, cyte, or towne, by pollycy and wysdom, may be stablyschyd and set. In the meaning A republic, non-monarchical commonwealth it is attested as far back as 1656 WALLER To Evelyn 2 Lucretius, with a stork-like fate, Born and translated in a State, Comes to proclaim in English verse No Monarch rules the universe. 1651 HOBBES Leviathan IV. xlv. 365 When Augustus Cæsar changed the State into a Monarchy. 1673 DRYDEN Amboyna Prol. 22 Well, Monarchys may own Religions name, But States are Atheists in their very frame. Its modern use, meaning the body politic as organized for supreme civil rule and government; the political organization which is the basis of civil government (either generally and abstractly, or in a particular country); hence, the supreme civil power and government vested in a country or nation., is attested also in 1538 STARKEY England 48 The kyng, prynce, and rular of the state... The gouernance of the commynalty and polytyke state... He or they wych haue authoryte apon the hole state. Ibid. 53 Whether the state of the commynalty be gouernyd by a prynce, by certayn wyse men, or by the hole multytude. Here are some more: 1538 STARKEY Ibid. 53 Whether the state of the commynalty be gouernyd by a prynce, by certayn wyse men, or by the hole multytude. 1590 in Cath. Rec. Soc. Publ. V. 179 For the better understanding of the trewthe of matters agenst her Maiestie and the Stayte. 1594 [see PILLAR n. 3b]. 1617 MORYSON Itin. II. 17 Which may concerne the good of the State. a1618 RALEIGH Rem. (1644) 2 State is the frame or set order of a Common-wealth, or of the Governours that rule the same, especially of the chief and Sovereign Governour that commandeth the rest. The State or Sovereignty consisteth in five points. 1. Making or annulling of Laws. 1622 BACON Hen. VII 8 As one that hauing beene somtimes an Enimie to the whole State, and a Proscribed person. 1681 DRYDEN Abs. & Achit. I. 174 Resolv'd to Ruine or to Rule the State. 1697 Virg. Georg. IV. 229 All is the State's, the State provides for all. 1834 ARNOLD in Stanley Life (1844) I. vii. 376 The State, being the only power sovereign over human life, has for its legitimate object the happiness of its people. 1879 M. ARNOLD Democracy Mixed Ess. 42 The State is properly..the nation in its collective and corporate capacity. 1884 SPENCER (title) The Man versus the State. 1891 C. LOWE in 19th Cent. Dec. 858 The railways..in Prussia are now all in the hands of the State. The modern usage as found in the US and Australia, is not as old: One of a number of polities, each more or less sovereign and independent in regard to internal affairs, which together make up a supreme federal government; as in the United States of America or the Commonwealth of Australia. Attested 1634 Mass. Bay Rec. (1853) I. 117 When I shalbe called to give my voice touching any such matter of this state, wherein ffreemen are to deale, [etc.]. 1774 JEFFERSON Writ. (1892) I. 420 A proper device (instead of arms) for the American states united would be the Father presenting the bundle of rods to his son. Even in Ireland before independence we find this: 1882 M. ARNOLD Irish Ess. 97 State-aided elementary schools. Not "Country-aided elementary schools". -- Evertype·✆ 17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By copying all this from the OED, you've just defeated your own argument by confirming that "state" has meant a state in the American sense for over 350 years. DrKiernan (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? There is one hit for that meaning from 1638, but the others are from North America 1774. All of the other hits were about the non-US/Australian meaning, going back 100 years earlier! Are you really confused by the use of the word "state", DrKiernan? -- Evertype·✆ 00:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sovereign state, is what I think Evertype is looking for. I see Evertype citing the Constitution of Ireland, BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN, that's nice. Tfz 19:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to have anything but Ireland (state) and I have yet to see a credible counterargument. -- Evertype·✆ 00:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me suggest two options (they can be handled separately):
To figure out the best "xxxx" options to include for "Ireland (xxxx)" names for the country, I will open a quick feedback poll to ask editors to submit, irregardless if they feel the country should be at RoI or "Ireland" w/o disamb, three options they feel "xxxx" should be. This will close Friday, and the top 3 (or 4 if a tie) will be used as options in the STV poll.
My gut feeling is that editors outside of this group are going to care less exactly what "xxxx" is, as long as it resolves the naming dispute - there may be purists (as exampled above) but I think the majority may not care. Furthermore, I worry that if we push the number of options to 12 or 15, non-involved editors (the ones we want to participate) may skip the poll thinking it too complex. Regardless, let's keep it an option but manage that expectation: In the presentation of the questions where "Ireland (xxxx)" is an option (such as presently B on the 6-choice poll), I propose that we keep the main option as say "country at 'Ireland (xxxx)' where xxxx is some appropriate disambiguation descriptor.", and then provide options B1, B2, etc. for each of the possible "xxxx" choices. In voting, a user can opt to preference vote for any individual option and/or the general B option. In tallying, if the general B option is eliminated before the winner is selected, all "B" votes immediately morph to the current best scoring sub-B option. So for example, say that B1, B3, and B remain, but B is eliminated - at the time B1 has the majority of remaining highest preference votes and thus all those Bs are virtually treated as B1s. Now a few rounds later, both B1 and B3 remain, but now due to other factors, B3 is the highest in preference votes - at this point all those Bs that were treated as B1s become treated as B3s. This allows for the generic option as well as the specific options to be used. I'm trying to think of scenarios that might be difficult to understand the results from in this but I can't think of what they might be. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When and where will you do this. Masem? There are four or five options (state, country, nation, sovereign state, sovereign country). -- Evertype·✆ 17:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed (republic) again. I think it would be easier to run this as an STV poll, just selecting the winning option. As some people don't seem to understand how STV works, it might also be a useful trial run. DrKiernan (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holy hand grenades. You want Ireland (republic) on the ballot? What a farce. This has never been proposed by anyone before. Ireland is DEFINED by its Constitution as a State, even if DESCRIBED as a republic in an Act of the Oireachtas. Your suggestion seems outrageous. -- Evertype·✆ 00:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland (Republic of)? In any event, I don't see these "minor" options being very likely. There's no point in fussing too much over options that are likely to get eliminated in the early rounds. But ... it's Wednesday so can we get a bullet list of what we are going to include? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course (Republic of) will be eliminated. That's partly the point of having a poll: to eliminate unfavourable options. If these options are not eliminated in a transparent way, then there is a danger that someone will come along later and say "Oh, but, we never discussed/voted on 'Ireland (land of the leprechauns)' so the vote is invalid." I want to ensure that the most favoured possible option for change is selected, whether it be state (I hope not), country (I hope so), republic (I wouldn't mind), nation (I oppose strongly), sovereign state (I hope not), or (Republic of) (the winner! [not]). DrKiernan (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put a draft poll for this together. See below. -- Evertype·✆ 10:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drafting of statements promoting each option
We presumably need a clear, short, statement (max of x words) for each option explaining why each one is "viable" or should be chosen - with links to the previous Project statement pages?
Comments
This is certainly needed as we will be opening this up to anyone and everyone probably best in bullet points rather than a statement. But i strongly believe each option should also provide the counter arguments. So for example on the country is at Ireland option we have Say yes because.. Ireland is the commonname for the country. But we also say Say no because Ireland is ambiguous. The island of Ireland had the name long before the state etc.
If we are doing bullet points then everyone can add what they want and it just needs cleaning up by someone, if its going to be a written statement we may need a vote on which statement to use (or just go with the one the majority clearly support). BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we not first assess the validity of arguments, rather than promoting each option. This just opens up the whole issue again. We know what editors positions (POV's) are, lets policy test them before we present them to the community. --Domer48'fenian' 07:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The validity of arguements will be judged by those partaking in the poll. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
verifiable, reliable sources are of paramount importance, as in keeping with Wikipedia policies. Any lazy approach to these factors is amateurish in the extreme, and quite startling if not addressed before anything proceeds. Tfz 11:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With STV, 50%+1 is what you would tend to get. The process, by its mathematical nature, does not need to show a greater majority. If we ran a simple first past the post ballot, it might be prudent to require a greater than 50% majority. The whole process of PRSTV obviates that requirement. And in the end, ArbCom and the WP bureaucracy could always overrules a decision from here if it were obviously a bad decision. Fmph (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly need a majority of atleast 50% for the option to win without a tranferable vote. If say something got 55% but a second option won 95% with the transferable vote then i think the mods should agree to implement the one with an overwhelming majority rather than the 55%. Im not sure what the figure would have to be to override a majority of 55% but it would have to be over 80% or something like that on the transferable vote to justify overriding the majority on the first vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, BW. If we're running this under Single transferable vote (which is the consensus), then if an option passes the quota (which yes, reading Fmph's comment, should almost certainly be 50% + 1), it wins. If on the first count, no option reaches the quota, then the least popular option is eliminated, and those who voted for it have their second preferences (if any) counted and added to the results from Count 1. If there is still no option reaching the quota, a second elimination takes places and there is a third count - and so on, until an option does pass the quota. BastunnutsaB 16:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found First Past The Post very confusing when I first moved to the UK. That an electorate would allow themselves to be governed by a political party which did not command the support the of the majority of the electorate is very confusing to many democrats. Fmph (talk) 07:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut-off targets should probably be something like : 75% option 1, 60% option 2, 51% option 3. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These strange voting systems confuse me, its why i like First past the post which is nice and simple. If an option meets the quota set then it should win, all im saying is if there is another option that with transferable vote has like 90%+ support then in the interests of reaching an option that the most people are satisfied with it should probably be chosen despite the other option winning the original vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not let everyone have multiple choice voting, that is voting for their more popular choices and not voting for the choices that they don't like. That would work like proportional voting, and give a less contentious result. For instance, if a voter 'could live' with 3 different options, then that voter could vote for all those 3 options, and ignore all of the other options. It's worth considering. Tfz 23:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have consensus for STV, and STV means you should rank your preferences. Note that I *have* suggested that people be allowed to vote "0" (zero) for any choice they "can't live with". (I always fill out my ballot completely, so as to prevent anyone from filling in a box I left blank. Also for the pleasure of putting the unacceptable at the bottom of the list.) -- Evertype·✆ 10:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And in any case I don't see how a STV vote would be any more contentious than a multiple-choice vote - you have more "say" in the outcome of an STV vote than you would under multiple-choice. BastunnutsaB 10:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:IRV counting flowchart.1.pngflowchart for counting IRV Votes @MickMacNee. If you're only choosing a single winner using single transferable voting, cut-off levels are not really necessary. According to Wikipedia, STV to choose single winner is sometimes called instant-runoff voting, though I've not encountered that term before. With a bit of thought you'll see that when only a single winner is being chosen, in every circumstance, the Droop quota (requiring 50%+1) yields precisely the same result as the flow-chart on the right, and indeed as the less-commonly-used Hare quota (which requires 100%). (The Hare quota requires many additional iterations to get the answer, but once a single option reaches 50%+1 it cannot fail to eventually get to 100% once all the fifth, tenth, twentieth... choice votes are factored in.) Cut-offs, whether at the top end to allow a winner to be declared early or for multiple losers to eliminated early, are just algorithmic devices to simplify and speed up the calculation of the winner without changing the result. Saving an iteration or two when you have millions of paper votes is a big benefit; saving an iteration or two when you have a few dozen electronic votes really isn't much gain. So we can do things nice and straightforwardly and use the flowchart on the right until someone reaches 50%+1. —ras52 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most logical. -- Evertype·✆ 13:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easily the best proposal. FF3000 (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Even BW could follow it! (joke!) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol Bastun, only after id read it a few times ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a comment and need for clarification, it appears we are allowing users to null vote for certain options, with the implication that you absolutely, positively cannot live with null voted options. This would imply that 1) it is possible for the final winning option to fail to get 100% when all choices are considered, and that 2) it is possible that no option could get more than 50% when all options are considered - meaning that the community has rejected all the solutions, and we will need to return to the discussion board.
However, I will agree (in contrast with my earlier statement) that 50%+1 as the winning option seems best, though the tally will work through all the numbers. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ras52. There's no advantage to setting a higher quota to find a "winner" - any option that gets 50%+1 will beat all others (always).
That said, an advantage to running iterations of the count past 50%+1 would be if we set a quota - not for declaring a "winner" - but for deciding a minimum before the "winner" would be deemed to be *binding* on the community (e.g. only if the "winner" got 66% of preferences would it be deemed to be binding on the community). Fmph has recommended software for calculating the result (OpenSTV). Using that software some options will perform the Hare method - which would allow us to see if any option got greater than, say, 66%.
Also, what Masem says is true. It is possible using STV that the "winner" will have less 50%+1. In such a circumstance, will be declare that although we have winner (under the formula), we will not accept it? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This vote should end the dispute full stop. Obviously if a majority vote is gained, there is a consensus for it to get the go-ahead. If this vote isn't the end, we will be back to square one and many more months of endless, pointless discussion will continue.
It must be made a rule though that all of the options A-F must be numbered 1-6 like this:
1. A
2. D
etc.
Otherwise the vote won't work. FF3000 (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true - because we have not listed all possible solutions, a possibility of no option winning 50%+1 exists and is useful; it means we need to seek other options (For a matter of principle, editors will be encourage to suggest options if they don't see one they agree with on the voting talk page - these won't be part of the vote, but they will be our next steps if this fails). The chance of that happening here? WP:SNOW. We'll worry about it if it comes to pass, but nothing that requires us to alter how the vote should be conducted. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There's no advantage to forcing people to use up all of their options. It doesn't create consensus by forcing people to artificially rank their preferences.
With regard to "If this vote isn't the end..." - we have to options either
a) this is the end and the "winner" of the ballot (regardless of whether it be SNOW or less than 50%+1) is binding on the community
b) this may be the end
If is it b) then can we please set out metrics before the ballot happens for what will constitute a binding result? e.g. if a Hare quota is used will 50% be binding? 66%? If an option gets 90% will it be binding? (This too is another reason not to force people to use all of their options because that would artificially create a 100% Hare quota.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Masem's comments about "null votes", this is problem that real-world elections have to deal with too, and the standard way of dealing with this (see single transferable vote and related articles) allow for this. If a voter's top preference is for the least popular option in a given iteration of the scoring, that vote is discarded and their next highest preference is used in the next iteration. This is true irrespective of whether they've specified a next highest vote. The result is that once all of a voters preferences are exhausted, the vote is treated if an empty ballot paper were handed in — i.e. it is treated as if it were a spoilt paper (though typically not added to the tally of spoilt papers). That's the standard procedure in any STV election where it's permissible to omit your least favourite choices. This means that sometimes in the final stages of the election, the number of active votes is reduced, but you still inevitably eventually get 100% consensus from those whose votes are still being counted (which will include everyone who ranked all the options). If you think about this, this is good. Clearly in any election someone who chooses to vote is going to have more effect on the result than someone who abstains. Similarly, someone who doesn't fully rank all the choices may get less say than someone who does. Though in practice, if you genuinely consider all unranked preferences to be equally bad there's absolutely no need to rank everything.
In answer to Rannṗáirtí, I think there's some confusion here. If you go for a Hare quota, then by definition you need 100% quota to get a binding decision. Not 50%+1, not 66%, and not 90%. However per my previous paragraph, because of the way it deals with unranked options, you are inevitably guaranteed a 100% quota because anyone who has only ranked minority options eventually gets remove from the voting. (And as a corollary, by ranking everything you will never have less influence on the outcome than if you omitted your least favourite few.) Yes, arguably this is artificially creating a 100% consensus. But any voting system is to some extent artificial. And I think we would be better off using a well-documented, well-understood system such as standard STV. To repeat the gist of my earlier email: whether you use a Droop quota, a Hare quota or the IRV flowchart makes absolutely no difference to the outcome in any circumstances (because we're only after a single winner). — ras52 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should just clarify — I'm not saying we shouldn't do something that may fail to reach a decision because of unranked choices. However, if we want to do that, we need to be clear about precisely how we are going to conduct the vote because saying single transferable voting is no longer sufficient as what we would be doing would not be a standard STV. So by all means do something different, but make sure the procedure is fully documented beforehand to avoid subsequent arguing about how to interpret the votes. — ras52 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. I believe we should accept the STV outcome of 50%+1, with the proviso that - as ever - the mods and admins can enforce a different decision (poss going back to the drawing board) if they are not happy that the result will best serve the community. I think we are chasing a red herring on quota.
@FF3000 - It is NOT pointless to try and get a consensual decision like this, even if one of the options may be "go back to the drawing board". We cannot possibly have an infinite wisdom and knowledge, nor to be prescient of what's to come. I am quite sure that is entirely possible for the whole process to be scrapped because of something we have not foreseen. But that is no reason for not trying.
@RA/@Masem We should not try to second guess the electorate by assigning reasons for their actions and assuming we know why they have voted in a particular way. Null votes, incomplete ballots, 'lazy' '1234567' votes, are all acceptable. Let the community decide how they want to cast their votes. Don't try to 2nd guess. Fmph (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Fmph/Ra52 - The "quota" doesn't matter. Forget about it. Let's stop even talking about it. This is a "one-seat constituency" so we will *not* be using a quota for *anything*.
Fmph, I think you believe that the quota will be used to determine a winner. No so (but it is commonly thought that that is what it is for). It is entirely possible for an option to be elected without having reached the "quota" - and *always* at least one candidate in an a real-life election is elected without having reached the quota. (Although anyone that reaches the number given by the Droop quota is guaranteed to be elected, hence the misconception that the quota signifies a winner.) The real purpose of the quota is in calculating transfer ballots: ballots cast for a candidate in excess of the quota are transferred to other candidates. Depending on whether you use the Droop or Hare quota the number of ballots transferred in this way will be different.
Since we will only be electing one candidate, there will be no such transfer and so there is no "quota". 50%+1 only comes into it because this is the magic number - if any options receives that number of votes then it is guaranteed to be the winner - but it is also possible that the winner may not receive 50%+1. No option will receive a "Hare quota" of 100% unless *everyone* who votes uses *all* of their preferences. Neither of these numbers represent the Hare or Droop quota in any real way (because ballots in excess of them will not be transferred), so please can we stop talking about "quotas".
The only point of running an election based on the "Hare quota" is because - **in our case** - the Hare quota represents 100%. It would mean counting all ballots and making all possible transfers until we are left with just one option and a percentage to say how close to 100% it got (it will *not* get 100% in practice). Regardless of what percentage that option got - even if it is less than 50%+1 - it will be the winner under STV rules ... *BUT* we can decide to attach an extra proviso: to only accept as binding a winner that got, say, greater than 50%, greater than 66%, greater than 90%, etc.
The question is not about "quotas" in the STV sense but about an extra bench mark we can set for ourselves. The choices are a) to accept the result of STV as biding regardless of what percentage the final option got or b) to only accept the result as binding if it received a super majority after transfers. STV will give us a) regardless (even without reaching a "quota"). The advantage of b) is that is would give extra democratic legitimacy to a binding decision - but risks us not agreeing on a *final* decision. (I think the benefits of b) outweigh the risks, especially we we set a relatively low super majority of, say, 66%.)
"We should not try to second guess the electorate by assigning reasons for their actions and assuming we know why they have voted in a particular way." I don't know what you mean by this. I never said any such thing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Organising advertisement of poll, including hatnote
A list of pages/projects is published below. Presumably we should also inform those who have previously contributed to the Project. Does anyone know how to go about organising a Watchlist hatnote similar to those used when Arbcom elections are on, or the recent one on change of WP's licence?
Do we notify individual users? There is a real danger of an explosion of canvassing if we do. Fmph (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, we should at least notify the users who have previously participated here. It could be done with a template written by a moderator to ensure neutral wording - little more than a pointer to the poll page and what the closing date is? BastunnutsaB 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And also notify all the named parties in the arbitration case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A full watchlist notice is probably not going to happen; those that maintain that really discourage from topics that only affect a small number of editors and articles (which this truly is) from using that space (otherwise, everyone's pet cause would be up there). WP:CENT needs to be added. As for individual users, the only two sets I would use are those that have been named in the ArbCom case and those that are members of this project; attempts to bring in anyone else specifically may seem to be canvasing. However, with all the other locations, this should probably be wide enough. - Oh, and also add in ArbCom as a place where it will be advertized - at least in the sense of notifying them this is occuring. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we edit the {{WikiProject Ireland}} template to show the notice, and maybe let a few other people know about it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can at least request a Watchlist hatnote, though? This is, after all, an Arbcom initiative to resolve a long-running dispute. BastunnutsaB 16:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im ok with the above listed although i dont know why Scotland is listed and not England and Wales as well. My main concern is that if the Ireland wikiproject / notice board is listed the UK one MUST be listed as well, not too fussed about Scotland/Wales/Englands projects. I certainly think everyone signed up to this project should be contacted, maybe all those on the list for being involved when trying to get Arbcom to act on this should also be sent a message. Agreed there needs to be a template placed on certain articles talk pages too. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my request for a full watchlist notification, this process has gone on for so long, and I have seen much more trivial rubbish on the wathclist before. I recently spammed an Rfc regarding a massively important issue which was relevant to the entire pedia, in all the relevant venues including wp:cent, except the watchlist; it has to date got barely 30 opinions. We should not start cherry picking which projects get a say. Canvassing individual users is utterly out of the question (barring Sarah777, I am genuinely interested in how she would vote) MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose the USA notice board being listed. That is not related to this dispute unlike Irish / Northern Irish / UK ones. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also tend to agree. Many Americans can hardly distinguish England from Britain, never mind Scotland, Wales, or Ireland—even those who are reasonably good editors. It's a "feature" of the educational system (and I went through that system though I'm 19 years in Ireland now). I don't believe listing the USA notice board is appropriate, any more than listing the Australian or South African notice boards would be appropriate. -- Evertype·✆ 18:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What has the change in the RoI page to do with Britain then, that's one of the reasons why this whole process is all wrong, if you are correct. Tfz 16:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be realistic here. The goal is to get a solution which, at least for a time, reduces the levels of conflict. That means involving the Irish Diaspora. Over the years there have been a lot of Canadian editors involved as well as Australians etc. etc. All of those are part of the complex political heritage that has produced the problem in the first place. Also we need an international perspective on this, not just the hothouse that is the editorial group who have failed to achieve consensus so far.--SnowdedTALK 07:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you decide which country noticeboards get notified? There's a small but significant Irish community in Argentina, for example (an Irishman founded their navy). I know a couple of Irish people living in Nepal. Someone has added Wikiproject Middle Ages, above. I don't see the relevance at all, but it may well be valid. Really, this points again towards the really obvious noticeboards Irish/British noticeboards and needing the hatnote... BastunnutsaB 09:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the navy out of this. Argentina should be there on the list, as it has many friendly relations and historical ties with Ireland. And countries like Nepal can bring NPOV factors into the voting. Tfz 12:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, do you intend to inform the USA noticeboard, and if so, why do you not intend to inform the Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand noticeboards? -- Evertype·✆ 10:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should Argentina be deemed NPOV and be included and Nepal be deemed POV and excluded? What about Nigeria? Lebanon? Ingushetia (oh - another state not on its official name)? Who decides? Really, the various Irish and UK noticeboards/projects/pages should be the only ones in addition to the likes of WP:CENT - and are the only ones necessary if we can get the hatnote. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz, Nepal may be NPOV, but we DO also want some measure of intelligence applied. We could announce it to Iran noticeboard. I've been there several times and one thing I can tell you is that when you mention Ireland they all think of two things: Bobby Sands and Chris de Burgh. How's that for well-informed? If we include the US noticeboard, we will need introductory information describing the constituent countries of the UK, since many, many Americans do not distinguish between the UK and Great Britain and England. Yes, there are folks out there who think that Wales and Scotland are in England, because Elizabeth II is Queen of England. -- Evertype·✆ 13:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason the USA has been added is because certain editors dont like the fact that UK wikipedians should be informed. This message is going to be placed on many different wikiprojects, Countries / Geography boards will attract many Americans and non British / Irish editors so i really dont see the need of including individual countries other than the UK / Ireland / Northern Ireland. I dont really see the need for England,Scotland and Wales to be listed but ok either way with that. Just as long as UK editors are treated the same way Ireland editors are.
Dont get me started on the American media and their incompetence on reporting the British monarchy. Youd think international organisations would know better than to make silly mistakes like "Queen of England" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get it that UK are getting special concessions over the moving of the RoI article. Tfz 13:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just about the Republic of Ireland its about the island of Ireland aswell. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shares the island of Ireland with the republic. Most of the people in Northern Ireland are UK citizens there for they are UK wikipedians. Tfz, honestly there will be plenty of non British ./ Irish input if we advertise on geography / countries etc so we dont need to advertise on different country boards BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's more in the structure of the 'whole' process, that I have my reservations. That's what I mean, why should everything be tied together, one would almost think that Ireland and the British isles were all one. Anyway, the initial concern was a move from RoI to a less pov-infected name, and we end up with a multi-dimensional voting process of almost trans-galactical proportions that has become overgrown to the original notion of an article name change. Tfz 14:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol well what ever the voting system used im pretty sure that the country artcle will be moved from the Republic of Ireland article at the end of the day, so surely thats better than the current setup. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, do you intend to inform the USA noticeboard, and if so, why do you not intend to inform the Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand noticeboards? -- Evertype·✆ 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to notify any other country WP outside of those already listed. The naming is central to the ones listed, much less so for the other ones, so there's no vested interest in those. There will still be general notification via CENT and VPP. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the countries of Europe must be informed, especially those of the EU. Countries with strong connections with the state of Ireland too, especially in regard to the renaming of the RoI article. Tfz 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the UK shares the island of Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. This vote is NOT only on the future of the sovereig states title, its about the island aswell. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why WP:USA? It seems bizarre. And Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages - WTF!? UK and Ireland forums only should be the only "ethnic" forums contacted (and I think it would be better to avoid projects such as Irish Republicanism for fear of forgetting Irish Unionism). For completeness, I would like messages posted at forums for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I would not put a notice of Irish Free State (it is a historical state). Other notices should only be put on "neutral" forums e.g. WP:CENT and the Village Pump. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting stupid now, why are we adding countries like spain and portugal... this is pointless. British and Irish forums are the only nationalities that need to be informed, non British / Irish editors will see the messages on the other projects like Countries, Geography etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I see words like bizarre being used, I know that argument being offered is empty and devoid of any real substance. Firstly France, Spain, and Portugal are neighbours of Ireland, check it on the map, and they should be included according to your own criteria BW. There are more Irish people living in the USA than the whole population of the Channel Isles and Island of Man combined. You should understand that this is a community wide poll. Tfz 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with what i said. I said the UK noticeboard must be notified because the United Kingdom shares the island of Ireland with the Republic. France, Spain, Portugal DONT. Again i strongly oppose this idea of posting on different country projects other than that of the UK / Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the UK does not share RoI. QEDTfz 20:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it should be a different and completely seperated issue altogether. Bundling 'things' together at Wikipedia is a new and ill thoughtout manouver that is making a complete laugh out of the project. Tfz 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well we cant change the mandate of this process it makes sense to have a central debate on this matter to decide the outcome of all the pages. Otherwise u could be in a case where people on ROI decide something and people on Ireland decide the complete opposite, whod vote would be more important and override the other?? We have to deal with what we have, this is a vote on all the Ireland naming issues, there for that includes the island of Ireland which has a direct impact on UK wikipedians aswell as Irish ones. I fail to see how any other country is impacted besides UK/Ireland BritishWatcher (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UK has absolutely nothing to do with the RoI page than the USA, Russia, or China. Weren't UK kicked out in 1922. It's nearly 100 years ago, to use your own words. Tfz 23:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this was just about the ROI then yes it has nothing to do with the UK. But this isnt, its about the ISLAND of Ireland. Like it or not part of that island is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland there for anything on the island of Ireland involves UK wikipedians. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about special arrangements for UK voters above other countries. Fundamentally flawed. Grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented. Tfz 23:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about one article, this process involves several. I know you dont like that fact but u should accept it. Part of the Island of Ireland is the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]s land, you cant exclude people in such a case. If we wanted to do something about Europe ud have to wikiprojects for every European country. This involves the island of Ireland there for both sovereign states wikiprojects must be informed. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to exclude the UK, it's editors here trying to exclude other countries, is my point. Tfz 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do these other countries have to do with the Island of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland?? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"When I see words like bizarre being used, I know that argument being offered is empty and devoid of any real substance." I didn't offer an argument. The reasoning is surely self evident? One of the pages being discussed is Ireland. Two states occupy Ireland: the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Hence, it's fair assume that this ballot might be of interest to editors that watch the Ireland and UK notice boards. You are of course free to post notices to other countries' notice boards. I just think the people that watch them will scratch their heads and wonder why-in-the-hell you're so keen on telling about some ballot on renaming an article that has nothing to do with the topics of their notice board. But, sure, if it makes you happy, knock yourself out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GUBU was a phrase used by CJH, in case you didn't know, and would you? I might have more respect for your "snide remarks" if you had some extra 'article edits' under your belt. We are talking about a level playing field for the poll. The poll should not be advertised in any one jurisdiction above another, otherwise it will be a flawed poll, and "will never be accepted" here at Wikipedia. Can you look ahead? Tfz 00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with WikiProject Gaelic Games? It is very much related to Ireland and has many users who are not on any other wikiproject. FF3000 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Internet ate my response) WP:GAA has 27 members, 2 of whose names I recognise from elsewhere on WP. So hardly "many users". The problem with including one niche wikiproject is that you'd then have to include them all. Where do you draw the line? The main article pages/country noticeboards/central discussion areas should be sufficient - though again, I really think we should try to get the Watchlist hatnote notification. Oh, and something in WP Signpost. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what's the harm with it? Seeing as it is an Ireland project full permission should be granted for advertisement there. The "line" can be drawn between wikiprojects that are an aren't related to Ireland. FF3000 (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem, it's an opportunity. Tfz 14:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A serious proposal
I've put in that heading because I don't want anybody to think I'm just stirring it. It has been suggested a number of times that Irish and British editors should be excluded from the poll. An obvious objection to that is that there is no way to definitively determine an editor's nationality. But what if everybody who has taken part in the debate until now were excluded? The poll would then reflect the views of truly uninvolved editors, and participants would be uninfluenced by the "heated" contributions of involved editors. Since people here are presumably still split 50/50 (otherwise it wouldn't have come to this), excluding ourselves should not have a material effect on the outcome anyway. Thoughts? Scolaire (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally reject this crazy proposal. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this interesting idea should be rejected. Good lateral thinking though. -- Evertype·✆ 08:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attention Masem
Masem, do you intend to inform the USA noticeboard, and if so, why do you not intend to inform the Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand noticeboards? -- Evertype·✆ 18:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to notify any other country WP outside of those already listed. The naming is central to the ones listed, much less so for the other ones, so there's no vested interest in those. There will still be general notification via CENT and VPP. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you saying that this issue is central to the USA noticeboard? Irish emigration went to Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand just as much as to the US. Please either (1) delete the US noticeboard or (2) add the others or (3) explain why you are keeping the US noticeboard but excluding the others. Right now it does not make sense. -- Evertype·✆ 08:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about WikiProject Gaelic Games? It is a very active wikiproject related to Ireland, with lots of users that are not part of any other wikiproject? FF3000 (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see someone included the USA noticeboard. Of course that should not be included. The wide-spread announcement should be limited to national/regional WikiProjects and Noticeboards that deal with Ireland, the United Kingdom, and all of Europe / Western Europe (but not other specific countries of Europe). --MASEM (t) 15:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voting rights
Who should be entitled to participate, in order to eliminate WP:SOCKS, WP:SPAs, etc.
Comments
Limit voting rights to editors who have exceeded 150 'main article' edits for the last 6 months, that should take care of any trolling accounts. A weighted figure could be calculated for editors with under 6 months editing. Also limit the voting rights to editors who have joined before 21st June 2009. Tfz 11:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 150 in 6 months idea is impractical, but I do like the shortstop registartion date Fmph (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A cut off date of editors who have joined before the 1st of June seems reasonable, rather than 21st. IPs should be banned from voting without a doubt. On 150 main article edits, i think thats unfair but every person that votes should have their edit history looked into by the mods to see if there is any chance of it being a sock, and those suspected need to be checked fully with any tools held by admins. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem suggested a pre-qualifying date. I can't remember what it was, but I agreed with it - nobody registered after tha date can vote. The potential for fun and games is just too great. MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem said June 1st, is hard to find now as theres been so much text over the past few days. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was in my first polling schedule. I still think it's fair, but again, I leave that up to others. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my paws and whiskers, do I detect consensus? At least on this point. If the vote lasts for three weeks, a cut off date of three weeks prior to the beginning of the poll seems reasonable. Also I agree that IPs should be banned from voting without a doubt. And a look into a voter's edit history should be part of the tallying procedure. -- Evertype·✆ 18:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like we have consensus, then - nobody registered after 1st June can vote? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, autoconfirmed users only would be allowed to vote. This would be achieved by semi-protecting the page while the poll is taking place. FF3000 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but I think that would allow someone to vote even if they'd only registered an account up to three or four days before the poll closes, and they'd made a few mainspace edits? There really doesn't seem to be anything unfair about using 1st June as a cutoff. Just like being on any electoral register, there's always a cutoff. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's worry about semi-prot until the poll happens; if there is an influx of IP votes despite instructions, we may need to semi-prot and put instructions to put your vote on the talk page to be transferred to the actual page should they not yet be autoconfirmed. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think any IP's votes should be deleted immediately and should be completely prohibited to prevent sockpuppetry. I think the page should be semi-prot while the poll is taking place regardless of what the cut off point is. FF3000 (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protecting the page sounds like an easy way to prevent socks. (Edit: Actually, it's not *nice* to do that.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well socks have to be prevented as it could put the whole thing in jeopardy. FF3000 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With only those already registered before June 1 (a date that's past) being allowed to vote, only pre-existing socks may come into play. I'd not worried about this situation. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else?
Actually deciding the winner
Fmph had a good idea for the actual *counting* of the votes. Part of that was to use software (OpenSTV). His proposal was to have three tallymen counting the votes and answering to a single mod. If their calculations didn't match they would have to go back and count again.
A problem with this is that the STV formula sometimes calls for random selection to eliminate tied candidates and so the three tally men could (in the realm of the possible) come back with three slightly different counts. I think overall Fmph's suggestion is good so I propose the following:
One moderator to act as a presiding officer.
Three editors act as counters
After the ballot closes, the presiding officer runs down the list and strikes out invalid votes (e.g. prople who have give two 1st prefences, or have a first and third preference but no second preferences) - there should be an attempt to correct these either by "fixing" the vote if it is clear what was meant or by contacting the editor and giving them e.g. 3 days to fix their vote.
The counters should then individually prepare ballot files for the OpenSTV software.
The ballot files should be returned to the presiding officer who runs a diff on the files.
If the files don't conform then they should be returned to the counters (saying what the diff was) for them to fix errors.
If the ballot files conform then the presiding officer should select one at random and run the software to determine the winner
The ballot file and the software's output (which shows the details of how the winner was decided) should be posted on Wikipedia alongside the result of the ballot
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I don't think advertising the poll should be constrained. People will do it anyway. I do think a watchlist hatnote should be requested, even if it has to be requested via ArbCom. It doesn't open it up to every pet issue. This is a major on-going issue which were are trying to resolve, and one of the main problems is that it is dominated by such a small and in parts highly radicalised crowd. This poll needs as broad a base as possible, because the broader the more legitimate the result. But make no mistake, this is the solution. So we should go ahead when everything is ready. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to do regular sweeps of 3rd party forums to check for vote rigging. In a recent vote on something about the British Isles it was advertised on a Irish forum in an attempt to rig the vote. We need to decide what should happen if its clear its being advertised like that and its impacting on the voting result.
If Republic of Ireland becoming a redirect is not added on to the end of certain vote options then we need a vote on it in phase 4 as stated, it seems commonsense that ROI becomes a redirect to where ever the country article goes but some people have moaned about that. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of checking to see if the poll is advertised on forums? As long as there is a cut-off date, the only people to be alerted (and who could vote) would be Wikipedia editors - which would be no bad thing. Daicaregos (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of wikipedia editors that use certain forums. In a previous vote which involved Irish Nationalists there was several attempts at rigging the vote, including posting on an Irish forum. I think its important we try to check such rigging isnt being tried again. If we are allowed to advertise on 3rd party sites however, all sides must have that right not just one acting outside of the rules. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to make a 'federal issue' of it just because once upon a time an editor posted something on a forum. I was involved in that case, and it didn't make the slightest difference to the outcome, and no extra editors voted either. Another thing that should be addressed, now that nationalists has come up. British Nationalists outnumber Irish Nationalists by 16/1. Should this be taken into consideration in the vote count? Tfz 20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It didnt make any major difference to the vote because it was closed very quickly after the canvassing was detected. The page had several hundred views in a very short period of time, had that vote remained open for 3 weeks who knows how it would of influenced the outcome, there were a couple of suspicious contributors to that vote and lets not forget it was VERY close between the two main options. Vote rigging is a very serious matter, if we are allowed to post about it anywhere so be it, but if thats not the case we need to do sweeps of certain forums to keep an eye out. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point remains: as there will be a cut-off date, only established Wikipedia editors will be entitled to vote. Therefore it would not be possible to rig the vote by advertising it. 'Advertising' in that way would only ensure that as many editors as possible are aware a vote is taking place. You are being unnecessarily dramatic. Daicaregos (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How long will the poll last? 1 week? 2 weeks? FF3000 (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem said "Stage 2: Polling opens for three weeks from June 28, 2009 and will end July 19, 2009" i support something along those lines, it seems a reasonable amount of time. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well OK but is that long really needed? FF3000 (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks or less, particularly during the summer, is too short - people may completely miss the vote. A full month is too long given the scope and how many places this will be announced. To me, three weeks seems the most appropriate aspect. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something needs to be done about the format of voting so that it is clear what people are choosing. We should make it very easy, and foolproof both for the voter and for the tallyman. Also, if we have six options, do we insist that a number be given to each option? Perhaps we should start with a state like A-0 B-0 C-0 D-0 E-0 F-0. I think we should keep this order in all instances and ask people to change the 0 to their preferred number, 1 being the most favourite and 6 being the least favourite, and to tell them that if there is an option they DON'T support they should just leave it at 0. -- Evertype·✆ 18:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to suggest a template that I can make up that will look like:
{{irelandvote|a=4|b=3|d=2|f=1|~~~~}}
Which can be made into a quick table to represent the votes without too much problem, and also emphasieze that to completely opt out of a solution, just don't vote for it at all. This format will be very easy to copy and paste in a polling page. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really understand the nowiki template you have described. -- Evertype·✆ 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Masem, we don't want people to inadvertantly spoil their votes. STV is unfamiliar to many people. I recommend starting with {{irelandvote|a=0|b=0|c=0|d=0|e=0|f=0|~~~~}} and letting people change the numbers accordingly. If you have people free to omit choices they don't like they could inadvertently omit the right one. -- Evertype·✆ 07:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone submits an obvious spoilt vote, then they can always be advised on their talk page of the potential that their vote could be spoilt. It's not a showstopper! Fmph (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Are you saying that you oppose my suggestion? Or just that I am foolish for making it? I have made it in the interests of clarity and ease of interpretation for both voter and tallier. Masem, I propose that you use a template that will look like:
{{irelandvote|a=0|b=0|c=0|d=0|e=0|f=0|~~~~}}
All right? -- Evertype·✆ 10:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype, I think you and Masem are both proposing the same template - just yours is 'blank' and he's showing what a 'completed' one might look like? BastunnutsaB 10:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, mine would be the blank one. The difference is that I think people should NOT delete any option. If they dislike an option and want to give it no weight or support they should leave the digit 0 in place. Otherwise the should rank from their favourite 1 to their least favourite 6. So normally you would rank 123456, but if you wished you could rank 123400. I just think it is unwise to suggest that people should delete any of the items from the template, because that's asking for error. -- Evertype·✆ 12:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Example:, let's say someone likes the vowels, in alphabetical order, more than the consonants, and likes the consonants in reverse alphabetical order. So taking the template A=0 B=0 C=0 D=0 E=0 F=0 they would rank A=1 B=6 C=5 D=4 E=2 F=3. Or let's say that the voter likes the same, but wants to give NO weight to the last two. That would be A=1 B=0 C=0 D=4 E=2 F=3. I believe that this is "safer" in terms of getting the vote, and also probably easier to tally. To put it another way, I think that allowing A=1 D=4 E=2 F=3 could introduce error or confusion. -- Evertype·✆ 13:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asking voters to rank options with numbers could be confusing and ambiguous. I propose that to register a vote an editor should be asked to add just a single line with option letters in order of preference. For instance, if I were to vote for Evertype's example above, it would simply appear as:
This would be simpler for people like me who don't understand templates. Hallucegenia (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't favour that approach, and the template can be easily explained. -- Evertype·✆ 18:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A template sounds good - it could prevent mistakes - but I would be against a template being compulsory. We would have to be careful not to cause more problems that it would solve. Some users may be scared off by a template or may not understand how it works. A "smart" template could alert the user if they made mistakes (e.g. if they had two 2nd preferences or if they had a 1st and 3rd preference but no 2nd preference). We would have to make sure that the template would allow for all possible kinds of votes e.g. vote for only one option, or vote for all options ... or something in between). The template should, IMHO be designed so that it doesn't infer one style of voting or the other.
I think we should bullet point up some requirements for any such template. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Masem should make the template and we can see it. -- Evertype·✆ 08:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there should be any problem counting the votes if everyone lists their choices clearly. FF3000 (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was bored so I did this:
* {{stv-ballot|D=1|C=2|A=3|F=4|~~~~}}
... or ...
* {{stv-ballot|A=3|C=2|D=1|F=4|~~~~}}
... will produce:
D C A F rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "smart" (i.e. doesn't check for spoilt votes). The template is here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope noone "spoils their vote". Either vote or don't vote. Any vote that all of the options aren't numbered should be deleted. FF3000 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should not!!!! It is up to each individual how they vote, not YOU! If I want to vote for just one option, then that is my right! No one should be deciding for me. Fmph (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I remember seeing a photograph in the Times after the (last) Lisbon vote. It was of a ballot paper cast in Co. Donegal. No option was picked, instead - in real old man's writing - was written, "I don't know." To me, that one vote said more than the other 862,414 ballots cast combined. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If only one option is picked then the voting system with a majority of 50%+1 won't work, I think. And this isn't like the Lisbon referendum. This is an online vote so if you don't want to partake, then don't vote instead of wasting space on the page with a "spoiled vote". FF3000 (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT a spoiled vote. If you don't understand how it works, then go and read up. You are talking nonsense. Fmph (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not under normal circumstances, but to ensure the smooth running of this vote, each option should be numbered. Obviously, the options numbered last are the options you disagree with. Also remember hat only one option will be picked, so it's not like an election. FF3000 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elections very often only have 1 option. Think by-election or presidential election. They still run perfectly smoothly under STV WITHOUT any requirement to complete the entire list. I repeat, you are talking nonsense. It is entirely possible to vote for one, or all, or just a select few. It makes no discernible difference. Unless of course you have an real life example which proves me wrong? Fmph (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is different. We won't have ballot papers.
Another question, does the 50%+1 majority include all remaining votes i.e. votes that haven't died away due to lack of numbered options, or does it include all original votes. FF3000 (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've read them and they don't answer my question. FF3000 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...does the 50%+1 majority include all remaining votes..." If any option receives more than 50% of all (unspoiled) votes then it is impossible for any other option to "beat" it (since the best imaginable alternative would only have 50%-1 votes, thus losing by a vote). In a real-life election (e.g. the presidential election), 50%+1 is the point at which a candidate knows that they have won (and so people stop counting and go home).
It is possible that no one reaches 50%+1, if there is a low number of no transfers from eliminated options to more popular ones. In that case, after all possible elimination rounds have been done and all transfers have been made, there will only be one candidate remaining. Even if they have less than 50%+1, they are declared the winner.
For our purposes, we can set a proviso in advance that if the "winning" option doesn't receive 50%+1 of the total (unspoilt) votes cast then we won't accept it as being binding on the community. We could set a higher proviso ... or a lower proviso ... or no such proviso. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do need to make it clear that a completely null vote is assumed you mean that you agree with none of the options. This isn't like a regular paper poll where you're given a piece of paper and a few minutes to figure it out and if it's too complex you simply write nothing on your ballot - in that case here, you simply should choose to not participate. I'd also say that if 50%+1 of the votes are completed null, then we need to reconsider our options and not work off the majority of remaining votes. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is *possible* that the result will be less than 50%+1. Forcing voters to rank *all* of the options in their ballot would prevent that possibility. But what is being solved? If the problem is that a result of less than 50%+1 lack democratic legitimacy then *forcing* people to vote for options they don't want is hardly a solution. Setting a minimum that we would accept as being a *binding* result (e.g. 40%, 50%+1, or 66% etc.) would solve the democratic problem, but would risk that proportion not being reached.
Masem, I don't think that we can count non-transferable ballots as meaning "none of the above". It could just as legitimately mean, "any of the above, I don't mind". A "None of the above" option would be an explicit way for a voter to say, "I want this, that or the other, otherwise none of the above." (An "Any of the above" option would not be workable because the permutations for how to transfer it would be so difficult to calculate.) A person voting using a "None of the above" option would fall into the "null" votes pile. A "None of the above" would also not necessarily have to be the last placed pereference in a ballot. A person could vote, "None of the above, but if 'none of the above' is not going to be the winning option I want my vote to go to such-and-such". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand it, you're suggesting adding a 7th (or whatever) option, "None of the above", which implies that after selecting options they prefer (none if the case) they should then put None as the next preference? (and thus technically, if someone ranks an option below None, that becomes a bad ballot and should be fixed?)
And thus a null ballot is not a None of the Above, just, "I don't care" - so if a voter has a 1st and 2nd pref, both which are eliminated early, their vote is then always group with the current winning option? (Whatever this is, we need to be explicit and careful how people fill votes out, and make it clear leaving options blank means you don't care which wins). --MASEM (t) 19:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have to keep things simple. If people want to suggest another option, let them do it now. Otherwise we could have a thousand different proposals. I don't think "none of the above" should be an option. FF3000 (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem, pretty much except for two things:
1) we would get it for "free" (i.e. we don't have to do anything special when counting it: "none of the above" would just be another option like everything else, "none of the above" might even come out as being the "winning" option)
2) "none of the above" doesn't *have to be* the last ranked option in any ballot, it could be (and more often that not, I suppose, would be) but a person could place "none of the above" higher in their ranking (which would means something like, "None of the above, but if "none of the above" is going to be eliminated as an option then I want my vote to go to such-and-such.").
As for "null" votes, once all possible transfers of any particular ballot are used up, the ballot has no more influence on the outcome of the vote - so it is effectively becomes, "I don't care".
NB: It would still be possible with a "None of the above" option that the "winner" would still get less that 50%+1. That's just how STV works, there's nothin we can do about that except for: a) forcing people to fill in the full ballot or b) add a provisio that unless 50%+1 (or whatever percentage we pick) is achieved by the winner we won't accept the result as binding.
@FF3000, "none of the above" is not a usual option in a vote (I think the Greens have a policy where they want it as an option in Ireland). Normally, it is meaningless (except for expressing dissatisfaction) because, whether you like the candidates before you or not, they are the only candidates and saying "None of the above" is not going to conjure up anymore out of thin air. In our case, "None of the above" has meaning because we (the Wikipedia community) are the ones coming up with the options. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we've had months of discussion! A thousand different options could be proposed but we have to get this over with and choose an option. FF3000 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a good argument against having a "none of the above" option and not having a "proviso" of 50%+1. The counter argument is that doing so might force an unpopular decision on the community. (To be honest, I would be willing to bet money that even with a "none of the above" and a "proviso" a ballot will result in a "winner" - and have greater legitimacy because of them ... but there is always the chance.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if the community once it’s advertised across wiki reject it, saying polling is not an acceptable solution? On the polling options, editors like me are currently excluded because we have no option listed to object to polling. This is not the same as an editor who "spoils their vote" and is a valid option. --Domer48'fenian' 15:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a none of the above option, which results in coming back to the debate to try and reach consensus. If that option was to win however it would mean the country article would remain at Republic of Ireland for a lot longer and im not convinced when it comes to the vote itself if people will be prepared to boycott it or waste their vote in that way. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Domer48You are not excluded. You are choosing to exclude yourself. You object to the poll. That's your perogative. Don't expect the rest of us to wait around until you change your mind. Fmph (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A very valid issue. It is why I think it is important to have the opportunity to "spoil you vote" by casting a comment.
More practically, has anyone gone back to ArbCom with this proposal? Or is Masem's backing good enough? I know Bastun has pointed out below that they did say "consensus or a majority" but we should get their blessing before running a poll. Like the Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation, ArbCom overrule "normal" policy so ArbCom's sign-off would copper-fasten the genuine concern that this is a vote and not consensus.
Masem, I don't get what you mean by a "null" vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It means that if no votes are fully numbered, the votes of elimanated options can't be distributed and therefore the voting system of 50%+1 can't work. FF3000 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get you. (Read what I wrote above starting, "The 'quota' doesn't matter.") Ordinarily, after all possible transfers have been made and still no option has 50%+1 then the option with a plurality is declared the "winner". If we insist that - for our purposes - a winner must have 50%+1 we are tacking an extra proviso on top of normal STV. This "proviso" doesn't have to be set at 50%+1, it can be any proportion (higher or lower).
I would be in favour of setting a higher "proviso" (something like 66%) because it would give a binding agreement a greater legitimacy. But, of course, the higher we set it, the less likely we are to reach it. I think 50%+1 would be easily reached in a ballot with 6 or more options ... and I certainly think that if the "winning" option did not achieve it then it would have no legitimacy as a binding solution.
No matter what, I think it would be best to run the count until all transfers are exhausted (past 50%+1) so that we can see the proportion of people who had a preference for the winning candidate (ideally this would be in the region of 80-90%, but maybe that's a pipe dream).
Did I get you right?
BTW, what is the situation with ArbCom? Have they given this ballot the OK? Do they need to? Their official sanctioning of it would be of benefit IMHO. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am double checking with ArbCom. I personally feel the STV poll, given that this community brought the idea themselves and have been developing the poll themselves (with some hopefully-helpful nudging by the moderators), means that it is an acceptable replacement for a normal discussion-driven consensus - however, we'll verify if ArbCom has a say in it. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a normal discussion-driven consensus, a poll can not be described as an acceptable replacement. The poll was put forward as the only solution IMO, and is based foremost on the strength of numbers in the absence of strong arguments. We have had circular arguements, repetitious arguments but none of it source based. When has any editor been challenged to support their assertions? I can’t concede that Wikipedia has failed in its ability to deal with a content dispute. So again, show us were this normal discussion-driven consensus was attempted? --Domer48'fenian' 19:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been plenty of source-based discussion, starting with the Statements (not all of them, but there's enough sources there to support a number of different naming schemes. But because the whole of the group cannot agree towards even one direction, the agreement to vote is the next best step in resolution. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: The statement process
"The statement process is the first step in gathering facts, findings and opinions regarding the naming of Ireland-related articles, and will be in the form of a non-rebuttal debate. Editors can post statements in which they plead their case for one of the proposed solutions above, or formulate a solution of their own. Other editors can either endorse or oppose these statements, but may not enter into discussion. The only way to 'argue' is to create a statement of your own, which others will endorse or oppose."
So what was "The statement process"? Yes! Another Poll, just like were having now. --Domer48'fenian' 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the part of the process that they never got round to:
Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments, moderators will use the pyramid to the right.
Sorry, the Statements is not a normal discussion-driven consensus! I'll provide you one example, just one to illustrate my point. Republic of Ireland used as the nation-state of Ireland is out of contention considering the overwhelming evidence which prevents its use. I would suggest that our policies of WP:V and in particular WP:NPOV would also prevent us using this option. Were was this challanged? Were was this overwhelming evidence which prevents its use challanged! --Domer48'fenian' 19:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the the Statements, I provided editors the opportunity to put forward the Links that support “The term "Ireland" is ambiguous” to determine the level of ambiguity I received only three examples, all of which could be challenged. Fourteen Editors rejected my statement and only three references provided. Based on consensus and the strength of argument what would your view of this be? Since then, as illustrated above the number of sources to support my Statement has more than doubled. Because the whole of the group cannot agree towards even one direction, we have to decide by the quality and quantity of sources based on both verifiability and neutral point of view would that not be a normal discussion-driven consensus! There was no one there to do that, the three moderators walked off. --Domer48'fenian' 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out what ArbCom remedy #1 is: The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement. ArbCom basically has said that if you want to avoid Remedy #2 coming into place, to select some means - which I read from the avoid to include a vote or poll since it calls for "majority view" - to resolve this. Consensus did not work before the ArbCom, during the ArbCom, or the first few months off this project - it is not suddenly going to work now.
Now, I do agree with you that all solutions should be within WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV - "Ireland (magical happy land)" is completely unacceptable. But I've read through the statements, and every naming scheme that's been proposed of late and currently being considered for the poll is backed by sources and is neither NOR or NPOV - the problem is that the sources are conflicting. At that point, we turn to WP's ultimate rule: Ignore all rules. We need to consider all these options since no single one is obviously better than the others. We also have to use common sense - we are never going to find a source that says "Ireland as a name is equally ambiguous between the island and the country", but common sense tells us it clearly is otherwise the naming issue would have been resolved months ago. Given that many members of this project are agreeing to the STV poll, it may not be the most desirable path in normal Wiki-venues, but it is both an acceptable path and the path of least resistance that will end this dispute once and for all. --MASEM (t) 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what was this, "ArbCom has received an e-mail from Masem forwarding your question and considers Remedy#1 still valid." Now the very same editors who ignored the "Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments" I mentioned above and just focused on a vote, are the very same editors of this project who are agreeing to the STV poll! Now please show us were this normal discussion-driven consensus was attempted? Because all you have done to date is say that you have read through the statements, and every naming scheme that's been proposed of late and currently being considered for the poll is backed by sources and is neither NOR or NPOV and I'm saying your wrong. I offered you one example above to illustrate the point and you ignored it. I've provide an alternative process that would "be within WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV" and you ignored it. You have not considered all the options, and its your opinion that we are never going to find a source that says "Ireland as a name is equally ambiguous between the island and the country" and your wrong on that also. Your path of least resistance, quick fix is based on nothing more than numbers. An example of your intrest in anything other than a poll is when you said above, on my first proposal "I will say that if you want to make a subpage of this project for a proposal, that's fine - but you better state that you are doing this here, otherwise, as happens here, it looks like a submarine attack on the process and thus disruptive." Problem was I did state what I was doing, I started a whole section, which you missed. Now is Remedy#1 still valid per ArbCom or not? --Domer48'fenian' 23:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the issues raised above but with all of the other points made it appears to of been overlooked and nobody has commented, its something that we need to ensure is sorted well before the vote begins.
Is there just going to be the wording in the vote itself, or will there be statements / explanations on each of the options so those who come from outside this dispute can know all the facts. If there is to be some statement (i think it should be bullet points rather than a long statement) so its simple to understand, there really should be negative points as well. So we can explain to people why some feel the country article shouldnt be at Ireland or Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather the arguments be left off, actually -- some of the pro or con arguments are going to look really stupid, and I'd rather not prejudice the results that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) Generally agreed on the need for bullet points. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Position_argument_summaries would seem to be an obvious starting point? (Incidentally, would you mind moving this section up to the "proper" section above, so all discussion on each subtopic happens in the one place? This page is getting very unwieldy... ) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments
Sarek - remember a lot of people are likely to coming to this issue completely "fresh" and may not appreciate the sometimes subtle differences between options. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the sort of method on that link, Argument, counter argument, summary seems very reasonable. On moving the post back up to the top i will if needed, but i wanted to make a new section to draw attention to this point because so far nobody else posted on it, it seemed to of got lost in all of the other points like voting / advertising and yet this is something that we need a heads up on as quickly as possible so agreement can be reached on wording of such statements if they are to exist. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As regards #Position argument summaries above, I think the arguments and counter arguments are well stated, but I feel that several (not all) of the summaries are biased towards either the pros or the cons. I think it would be better just to present the pros and cons, and allow voters to draw their own conclusions. Scolaire (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's very difficult to summarise beyond a quick statement of the pros and of the cons. And in each and every case, both the pros and cons can be backed up by verifiable, reliable sources; the reason we're here is that those sources conflict with each other. Hopefully we'll be keeping the pro and con sections short, so they'll already be summarised about as far as they reasonably can be. — ras52 (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we not first assess the validity of arguments, rather than promoting each option. This just opens up the whole issue again. We know what editors positions (POV's) are, lets policy test them before we present them to the community.
Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments,--Domer48'fenian' 07:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The validity of arguments is what the community will be deciding on when they partake in the poll. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they will not, they be presented with a mix of POV options and asked to pick. The validity of arguments is what the community should have addressed before the options were put forward. --Domer48'fenian' 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it should come for time to vote
Remember, this is the Summer Holiday period and we in Ireland/Eire/RoI take them damn seriously - so lots of notice please; the fact that I'm not saying anything here doesn't mean I'm not interested. Same would apply to several others I know of. Sarah777 (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Consensus seems to be for a twothree-week voting period, with ample advertising of the poll (at minimum, the various Irish/British noticeboards and hopefully a watchlist hatnote), including specifically notifying users who've previously been involved and/or those listed at the Arbcom case. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's fair to notify users about the poll only if the poll is about to close and they haven't cast a vote yet. They will be contacted both on their talk page and by e-mail, where applicable. FF3000 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I favour a three-week voting period, as did Masem. -- Evertype·✆ 18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 weeks sounds good in my view too. Maybe we should have a 1 or 2 week "advertising" period too? (The actual ballot page could be locked but questions, etc. could be discussed on the talk page during th tperiod?). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three weeks seems good. Sarah777 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sub pages of the Ireland project (part 2)
Again i would like to complain about the disgusting and offensive treatment taking place at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Domer48's proposal for Ireland Article. There is a vote ongoing there which could be used to justify scrapping all of the above mentioned plans for a STV vote. As thats the case can REAL moderators please take action and stop Domer from acting like a dictator and deleting peoples comments or points which challange his position. It is resulting in people removing their vote because they dont want to be part of such a joke. This is unacceptable BritishWatcher (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have put together a proposal which I hope will move this discussion forward. I’m actively looking for the support of the community in this effort. While editors are welcome to participate, based on previous discussions I have place a number of guidelines on the proposal which are designed to prevent disruption, keep the discussion on topic and provide an environment conducive to rational and reasonable discussion. As this proposal is a work in progress which I will be placing before the community as a formal process, I will moderate the discussion according to the guidelines outlined on the proposal, however, if one or all of the moderators wish to adopt the process (this should not been seen as an endorsement of the proposal) it would be very welcome. The guidelines must be viewed as part of the process, and will themselves form part of the final proposal. I have placed my rational behind the proposal on the proposal page which is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Domer48's proposal for Ireland Article.
Editors my like to read this discussion here, as it illustrates how Wiki policies are the only solution to this content dispute. --Domer48'fenian' 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i posted the wrong link there appears to be two ongoing votes in different locations, this is a mess and very confusing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/proposal for Ireland Article. Im complaining about both of the pages i have mentioned because they are being run by a dictator but especially about the removal of my comment on the one i just listed. Oh i should of said its being held in 4 places because the votes / comments appear to being made on both the main page / talk page on each making matters even worse. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the policies there are, not to add spurious uncited claims. Those are the rules there, pity we don't have them here. Tfz 20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish you cant just remove any comment you dont like, i clearly said i will provide sources if you really need them. This type of censorship is unacceptable, especially as the votes on there are going to try to be used to justify ending the above agreements on STV. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remove comments I don't like, I remove unsorced and unreferenced opinions. Do you have a problem with our policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:RS? --Domer48'fenian' 21:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with an unelected "Moderator" dictating terms on this projects subpages. If it was on ur userspace ofcourse you can do what you like, but its not. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A simple question, do you have a problem with our policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:RS? Yes or No? --Domer48'fenian' 21:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support those policies for articles on wikipedia. I do not support those policies being used to impose censorship on talk pages and leading to removal of reasonable comments by unelected moderators. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guidlines are included and are part of the proposal. They are to prevent disruption, and provide a forum for reasoned and informed discussion. They are based on our policies and guidlines of WP:V and WP:RS. Now you can support or oppose and don't have to comment. However, if you do comment you are required to support your comments with references. Otherwise, like this discussion page all you get is POV, bias, and unsupported opinion. You are also able to comment on the process/proposal on the talk page. You can challange the sources I provide, but again it must be informed and based on supporting sources. The only ones to date to complain are the editors who have added opinions which are not supported by references, and which do not address the proposal itself. That the discussions are free from the type of comments/POV/bias and opinions expressed on this discussion has proved it point. --Domer48'fenian' 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me where it says YOU have the authority to impose such restrictions on a wikiproject page. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting both a proposal and a process. Now you accept the policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, so I impose no restrictions other than what the wikiproject imposes on all of us, that is the process. I implement, that is I put into practice policies which we all accept, so I reference and source all my comments. My proposal is referenced and sourced per our policies, is it not reasonable to ask editors for the same. --Domer48'fenian' 22:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but we do not have to provide verifiable sources to make posts on talk pages, that only applies to articles. On this wikiproject, there was consensus early on that the moderators would have a right to remove any content they deemed unacceptable, i fail to see where people gave you the authority to remove content from that wikiproject subpage. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If one or both of the proposals were to have consensus, would they need approval at this Collobration page? GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BritishWatcher, I have explained my proposal and the process. As part of the process yes you do have to provide WP:verifiable sources. This whole issue is a content dispute. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. I provided referenced sources to support my proposal, you have not. So you reject both the process and the proposal, fine. Nothing more needs to be said. GoodDay, what I'd like is for the Collobration page to accept the process first off, and secondly, to test all the suggestions put forward for the poll per our policies. Consensus can be reached with this process because it would remove all the POV/bias that has bogged down this discussion. The policies of the project do work, we just need someone with the intrest of the project first to apply them. --Domer48'fenian' 23:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay - of course they would need approval at this page! Problem is, it won't arise, because Domer is treating the pages like a personal fiefdom even though he's not a moderator, so people are refusing to participate. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but im still waiting for someone to tell me when u were given the authority to remove any comment you dont like or dictate the terms of what is and isnt acceptable on this wikiproject sub pages. You are not a moderator! I also note u dont appear to be removing certain comments by those agreeing with ur proposal despite them not providing sources either for some of their claims.
Again i seek input from a real moderator on this matter. Does Domer (whos not even signed up as a member of this project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Member_list) have the right to impose such radical restrictions on a page that is not in his own area. He seeks to have the planned STV mentioned above cancelled and his own proposal adopted instead, yet he refuses to let people challange him on these matters there resulting in people removing their vote (which will end up stacking the vote the way he wants). BritishWatcher (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun; Domer's "rules" seem pretty basic and straightforward - I cannot see why anyone should be "put off" from participating. You weren't! Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a parlour game to lighten the mood around here and boost participation in Domer's proposal. I suggest that everyone should participate, but here is the fun part: should Domer "moderate" one of your comments per some "policy" of his choosing, you get to select any one of his comments somewhere else in Wikipedia space and "moderate" that in return. To be fair, you may only choose a comment of his that lacks citations, makes a sweeping claim or generalises. (You might think these are hard to find, but since you get to choose what qualifies, it really couldn't be easier). You might be concerned about your ability to "moderate" fairly. However, all you need to do is read what he wrote, than change it so it now says what you want it to say. Bingo! You're done "moderating". Feel free to not tell Domer which of his comments you have "moderated", and await the hilarity that will ensue when he later returns to the page to find that his comments have been fucked about with so that they no longer say what he intended. Don't worry about getting reverted, because you are allowed to edit other's comments as you see fit so long as you anoint yourself as The Moderator in advance. Who wants to go first? Rockpocket 02:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao thank you Rockpocket, that is the first time ive been able to laugh about this issue over the past few days. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per ArbCom, "The community [thats us] is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism [the process] for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles [the proposal]. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures [Wiki policies] for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement."
Now look at Rocks latest attempt at sarcasm, this is coming from an Admin one of two who edit warred on the process/proposal to cause disruption. Rockpocket an Admin, edit warred [67][68] to keep their snide remarks in ignoring the block on the page to again to insert them. Saying they were not aware the page had been protected. However they also said "even if [they] had known it was protected [they] would have still made the edit." Adding then "once the page is unprotected [they'll] be withdrawing both [their] !vote and [their] comments" show how hollow their arguements were. Why did they not just use their Admin tools again to remove them, why wait for the unblock, when the block did not stop them putting them back in?
Likewise SarekOfVulcan edit warred on the talk page to put comments back in: [69], [70], [71], and on the proposal page, [72], [73] and then protecting the page which Rock ignored. It is wrong for an Admin to use their tools in an edit war, they were warned about this already so they know they should not have been the one to protect the page.
Rock went a step further however and attempted to "encourage everyone else" into withdrawing their vote, and so scupper my attempt to move things forward. Now having been ask by ArbCom to try come up with a process and a proposal, and having made the attempt I have an Admin being actively disruptive and trying now with sarcasm to do what they could not do with policies. Sad really, but one only has to consider what the response of moderators would be if I actively tried to prevent their proposal?
If you read this discussion here editors will see the comments I removed, and notice how most of them were from Editors who supported the proposal. The most telling of all though, is the editors who have been the most active here, are less so on the proposal page, would that have something to do with being asked to back up their opinions with references? I will continue to moderate the discussion according to the guidelines outlined on the proposal, however, if one or all of the moderators wish to adopt the process (this should not been seen as an endorsement of the proposal) it would be very welcome. The guidelines must be viewed as part of the process, and will themselves form part of the final proposal. --Domer48'fenian' 08:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Domer, you're just going to have to accept that events have overtaken you, and be content that your proposal is one of the options in the community-wide poll which the members of this project have supported. -- Evertype·✆ 08:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The community [thats us] is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism [the process] for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles [the proposal]."
Yes. And the community has been discussing it - since December '08. "Consensus or majority view". The consensus and majority view of 75% of the participants here of late is that we will use a community-wide STV poll. End of. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get back on track
There seems to be a few different discussions taking place.
Where to advertise the vote?
Should the voters be provided with statements
Domer48 also seems to be trying to work on a different solution
I think instead of all this arguing we should decide
Do we just want to advertise in areas directly involved with the subject (Ireland, NI, UK) or do we want to include other areas. If we do include other areas is this not just going to lead to more arguments ("if Spain is included why can't I add Mexico" "if China is included why can't I add Vietnam".....)
If we are going to provide statements to the voters, is this just going to lead to more arguments about what to include in the statements?
Should Domer48's proposal continue to be even discussed when we are 6 months into the process and the moderator has decided that there is no chance of consensus?76.118.224.35 (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per ArbCom: "ArbCom has received an e-mail from Masem forwarding your [Domer48] question and considers Remedy#1 still valid." Moderators are currently looking for consensus on the method of their poll, the type of options, who can and can't vote, were it should be advertised etc... So my proposal / process is still a valid alternative. That this approch has never been attempted is something positive, that it is policy based, is positive and that to date it has prevented the type of disruption that has been the hall mark of the above discussion is positive. The poll in my mind is just a collection of editors personal POV's not one of which has been tested against our policies. Which ever POV is the most popular wins! That is not the way this project works. --Domer48'fenian' 08:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noone's really arguing, 78... things are being thrashed out and good progress is being made. We've even got consensus on some of the things that need to be decided - even to the point of me and Sarah777 agreeing with each other. The points you've made are perfectly valid, but why are you trying to split the discussion across yet another subsection? Please contribute in the relevant subsections above. If I want to contribute to the "advertising" question, for instance, I don't want to have to do it in its subsection above and down here, where you've mixed it in with two other topics. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This poll has not yet been put before the community and various projects. What if the community once it’s advertised across wiki reject it, saying polling is not an acceptable solution? On the polling options, editors like me are currently excluded because we have no option listed to object to polling. The community, like ArbCom may view this as a content dispute and request that our policies be applied to the various POV’s to see if they are supported by verifiable and reliable sources. They might want them tested to see if they conform to our policy of neutral point of view. We already know the use of Republic of Ireland being used for the name of the Irish State is against WP:NPOV, and very much documented with verifiable and reliable sources. It is however being presented as an option. Is it possible then that my proposal might be considered an alternative? --Domer48'fenian' 09:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RoI should not be an option, re Domer above. It does not withstand the "acid test" of verifiable, reliable sources (and not Wikipedia). Wikipedia must act in concert within professional standards if it's ever to be taken seriously by lecturers and students alike. Tfz 22:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I caught a news ticker on the BBC World News broadcast the other night referring to Republic of Ireland. Canterbury Tailtalk 02:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC have always called it that. They also seem to like to call the Netherlands "Holland". Neither are correct.MITH 09:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't, that's the whole point. Any academics that I talk to in the UK or the US have nothing but disdain for it...I wonder why? --De Unionist (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really Canterbury, what a catch! The queen of England will be amused. lol Tfz 11:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) This was on a ferry in Canada as well. Never said it was correct, just that it's used by something usually considered as a reliable source. Canterbury Tailtalk 15:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Poll on Ireland (xxx)
OK, everybody, thanks for the input above. I am now putting the bullet list together which Masem said he wanted to ballot. I have seven items on it, in alphabetical order: country, nation, republic, Republic of, sovereign country, sovereign state, state,. Here is how I ranked them. I placed them in alphabetical order as you see, and then went to http://www.random.org/sequences/ and generated a random sequence of 1-7. The sequence I got was 1546273 so that is the order I have put them in the list. I have also given a summary source rationale, which I believe to be neutral. Please see the draft poll at User:Evertype/sandbox -- Evertype·✆ 10:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me too. How many winners do you propose to select? Just one? Three per Masem's earlier suggest? One further comment: much as I like the idea of blocking for 12 months anyone caught fiddling the election, do we actually have the authority to do that? Masem has, per this (formally enacted) Arbitration Committee case amendment, the ability to unilaterally ban anyone from this WikiProject for up to one month. But that's all I'm aware of. — ras52 (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Results of the vote are final and binding for a period of two years" is confusing, as all we are picking is what option(s) will appear on the final ballot? Apart from that, I think it looks fine. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three winners seems too many, doesn't it? Because it makes the main poll much longer, I say we pick two winners, reserving the right to go with one only or choose a third depending on how the poll goes. Regarding the blocking provisions, these were pasted in unchanged by e from Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll which I took as a template. And I didn't edit the Results of the vote section; I was concentrating on getting the choices down and getting neutral wikilinks to material which can assist people in understanding the choices. -- Evertype·✆ 11:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like. What is the end-date for this? I think running it as a "two- maybe three-seater" is reasonable - but I imagine that whatever the result people will want the third one included. Doing it that way would allow us to better understand STV anyway - and we could all take part in the calculating process, so it's a good "dry run" for the *BIG* ballot.
RE: "You are not obliged to give a weight to any of the options that you do not wish to support at all; it is easiest to leave the number as zero, i.e. Z=0." I'd put this onto a seperate line. and rephrase it to something like, "You do not have to express a preference for all of the option" (or probably better wording that you can think of). Technically, also we are not giving weights. Also I'd change "... that you do not wish to support ..." something like "... that you do not wish to support (or have no preference about)..." since not ranking a preference means that 1. your ballot won't go to supporting it, 2. your ballot might not go against it either. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making changes which are more or similar to what you've proposed. I'm editing this section here and will say when I've saved the changes to the poll. -- Evertype·✆ 15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it (Republic of), surely it would just be (Republic)? MickMacNee (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get bogged down discussing trivial details. Stick "Ireland (Republic)" in as an addition if you must, but it's unncessary to discuss each option in detail. They key thing is to hold a quick vote on all the options and get it over and done with. DrKiernan (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support having both Ireland (republic) and Ireland (Republic). Please let us not make this more farcical than necessary. -- Evertype·✆ 15:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I was thinking more like "Germany (Federal Republic of)" or "Netherlands (Kingdom of)". The monarchy of the United Kingdom is something else. I suppose the UK equivalent would be "Great Britain and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom of)" ... a bit of a mouthful! But I don't expect "Ireland (Republic of)" to poll so highly so don't worry about it.
We should put "Ireland (Republic" in there too. In fact, the whole caboodle of alternatives. We've discussed them all to death by now anyway. And the more options in this poll the better. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The options above are better as they also deal with the name for the island. This proposed poll doesn't. And we won't have "Ireland (Republic of)" as the title of the article if that option wins. It'll be "republic of Ireland". FF3000 (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've misunderstood. This is the pre-poll to decide on which "Ireland (xxx)" option is presented in the main poll not the main poll itself. DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh now I understand. FF3000 (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, people. Republic of Ireland is already the cause of this. I do not want to sit here editing and editing and adding and adding a whole caboodle of alternatives. I have put in all of the ones that have been proposed so far. Let us, I beg you, have done. -- Evertype·✆ 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting only a simple (non-STV) poll asking each person here to list the three terms they thing are best for the (xxx) part of the disambiguated country, and then using the three terms (possibly four if there's a tie) that were selected the most often as the choices in the community poll. There's no need to get to a detailed STV vote for this. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's just as well we use STV for this. Good practice for us. How long should this poll be? Two weeks? One week? Masem, please understand that if we had ONE winner from this poll, that would lead to three options in the main poll. Two winners gives us six options. Three winners gives us nine options. Four winners would give us twelve options. For my part I would rather not see so many options on the main poll. -- Evertype·✆ 15:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the draft. I cut the socking punishment to one month as discussed above. -- Evertype·✆ 16:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the reasoning for this poll, the problem is that the question of what "(xxx)" is cannot be asked seperately on a community wide poll since it's possible one may prefer "Ireland (state)" over "Republic of Ireland" but also "Republic of Ireland" over "Ireland (nation)" (for an example). As there's three options on the main poll that have "Ireland (xxx)" as a possible option, that means every option we give for "(xxx)" will be repeated three times, so we can't have all the options. My proposal was to have a brief poll here and only here (within the naming project) to establish the likely best three choices for what "(xxx)" is, which would result in 15 options total for the poll. It wasn't meant to be a long or elaborate poll and it would have been done before the main poll was started (like, as planned, on Sunday). The community would still be left to pick among the top three "(xxx)" options. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If I had read"? This page is pretty long. I understand what you are saying. I think 9 is too many. I think 6 is better. 12 is certainly too many. That's why I've said we'll pick 2 options unless there's significant support for a third. Maybe it's likely we go for a third but I thought it would be good to be able to aim for 6 even if we end up with 9. OK? -- Evertype·✆ 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I initially thought, like Masem, that a single first-(few)-past-the-post vote was sufficient here. But I think there's merit to Evertype's suggestion of using STV simply to get practice with it. If we're going to have an argument about how to interpret the results of the STV vote, far better to have it with this (relatively) insignificant poll rather than later with the real poll when the whole world and his dog are watching. STV would also reduce the likelihood of a tie. As to the duration of this preliminary poll, I'd say a week is more than adequate if we let the top three options through. And I think Masem is right to want to allow three options through — this really is just an initial filter to dispose of the options with insignificant real support. (Minor correction, Evertype: if we allow three winners through, the final community poll will twelve options, assuming the version in Rannṗáirtí's sandbox is up-to-date. A, D and E don't involve an Ireland (xxx) article.) —ras52 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only B, C, and F do, so three options = 9. I agree, a week is fine. Shall I move it to a subpage over here and start the poll? -- Evertype·✆ 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... so that's A, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, C3, D, E, F1, F2, F3 which is more than I can count without taking my socks off. :-) —ras52 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But if that goes on for a week will it delay the starting of the actual vote? FF3000 ·talk 17:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what this group seems to want to do, there is no problem delaying the start of my proposed schedule to include this. If we do do this, I recommend having *this* poll completed by July 1, with the new schedule then pushed back a week for all other aspects. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shall be bold and make it so then. -- Evertype·✆ 17:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading in your opinion. Please stop being so pedantic on insisting on sources for the obvious. It's not an article, its a poll. If anyone does want to find the sources for anything Evertype wrote, such as why "Ireland (Republic)" might be an option for them, all they have to do is click on the links he provided and see the sources there. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have indicated above the venues where I have announced this poll. -- Evertype·✆ 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you cannot impose sanctions on other editors based on your say, and you have no authority to decide upon a blocking term for an offense based on your say so. Also voting isn't how to resolve things on Wikipedia, consensus is. Saying if someone canvases makes what they say irrelevant isn't right, and isn't enforceable since what someone says carries weight, what someone votes doesn't. Canterbury Tailtalk 19:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will be for the ArbCom moderator to decide who gets a 30-day ban if the rules (which are clear and which HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED above) are breached. Obviously I myself have no such powers. The text was agreed. Unless you're planning to breach the rules and hoping not to get caught, I don't see why you should be concerned. Assume good faith please. This is a step forward. -- Evertype·✆
Will the Arbcom moderators please say if this poll is a part of the process or not? I've been busy for the last fortnight and have not really followed the detail, but an official sounding announcement appeared on my talk page so I voted. If its not sanctioned then I will withdraw it. --SnowdedTALK 19:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh nooo, everytime I 'vote' at something concerning this topic, my vote ends up null & void. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem has indicated just above that this is the way that we are getting some answers which will help us put the REAL poll out there. This is only to winnow down the number of choices on the final ballot to a manageable number. Please look it over. You will see nothing sinister, and if you look above you will see a number of people from all sides who are satisfied with the content of this poll. -- Evertype·✆ 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page BigDunc asked me:
"What criteria did you use for the editors you chose or were they cheerypicked to notify of the poll? BigDuncTalk 20:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. First please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Proposed_locations_for_advertising_of_poll which tells you who I notified. I notified a number of non-superfluous related artiicles, in which editors of both "sides" participate. I notified the Ireland, Northern Ireland, and UK noticeboards. And I notified, as a formality, those editors who were listed in the ArbCom case, without regard to who they were. (I even informed myself.) If there is another, subsequent, list of relevent people please point me to it. Thanks, BigDunc. I trust that this will help us to get to a resolution. -- Evertype·✆ 20:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype you say the text was agreed, however in that discussion above you say "I shall be bold and make it so then." --Domer48'fenian' 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem had just said that he wanted this to go out in a week and end on 1 July. I don't believe I have acted improperly. I do believe that a poll is now there which allows you, if you wish, to express your preferences. -- Evertype·✆ 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the list, and you notified some editors who are not on the list, and failed to notify some of the editors who were, why is that? --Domer48'fenian' 20:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that list. It was not listed in the area on this page above which I used to send out the notices. There is nothing sinister going on. Please do not ask questions aggressively. -- Evertype·✆ 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've not asked questions "aggressively" you said the text was agreed and I pointed out that you were just being Bold. The list you used was from the ArbCom case, and not from Ireland Collaboration, some of those involved have never even commented here, did you not find that even a little strange? --Domer48'fenian' 21:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your tag line "Why is that?" seems needlessly harsh and critical. Your use of the word "failed" seems to suggest that I have done something wrong. -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype having been informed by Canterbury Tail above that "you cannot impose sanctions on other editors based on your say, and you have no authority to decide upon a blocking term for an offense based on your say so" you are still posting the notice on Editors talk pages? --Domer48'fenian' 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have ALREADY SAID that I would not be making any decisions or determinations about who gets blocked or for how long. I do not have the power to do that. I never said I did. It will be up to the moderators of this project to determine whether there have been breaches of the rules. The RULES are laid out clearly. No sock puppets, no meat puppets, no ballot stuffing. I am QUITE SURE that Masem will not look favourably on such behaviour. If the rules are breached, they will be able to make whatever sanction is permitted them. -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted them too but I take no heed of the warnings as blanket blocks are up to admins. BigDuncTalk 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please exercise your intelligence. I cannot block. I can however state the rules for the ballot which have been discussed for the main ballot as well. It will be up for the project admins to decide if the rules have been breached. But the rule are no canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry. Do you agree with these rules? If so, why are you complaining? If you are planning to breach the rules, don't complain if an Admin sanctions you. Clear? -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit rich Evertype. Where is my notification? Behaving like untrained poll-cats, are we? Also you voted first just to get your bias in the lede. Sheese!!! Tfz 21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is "a bit rich"? Are you on one of the lists that I informed? I informed one list which you were not on. THen another list was pointed out to me and both BigDunc and I send out messages. Were you on that list? If you are and did not receive a notice, it was an oversight. -- Evertype·✆ 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked. Your name does not appear on either of those lists. That is why you were not informed. My vote being on the top means nothing. Should I have anticipated your scorn and waited? Who the hell cares? People vote what they want. My bias? To hell with my bias. I voted first. If you had done the work to put this together, you might have voted first. By the way it is spelt "Sheesh" not "Sheese". I can't believe the bad faith. I really can't. "Untrained poll-cats"? That is uncivil. Perhaps Masem will take notice. Perhaps you will apologize for your incivility. -- Evertype·✆ 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, your "lede" bit is really out of line. I went to some effort to randomize the order of the items in the list, for FAIRNESS, and also described the process I used to come to that. Whence your hostility? -- Evertype·✆ 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way, since your name isn't on any of the lists, I'm not going to send you a notice, because if I did, I would have to trawl through this entire project looking for people who did not get the notice. Not my responsibility. And this one isn't even the real poll. -- Evertype·✆ 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype you said I asked questions "aggressively" which I did not, and now you are being uncivil. The wording was not agreed above like you said, you were being BOLD. The was no agreement on the comments under each option either, which are to say the least misleading. Spotting these things did not exercise my intelligence, but putting forward a flawed and misleading poll is raises questions about yours. --Domer48'fenian' 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem said he wanted a week-long poll on this, and Masem said he wanted it to end on 1 July. The only way to do that was to post it today. I had edited it. Was someone else supposed to do it? -- Evertype·✆ 21:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is it you want, Domer? Do not have this poll which is only a minor preliminary poll in advance of the community wide poll? Is that why you are grousing? -- Evertype·✆ 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not answer my questions! --Domer48'fenian' 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What questions? -- Evertype·✆ 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only suggested this poll to help set up the options for the others. There was some agreement for it, but I wasn't expecting it to be started as fast as it was. Furthermore, it was only meant to be limited to this project - this is not the community poll that has been talked about for the STV. And definitely with something like this, one can't stipulate penalities or the like for socking or such (I think I'll need to check what the STV poll has listed there, as any usual violations of socking or the like should be dealt with by normal means and not specially called out). While I appreciate Evertype's boldness to move it forward, I think there just needed to be a bit more discussion about it to make sure that's the way to resolve what "(xxx)" choices were to appear on the main STV poll. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, you said you wanted a 7-day poll that ended 1 July. I posted this at 1900, since there were only 5 hours left to let that time schedule happen. It is now 22:45, so there is 1:15 left in order to give you your 7-day window and end on 1 July. I know this is not the community poll, but it did not seem to me that is should only be limited to the few people who visit this page. Do what you want with it. I guess your choices are to cancel it or it let it run. If you cancel it, we're just going to have to run it again anyway. The VOTING looks to be within expected parameters. You are going to have to make the executive decision here. But I suspect that cancelling it and re-enstating it with a few insubstantial modifications won't help this project all that much. -- Evertype·✆ 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have 19 ballots cast between 18:01 and 21:29, including many active members of this project. -- Evertype·✆ 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested (not said) that we end it by the 1st to give us a few days to keep to the week-pushed-forward schedule (eg starting STV polling on the 5th). As the vote wasn't meant to be a community-wide aspect at this point - only a means to limit what choices were to go on the STV poll since all choices would be impractical - it wasn't a demand to start the poll right away as I think we were still trying to make sure it made sense. I don't recommend stopping it - it's in progress, but the way you approached it boldly is probably a bit heavy (given the response from others); again, it was meant to be informal and thus issuing warnings about banning and the like was probably out of place. I strongly recommended that, presuming nothing changes the July 5th proposed starting date for the poll that either we decide who will announce it across the approved areas (listed above) (it doesn't have to be me that posts it, but let's make sure everyone agrees abou this). and what that announcement will contain. I appreciate the move to try to keep this effort going to find a resolution but let's not messy it up by jumping too fast. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between "suggested" and "said" is a bit beyond subtle, and I think can only be differentiated by means of mind-reading. Having said that... the section on sanctions and all I took directly from Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. I didn't make it up on my own (though I dialled down "ban for a year" to "ban for a month" which I saw was confirmed an option (somewhere on this page). If the section on sanctions is really all that objectionable, it had better be addressed with regard to Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. -- Evertype·✆ 07:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask a question about this? Am I correct in my interpretation that all these are proposed titles for the article about the state (i.e. the one currently at Republic of Ireland). I have heard it suggested that Ireland (country) or Ireland (nation) could be used as the title on an article for the entire Island (the one currently at Ireland). Before I express my preference, I just want to make sure I know what articles these titles are being proposed for. Thanks. Rockpocket 00:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was only supposed to be for what the "(xxxx)" in "Ireland (xxxx)" would be should that be the option of where to move the 26 county country to. This has no impact on the other possible naming schemes (including if the option to have one article about all things Ireland (island and country)). --MASEM (t) 00:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thats great. Thanks. Rockpocket 00:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a new Moderator here
Masen, have you given some extra rights to Everytype, because he seems out of controal!! Tfz 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have claimed no "extra rights". Nor have I done anything to harm you, or this project, or the Wikipedia. I have set out rules for this poll which are not unreasonable, and which are on the list for the main poll. I didn't invent them. I don't have the power to enforce them either. But I am within my rights to announce them. If you violate the rules, and an admin sanctions you, you can appeal. Easier to avoid violating them, though. -- Evertype·✆ 21:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering spoiling my vote, or not voting at all. Btw pollcat(pun) was collective, I said "we". Tfz 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you want. I don't know what would satisfy you. It's a few hours into the poll and plenty of people seem happy to vote in it.
Evertype you have put forward wording that was not agreed too, and said it was. You attached comments to the poll options which were not agreed to and are totally misleading and based on nothing more than WP:OR. --Domer48'fenian' 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have I? I see a number of people happy to vote on it. "Totally misleading" is hyperbole. The comments were reviewed by several people and no one raised any objections. I pointed out explicitly that I attempted to make some neutral links to related topics in case people wanted to know what the terms meant. There's nothing WP:OR about that. It's just some wikilinks. COMPLAIN TO ARBCOM IF YOU WANT. I am satisfied that I, who initated the Request for Arbitration, have made a postiive contribution here. -- Evertype·✆ 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The comments were reviewed by several people" Where? --Domer48'fenian' 22:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above. What is your problem? Vote. Don't vote. Do what you want. So far, people are happy to vote. -- Evertype·✆ 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry can't see it, could I have a diff please? --Domer48'fenian' 22:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't see it, could I have a diff please? Thanks,--Domer48'fenian' 12:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.". See also Republic.
Were was this agreed too? They are very misleading and none of them are supported by sources. Please provide the diff's thanks. --Domer48'fenian' 13:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just provided them. They clearly show editors saying "yes, that's fine" or equivalent to the proposed poll including the text. DrKiernan (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No DrKiernan you did not provided them, but that was no reason for you to be uncivil. I asked a very reasonable question. --Domer48'fenian' 13:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find these two notices by Everytype particularly outrageous [84], [85]. What has the United Kingdom to do with the renaming of RoI article above and beyond any other state? Imagine it was the other way around, that the UK was being renamed at Wikipedia. Would Ireland editors get some extra territorial privilege and sway over the outcome? No, and I wouldn't expect it either. This is a violation of the Ireland's sovereignty from the United Kingdom. Tfz 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype's actions were entirely proper. Trying to derail the poll train at this point is not going to work. If one is ill, it is better to swallow a unpalatable pill than to spit it out. DrKiernan (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DrKiernan did you even read Masen's response above, Evertype's actions were entirely improper? Railroading this process through at this point is going to work, because both Admin's and Editors refuse to swallow a unpalatable pill, that they are going against every policy of the project so why not just say that, spit it out so editors like me who do still have confidence in the project are not seen to be wasting their time. Tell editors like me that trying to derail the poll train at this point is not going to work, because wiki policies are out of the question when there is a POV to push and the numbers to back it up. Explain how when both Admin's and Editors set out to derail the alternative process to polling I put forward, not one of you, including Masen said a word. --Domer48'fenian' 08:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only person who derailed your alternative processes was you, with your usurpation of moderator privileges on your proposal pages and imposition of selective censorship. As a direct result, people voted with their feet and stayed away. Now, do you or do you not accept the Arbcom decision that this whole could be achieved through consensus or majority decision? Do you or do you not accept that 75% of editors are now in favour of a final STV poll? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I unsuccessfully tried to put a minimum of 150 main article edits for the last six months, before users be allowed to vote, that would have taken a very sizable chunk out of the 75%. Content editors should have more sway, than the other accounts, imo. Tfz 10:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, my alternative process has not been derailed despite the attempts of both Editors and Admin’s and the blind indifference of the one moderator. Rockpocket an Admin, edit warred [86][87] to keep their snide remarks in ignoring the block on the Proposal page to again to insert them. That they tried to suggest that they were not aware the page had been protected is laughable when they went on to say "even if [they] had known it was protected [they] would have still made the edit." To then say that "once the page is unprotected [they'll] be withdrawing both [their] !vote and [their] comments" " and that they would encourage everyone else" into withdrawing their vote, saying that “lack of engagement will doom it much quicker and with much less drama than any official sanction” and so scupper my attempt to move things forward show how hollow their arguments are and disruptive there actions were.
Likewise SarekOfVulcan edit warred on the talk page to put comments back in the inane comments: [88], [89], [90], and on the proposal page, [91], [92] and then protecting the page which Rock ignored. It is wrong for an Admin to use their tools in an edit war, they were warned about this already so they know they should not have been the one to protect the page. Now in case you forgot, what about your attempts to disrupt the proposal:Bastun edit warring to make a point when the question I asked was clear an unambiguous. [93], [94] and had to use incivility to make a point.Comments which were removed from the proposal page, and added and commented upon on the talk page. [95][96][97][98]. None of which addressed why they opposed the proposal and ignored the guidelines. Comments removed from the talk page, [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]. Notice how no mention was made on two of the comments which are from editors who agree with me. Now we know the moderator did not miss all of this going on, but did manage to miss the whole discussion were I did tell editors about my proposal. Now despite all of this my proposal is still there.--Domer48'fenian' 12:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, you simply don't get it. You are 6 months too late to the party. Many many people have already been down the arbcom advised route, and with all good intentions first attempted a solution without polling, using discussion based methods and policy based argument to solve this dispute, every single approach has either crashed and burned, died a death due to apathy, or been derailed by the same repetitive bullcrap going unmoderated, because the moderators and some of the more vocal participants did not simply understand that moderators were there to control behaviour, and not rule on content, or make the decisions for the community (and that ridiculous notion has been a common derailing mechanism). So we are moving to the endgame, where most people now simply accept that without something so concrete as a poll, whose results will be, per the arbcomm case, binding for two years, this dispute will never end. Me myself, after putting forward proposals for a properly timetable and moderated discussion based system for producing a solution after the arbcom decision, I simply gave up on this particular IECOLL page when it became clear the definition of 'moderator' was not understood by either the moderators or the regular combatants, there was no agreed or even understood structure or timetable, and we were just in for more of the same, albeit just harder to follow with numerous sub-pages and triangles and all that jazz, while others I am sure at the end of the arbcom case decided to merely ignore any discussion phase, content to wait for the inevitable poll. But since Masem has come on board, it seems to me that most people who participated in IECOLL and still believed a discussion solution was still possible, having seen his outside assessment of how its going, are now content with the analysis and suggestion put forward by him, which is unfortunately, a poll. Redking's infinite reposting, 'I didn't hear that' and 'this is all a ruse' shenanigans, and Tfz's repeated withdrawals and his latest statement of outrage and call for Ireland to withdraw its Wikipedia ambassador, are but mere sideshows, the poll train is indeed leaving the station, arguably with their help in pushing it by contributing to the kilobytes of irrelevanvce to the discussion venue. Get on it or don't, it's your choice. I am personally not interested in any discussion venue you intend to self moderate. Setting up a process only you intend to moderate is only going to turn everybody off, because, certainly in my case, you have made it impossible for me to point out on that page that you are selectively quoting my solution (last I looked, my comment had disappeared but your explanation remained), and I am sure for example a general comment on it from me that you have not correctly described the 'China' solution in the way its been described here, would not last very long without being moved/refactored. MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diff's please for the "solution without polling, using discussion based methods and policy based argument to solve this dispute"? You mention "every single approach has either crashed and burned, died a death due to apathy" I'm not asking for every single one, just the ones based on policy based argument? By the way, if the process I suggest is accepted, I'll not be the one to moderate it, and your inane comments will still be removed. Misrepresenting an editors comments is considered a personal attack, and a bit like your comments here. P.S agree with you on the moderator and the bullcrap going unmoderated. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 16:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Misrepresenting an editors comments is considered a personal attack". That's good to know, because you are misrepresenting me on your proposal page. "Inane comments" also sounds like a sleight. As for diffs, you can go fish, I don't need to provide supporting diffs for everything I say on a talk page, this is not ANI. But by all means, if any body bar yourself disagrees with my recollection, they should let themselves be heard. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like everyone else around here, ask for a supporting diff and all you get more inane comments. --Domer48'fenian' 17:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any time you ask for anything and anyone offers it to you, you respond with yet another passive-aggressive request. Or at least you sure seem to. Enjoying all of this, are you? Feel as though this is a productive use of everyone's time? My stars but I would rather be editing Rivers in Ireland or Gaelic script or something real. -- Evertype·✆ 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for the supporting diff on which Ireland it is you want a diff on to show it's ambiguous... But really, what Mick said. The only person stopping your proposal from being discussed was you - you drove editors from the page. Repeating yourself ad nauseum, your constant demands, and accusations of snide remarks and inanity while doing exactly the same yourself - well, it's doing a better job than I ever could of making sure your proposal isn't adopted. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, proving my point, ask a reasonable question, and all you get is inane comments! Bastun I've illustrated your disruptive editing above, so you are still unable to answer a very, very simple question, "Provide a Diff for the discussion were consensus was reached that "Ireland" is ambiguous. Both MASEM & myself can't find it." If you are unable to do that, provide a source that says "Ireland" is ambiguous? --Domer48'fenian' 18:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, this is the type of insistence that is derailing the process. Common sense: we are never going to find a source that says "Ireland" is an ambiguious term, but the fact that we are here at this project means it is. In fact, that's a Finding of Fact by ArbCom, so trying to retread over that is ignoring the ArbCom case completely - we need to move well past that point, even if you feel it is not justified.
I know you're arguing that we need to build consensus on solutions that meet policy, but I've read everything and every solution proposed is built that way - the problem is that we have conflicting sources and states of mind, so normal resolve of those has not occurred. After 6 months of the same wheeling-discussion in trying to come to a single solution that has lead nowhere tells me its time to abandon hope of a consensus and seek another mechanic that the parties are agreeable to to resolve this, in which case seems to be polling. Your solution is part of that poll so it is not being ignored, just the push to drive consensus on it. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun is do you really know what you are 'talking' about, or are you just pretending? Tfz
Masem since you have ignored my post above, and the disruptive editing of this process, suggesting that my insistence is derailing the process is a bit rich! Now first of, Finding of Fact, is a section head title nothing more. Under the title "Locus and state of dispute" ArbCom outline the nature of the dispute and nothing more. You have ignored the ArbCom case completely and the Principles they set out. You have allowed incivility and disruption illustrated above. You can not provide one diff to support your contension that fact and policy based discussions have been attempted. To come along here now and suggest that my insistence on editors providing diff's that support there actions and comments is derailing the process is a joke. Were was it agreed to start this poll, were was the wording of the notice agree, were was it agreed to post it over the whole community, were was it agreed to add the misleading comments under each option, were was the options agreed to. Now were are the other Mods? You say "We are never going to find a source that says "Ireland" is an ambiguious term" well why are we having this poll and discussion. Now you show me were you have suggested an alternative to polling, or show me were a policy based discussion was tried and failed. --Domer48'fenian' 19:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Place holder for Masem's reply)
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Ireland as "The name of a classical scholarship at Oxford University founded in 1825 by John Ireland, D.D. (1761-1842), of Oriel College, Dean of Westminster." Here are various citations, NONE of which mean EITHER the island or the Irish state. Note that one citation is by Oscar Wilde. 1861 J. A. SYMONDS Let. 13 Mar. (1967) I. 282 We hope to secure the Ireland too this Term. If we do not, we shall be in a poor way. 1877 O. WILDE Let. Mar. (1962) 32, I have been in for ‘the Ireland’ and of course lost it: on six weeks' reading I could not expect to get a prize for which men work two and three years. 1951 M. KENNEDY Lucy Carmichael II. 80 He really is clever; he got the Ireland or the Hertford, I forget which, at Oxford. 1953 E. BARKER Age & Youth II. iii. 317 A year later, when I tried my luck for the Ireland, the king of classical scholar~ships, I had less confidence. 1972 Oxf. Univ. Cal. 1972-73 216 Dean Ireland's Scholarship... Value: £120. Awarded annually in Michaelmas Term after an examination... The examination is the same as that for the Craven Scholarships and the person elected to the Ireland Scholarship is, if not already a Craven Scholar, elected to the first Craven Scholarship. I hereby declare that on foot of this precise definition, the word "Ireland" to be polyvalent, that is, to be ambiguous. -- Evertype·✆ 19:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was uncivil. It was an ad-hominem attack. But what is your point? That the word "Ireland" is not ambiguous? It sure seems polyvalent to me. It means an island, a state, and, evidently, is the name of a scholarship. -- Evertype·✆ 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you picked me up wrongly, I was referring to the convoluted explanation offered. One of my cohorts is an Ireland, and I don't think he competes for the name. You forgot to include him. It made me laugh. Tfz 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were enjoying your outrage. -- Evertype·✆ 20:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly I don't get sad, even when outrageous things happen. It's just a hobby with me, but I do like a certain "professionalism" to be employed. Discussion, citations, and elimination are the better resources to be used in a case like this. Polling is only a measure of the most popular pov, that's all it is. There are essays on NPOV here, and they are here primarily to help with discussion and resolution, not polls. Tfz 20:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype on the section for polling options there are a number of comments posted under each option such as:
The diffs were given to you above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a diff supporting the assertion these are "very misleading" thanks. Alternatively a diff for consensus that they are very misleading will do thanks. Rockpocket 20:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well yet another inane responce Evertype, so I put the poll and the comments together to make it a bit handy for you. Now DrKiernan above gave these diff's [105][106][107][108][109] none of which address the question. So were was this agreed to? Rock, I'll do one better, I'll place citation tags on the comments and you can provide the references. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. All the comments are based on WP:OR. --Domer48'fenian' 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point, Domer, is that you are quick to demand citations for every single talk-page assertion you disagree with, and then claim the statement to be invalid when none are provided. However, you make plenty of unsupported assertions yourself (such as those statements "are very misleading"). You can't have it both ways. If you think every single statement on a talk page requires a citation, then stop making unsupported claims yourself. Its smacks of hypocrisy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Rockpocket 23:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs were given to him above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs were given to her above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs were given to me above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs were given to us above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs were given to them above by DrKiernan. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That should cover it. -- Evertype·✆ 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An absurd responce to a reasonable question. --Domer48'fenian' 23:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have been given the diffs. You have also repasted your question over and over again, pasting in the text over and over again. "Response" is spelled with two s's. Your question has been answered. -- Evertype·✆ 23:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You like most editors here have perfectly illustrated how disruptive editing has been allowed to continue on this whole talk page. How reasonable questions are stonewalled, undermining both the project and the editors to drive home a POV laden process. You have more than played your part in exposing this, and for that you should be thanked. --Domer48'fenian' 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to believe that Wikipedia is an anarchy, no law nor order, with "laws made on the hoof". I too am still waiting for the citation that Ireland is ambiguous. It seems to be the case with a bunch of editors, that if thy can claim that often enough like a mantra, or affirmation, that it may become true in the minds of other editors. Wikipedia is nose-diving fast and is looking very shabby and amateurish, imo. Mob rule rules the day. Masen will have to get a grip on a certain editor who is making up consensus, as he sees fit. Now we see maneuverings to the effect that if the "right" choice is chosen in the poll, then only that will be offered in the main poll. But if the "wrong" one is chosen, then the first three will be presented again in the main poll. What a mess! Tfz 00:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, Tfz. We have had this discussion over and over and over. What exactly are you asking for? You want a source that states, parrot like, "Ireland is ambiguous"? You are probably not going to get one, but does that mean it is not ambiguous? Of course not. You and Domer appear to misunderstand what we mean by verifiability.
"Ambiguity" is only a word that describes the property of something being interpreted in more than one way. So what we are really stating is that the name "Ireland" can be used to represent different things and therefore can be interpreted in more than one way. Now, to most of us on this page, the ambiguity is so self evident that requesting a source for it appears to be purposefully pedantic. But it really isn't difficult to provide one: See the opening lines in A Country by any other Name, Mary Daly, Journal of British Studies, Jan 2007 volume 46 number 1 for a perfectly coherent description of the ambiguity of the term "Ireland".
So, if its the term "ambiguity" that is bothering you, lets forget it and instead ask, are you satisfied with the verification of the fact that "Ireland" can be used to refer to different things? If so, than you are - by the very meaning of the term - acknowledging its ambiguity. Even if you cannot accept this, then that leaves you in a minority of two, because it is perfectly understandable to everyone else who has commented here. Rockpocket 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote just a few sections from that entire paper which reinforce that ambiguity (that "Ireland" can be verifiably used to refer to different things)
Ireland is the name of an island in the North Atlantic. Ireland is also the name of a state, comprising roughly three‐quarters of that island.
This explicitly states that Ireland can refer to different things, which is the meaning of the word "ambiguous". This is the opening sentence of the entire paper and really couldn't make the ambiguity of the term any more distinct.
In 1953 the Government Information Bureau issued a directive ...[that] whenever the name of the state was mentioned in an English language document, Ireland should be used. If it was necessary to make it clear that the reference was to the area of the twenty‐six counties, for example, in statistical returns, then either “Ireland (exclusive of the Six Counties)” or “Ireland,” with the word followed by an explanatory asterisk or footnote should be used.
This section demonstrates that the ambiguity of the term "Ireland" was recognized by Government itself. Note also how the Bureau, while understandably insisting "Ireland" be used as the name for the state, was quite happy to use a descriptive bracket to distinguish the state from the entire island. This is exactly what is being proposed to deal with the ambiguity here!
The use of Ireland to refer to the state is not universal... Sinn Féin refers to the “26 County State” and the “Six County State,” reserving “Ireland” for the entire island.
Again, an explicit statement that Ireland can refer to different things, which is the meaning of the word "ambiguous". Moreover, in this case it isn't the nasty imperial Brits that is making the distinction, it is Sinn Féin.
So, given this, are you "still waiting for the citation that Ireland is ambiguous"? Rockpocket 01:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rockpocket, quote -You want a source that states, parrot like, "Ireland is ambiguous"? You are probably not going to get one,, that probably irons that one out. Some people want to make it ambiguous for various reasons. What I object to most is, editors who claim to be in the "know", continually repeating ad infinitum that it is ambiguous, when clearly it is not to many people. Entirely subjective, and unnecessary. Tfz 10:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrate for us, please, that the word "Ireland" is not ambiguous. This is not subjective. Ireland is the name of an island. Ireland is the name of a state which occupies much but not all of the island named Ireland. Ireland is a family name. Ireland is the name of an academic scholarship. Ireland is the name of a town in Indianna. Ireland is the name of a town in West Virginia. There are six of statements here. Each of them is verifiable. They do not any of them mean the same thing. A family name is not an island. A town in West Virginia is not a member state of the European Union. This isn't original research, either. So, please, demonstrate for us how the word "Ireland" is not ambiguous. -- Evertype·✆ 11:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make my point quite well, Tfz. The intended meaning of "Ireland" can be entirely subjective (which is, of course, a characteristic of its ambiguity). Whats important is that we can verify that it is subjective, as demonstrated by the sources you asked for. Rockpocket 20:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather leave some of this stuff to the philosophers, my training is economics. Speaking here in relativities and not in absolutes. Ireland is no more ambiguous than Wales (disambiguation), or England (disambiguation), etc etc. Ireland a sovereign country covers 85% of an island called Ireland. There is only one country in the world called Ireland, and there is only one island in the world called Ireland. When talking about countries there is no disambiguation, and when talking about islands there is no disambiguation, when talking about people, there could be hoards of Irelands, or Englands, or Wales. Cannot remember Jimbo Wales being disambiguated with the ancient country of Wales. Most educated people have no problems understanding these things, and even young children too, I can vouch for that. Tfz 21:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I agree with your logic here, and you have also hit upon the key issue in a very succinct way: Ireland a sovereign country covers 85% of an island called Ireland. There is only one country in the world called Ireland, and there is only one island in the world called Ireland. When talking about countries there is no disambiguation, and when talking about islands there is no disambiguation The "problem" (for want of a better term) is this: at Wikipedia generally write articles about islands and the countries on them independently of each other. In doing so, we need to disambiguate for technical reasons (while most educated people may have no problems understanding these things, our database cannot). The alternative is that we don't distinguish between the island and the state in an article title, the result being that we have a single article for two overlapping entities (island and state). Now those are both viable options, and one is no more inherently "correct" than the other. I, personally, favor two articles because its consistent with how we deal with other countries that are on islands (see Hispaniola and Haiti, for example). If that is your preference, then disambiguation is a technical necessity. I appreciate this isn't a perfect solution. If you prefer the second option (i.e. Domer's merge proposal), then the disambiguation is not required. This is also not a perfect solution. Unfortunately deciding between these comes down to balancing Wikipedia's guidelines and policies against each other. There is no right or wrong answer, only interpretations. Unless you are seriously trying to argue that island = state, then demanding references is pointless, it will not resolve this dilemma. All we can do is explain and justify our personal preference and then respect that others may have a differing interpretation. I hope you are able to do that, and I urge you to put forward your preference so that it can be included in the community poll. Rockpocket 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a viable alternate view, which many people hold. That the country of Ireland covers the whole of Ireland, and the country and the island are synonymous with eachother. That's probably the truest logic of all, in that Ireland became divided, and some day unite again, it must. Travelling around Ireland this is not difficult to understand, finding that almost all folk, both North and South, see that as the future. Not today, but that that eventuality will come about. Tfz 01:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly a viable view with regards to the "country" of Ireland (though not currently a verifiable one with regards to the modern sovereign state, at least according to its own Constitution). I don't have an issue with that as a proposal to be put to the community, but we would probably need some definition of what the "country" includes in this sense and also what we would do about the state, which would still need an article and hence a title). What I'm trying to do, though, is get away from the wiki-lawyering of the last few weeks (whether Ireland is "ambiguous" or not) and promote that idea that our moderator has been trying to explain. This is really about different interpretations of how we organize our encyclopaedia. That all of the options on the table are viable, and that none are inherently more or less viable than any other. That demanding sources for every statement of preference is pointless at this point. We tried to resolve this by discussion and compromise, but were unable to form a consensus, so now we are left with an STV. The beauty of of STV is that it will likely provide us with the compromise option. And, in a case where there are no right or wrongs, that is probably the best outcome we can hope for. I hope you will join me in engaging in this process fully, and robustly argue your preferred solution, while also respecting that others have an equally viable alternative that they might prefer. Rockpocket 01:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. -- Evertype·✆ 08:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rock still trying to peddle your WP:SYN. Lets see what you left out: The British government would not use the term “Ireland” in any official document, according to Daly, until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which included an undertaking by the Irish government to delete Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. Britain’s refusal to use the constitutional title of the Irish state, and its efforts to persuade other nations to adopt a similar practice, can be interpreted, Daly says, as an effort to exercise a residual authority over independent Ireland. Britain appeared to have gone to significant lengths, she says, to stop international organizations from using the name Ireland to designate the twenty six county state, and that this was often in response to pressure from the Northern Ireland government.[1] Now I don't need to interpret what Daly says, but you do.
I'm afraid you are going to have to interpret what Daly says, because I have no idea what relevance that quote has to this discussion. As far as I can tell, it informs us that the British Government refused to use "Ireland" to refer to the state. So what? How does that show that the term is not ambiguous (which is what you seem to be arguing). Your second screed is even less relevant to this discussion. Your proposal is of interest to nobody but you, so how about your stop beating that particular dead horse. I'm beginning to wonder if you have a few stock phrases that you cut and paste in a random order in response to every comment, because you really are not making any sense to me. Rockpocket 20:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Peddling his synthesis"? Bosh and tosh. Rockpocket merely shows us that he can use the English language like a person, not like a robit. But never mind that. What is it you think that "Ireland" means, Domer-lad, if it is unambiguous? What is your source that the word "Ireland" is unambiguous? To put it another way, What is your source that the word "Ireland" means only one thing? When you answer this perfectly reasonable question, please respond also to the definition I gave above, from the Oxford English Dictionary, defining "Ireland" as the name of an academic scholarship. Thanks very much. -- Evertype·✆ 08:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You put out the poll over the head of Masem, and the agreement of an unrepresentative group of editors will not change that. You have failed to provide diff's were the poll options were agreed, were the comments under the options were agreed, with no agreement to put it to the whole community, including a warning on sanctions which could not be enforced. Now I've acted in a reasonable and calm manner, despite your POV pushing agenda. You reaction to my reasonable questions, including inane replys and now your bold texting and condensending attitude is the clear sign of an editor unable to support their conduct or opinions. --Domer48'fenian' 12:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This edit summary is call a personal attack and is the result of not having anythng else to offer reasonable discussion.
Please Stop
Can we take a break from arguing, please?
If Evertype has overstepped the mark by starting the poll running in appropriately, then Masem will, no doubt, come along and say so. However, it looked to me as though consensus was emerging for the poll, including from Masem. Perhaps it was imprudent to start it in quite such a hurry, but what's done is done. Domer48, you've now raised the concern that the poll was started inappropriately, you do not need to keep repeating this. I can't imagine it will be many hours until Masem surfaces here — until then, lets take a break for further argument over it. There's nothing to be gained save acrimony from an argument over it.
As to notifying involved parties to the ArbCom case, well Masem did say (in his 13:30 21 June post, above): As for individual users, the only two sets I would use are those that have been named in the ArbCom case and those that are members of this project; attempts to bring in anyone else specifically may seem to be canvasing. All such individuals have now been notified, and, unless I'm mistaken, Evertype has not notified anyone beyond that list. I'm sure he is grateful to you, Domer48, for reminding him about the list of project members.
Finally, I'm sure we don't need reminding that Masem is the only (active) moderator here. We all know that Evertype isn't, nor is Domer48, nor is Tfz, and nor am I for that matter. Obviously Evertype cannot impose a ban on anyone for disrupting the proceedings. However the ArbCom have very clearly ruled that Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process. This very clearly gives Masem authority to ban anyone for up to month if they act disruptively. Clearly I can't speak for Masem, but I find it hard to believe that confirmed sock-puppetry would be seen as anything other than disruption of a degree worthy of (at least) a significant topic ban. It doesn't seem inappropriate to remind people that Masem has been explicitly given the power to do this.
So let's calm down, please. Perhaps things haven't been handled in the most diplomatic or prudent manner, but continued arguing about it certainly isn't helping either.
Way to go, Ras! Fmph (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Way to go, Ras!" Masem responded to this issue almost an hour before Ras's post. They said there was no agreement on the notice, no agreement on the options, no agreement to put it before the whole community, and no sanctions can be placed on editors who take part in this poll. So way to go Ras, you got it wrong on all counts, likewise the cheerleading section. --Domer48'fenian'
08:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I have a diff for that please? Fmph (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh no problem, [115], [116]. See when I'm asked to provide diff's I always do! --Domer48'fenian' 12:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a poll taking place on this matter but do agree it should of been an internal matter. There was no need to flood wikipedia with messages of this mini poll. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Domer, but those diffs do not show what you said. I'd say you got it wrong. Fmph (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But they do show what I said, there was no agreement on any of it. --Domer48'fenian' 13:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with that assertion. There's a big difference between "no agreement" and "Masem didn't say 'Go'", which is what I think those diffs show. Obviously it's a matter of interpretation, which most things are. Fmph (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, to clear up the matter of interpretation, please show us were the agreement was reached on:
the notice
the options
putting it before the whole community
the sanctions
the comments under each option
Diff's for them should clear up matter of interpretation. thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 14:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. If you expect that there should be explicit diffs for each of those, then you living in cloud cuckoo land. However I'll just refer you back to the diff you gave me where Masem quite clearly states " There was some agreement for it, ...". Thats my point. You say there was no agreement, yet the diff you use says there was some. The diff you gave does not show what you are asserting it shows. Fmph (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no Diff's for each of those, so no matter of interpretation thanks. Masem quite clearly states On the Poll and the options:"There was some agreement for it, but I wasn't expecting it to be started as fast as it was... there just needed to be a bit more discussion about it to make sure that's the way to resolve what "(xxx)" choices were to appear" "I suggested (not said) that we end it by the 1st... it wasn't a demand to start the poll right away as I think we were still trying to make sure it made sense." On putting it before the community: "it was only meant to be limited to this project" " the vote wasn't meant to be a community-wide aspect at this point" "(it doesn't have to be me that posts it, but let's make sure everyone agrees abou this). and what that announcement will contain." On the sanctions: "one can't stipulate penalities or the like for socking" "it was meant to be informal and thus issuing warnings about banning and the like was probably out of place." My comments stand, thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 14:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. "So there is no Diff's for each of those, so no matter of interpretation thanks." - Have you got a diff for where I said that. No? It's just your interpretation? That's fine then. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. Fmph (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. Don't worry if you can't find them. I really didn't expect you to. Fmph (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another inane responce, this is becoming the norm. Don't worry though, your inability to support you opinion is shared by a number of editors. --Domer48'fenian' 21:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. I haven't tried and failed like you. Fmph (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. I disagree. I'd call it accurate. Fmph (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please show us were the agreement was reached on:
the notice
the options
putting it before the whole community
the sanctions
the comments under each option
And find out what is ment by indent. --Domer48'fenian' 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an end to this soap-opera, folks? It's getting nauseating. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Just as soon as you show us where ...
Masem responded to this issue almost an hour before Ras's post saying:
there was no agreement on the notice, and
there was no agreement on the options, and
there was no agreement to put it before the whole community, and that
no sanctions can be placed on editors who take part in this poll
And don't use the previous diffs you tried to slip in, cause they don't show that. Fmph (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An absurd responce to a reasonable question. I've said quite clearly there was no agreement, now show us were this agreement was reached. Glad you copped on about the indent! Another inane and absurd responce, will more than confirm for me and everyone else that no such agreement was reached, and illustrates the type of disruptive editing which has been allowed to continue throughout this whole talk page. --Domer48'fenian' 23:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. That clarifies matters a lot. Just to confirm then, you are not saying that Masem said there was no agreement, is that correct? Just that you said it? That's fine then. I'll withdraw my request for diffs. Thanks. Fmph (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN THE FRACKING DIFFS, DOMER. THEY WERE GIVEN TO YOU ABOVE, BY DR KIERNAN. -- Evertype·✆ 08:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You put out the this poll over the head of Masem, with nothing more than the agreement of an unrepresentative group of editors and the diff's above will not change that. You have failed to provide diff's were the poll options were agreed, were the comments under the options were agreed, with no agreement to put it to the whole community, including a warning on sanctions which could not be enforced. Now I've acted in a reasonable and calm manner, despite your POV pushing agenda. You reaction to my reasonable questions, including inane replys, your bold texting, condensending attitude, posting diff's which don't address the questions all over the place and personal attacks is the clear sign of an editor unable to support their conduct or opinions has to resort to this type of actions. --Domer48'fenian' 12:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or in other words, we agree to disagree. Fmph (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ive been away for a day so ive missed what has been happening, but i will say the poll is a very good idea and a great practice run for the main poll which will be happening at some stage in the future. It seems to be going rather well and shows overwhelming support for Ireland (state) being the option in the future poll and not Ireland (country) or Ireland (republic) etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again I suggest that we not obsess about the way the ballot is going. It has six more days, and it would be a bad idea for anyone to be publishing a running tally of what is winning and what is not. Tally for yourself/yourselves if you wish, but please let's avoid listing specifically what has support and what has not, OK? -- Evertype·✆ 09:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt take someone with a calculator to look at the figures to see its clear the overwhelming support is for Ireland (state) being the option in the main vote. The vote isnt going to radically change in the next few days. I see no harm in a running commentary. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about the ongoing tally could look like a form of canvassing. There's a reason exit polls aren't allowed to be published before the election is over. I'm asking you and everyone, please, do not make tallies and publish them. -- Evertype·✆ 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flawed as the poll is, my vote went in. That's no endorsement to the preposterous way the poll was initiated. Tfz 12:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im rather disappointed, i come here saying ur poll was a good idea evertype and that its a great practice for the main poll whilst others are attacking u for setting up the poll in the way you did and yet u moan at me for simply stating an obvious fact. Again there are no rules here about not mentioning the ongoing polling results , theres no rules against talking about it on that poll page either as far as im aware. I dont see how talking about it here can be seen as Canvassing when u have already advertised the poll above and we are all involved in this process. So again.. Its quite clear from the poll so far the majority support is for Ireland (state) to be included in the main vote, ofcourse there may be a second choice aswell, but state has overwhelming support so far. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the poll was a good idea, and I am happy that you do, too. I have said, courteously, that I would like you, and me, and everyone, to refrain from doing a running commentary on what is winning and what is not, for the duration of the poll. The rationale is the same as that of the broadcasters who do not allow exit polls to be published on air until the polls close. I'm looking at the poll. I might even be totting up now and again out of interest. But I'm keeping that to myself because I think it's better practice than to keep shtum. -- Evertype·✆ 14:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you dont want to prejudge the final results, but i cant see the harm in mentioning theres one way ahead of all others right now. The fact the poll shows one option is clearly ahead backs up the fact the poll was a good idea. Anyway we can wait and see what happens, although sarahs question below about how many get included is an important one ive not seen answered BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you see my point. -- Evertype·✆ 14:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updating the main project page
The main IECOLL project page is now seriously out of date. I have updated the timetable to reflect the latest polling activity, but the section on "Agreed procedures and methodologies" needs to be removed. I could do a simple delete, but I think this material should be archived, and I'm not sure how to do that. Can someone do this please?
I also plan to add Evetype's subsidiary poll notice to the main page, unless anyone objects. Hallucegenia (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many of the options in the STV poll are going on to the main poll? (That's how many, not which ones:) Sarah777 (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If theres clear support for a second option that should be included, But if like at the moment we have one way ahead and several lagging behind it should just be the first included in the vote in my opinion. Maybe we could have a poll on that too? ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No way Jose. With BritishWatcher announcing the result I'm rather concerned that Ireland (country) gets through. If places like NI and Wales are "countries" I'd find it difficult to accept that Ireland isn't. To put it mildly. Sarah777 (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unpredictable as the only other location informed of the poll 'outside of Ireland' was the United Kingdom, and BI, same thing. A real insult to Irish sovereignty, in anyone's book. Tfz 14:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of Ireland is understood. Some come cheap, but others put value on themselves. Tfz 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, isn't that gnomic of you. "Some come cheap, but others put value on themselves." Does this sentence have content? By the way, you might wish to learn that "Sovereignty", except in myth, is not a person, and cannot be "insulted". -- Evertype·✆ 15:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relentless tosh, you don't give a ****, do you? Tfz 15:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About what? -- Evertype·✆ 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
e/c Was the IrlProj page not informed? RoI talkpage? Ireland talkpage? Sarah777 (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - my question answered before I asked it! I always said you were a fine fellow Bastun. Sarah777 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(doubletriple e/c) Sarah, I assume Masem will be adding up and announcing the results. Earlier he said he proposed the top three (or four in the event of a tie, which is really quite unlikely with STV) winners will get onto the poll. —ras52 (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - now I can restore my STV vote to something more sensible. Sarah777 (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm i cant see the announcment on the Irish wikipedians noticeboard, someone needs to check all of those places because it says they were told but it doesnt look like its on there. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarah: Um... thanks? :-) In fairness to BW, "calling" the result - especially when everyone can see all the ballots - isn't much different from what RTÉ and all the radio stations do with their exit polls at every election. And one thing's for sure - visible "ballot papers" and the counts are the main reason why electronic voting should never be allowed here. It's the world's greatest bloodsport! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it great fun - I wouldn't trust them anywhere near an unobservable electronic system. As for efficiency - the costs of bailing out Anglo would pay for the paper counts till the year 10,000 - by a conservative estimate. Sarah777 (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier Masem suggested three or four options, which means 9 or 12 additional choices in the main poll. I think that is too many, and I suggest two or three options, which means 6 or 9 additional choices in the poll. I take it both options are on the table. -- Evertype·✆ 15:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all likelihood, only one "(xxx)" needs to be put forward for the main ballot. If "Ireland (a)" tops the poll now then, in all likelihood, it will top the poll of "(xxx)" options in the "BIG" ballot too (regardless of whether it "wins" the full ballot or not). There is a chance that there could be a swing between the votes (e.g. this one favouring "Ireland (a)" and the "BIG" one favouring "Ireland (b)"), but the bigger the gap between 1st and 2nd place in this poll the less likely that will be. Including anything that wasn't a genuine contender for 1st place in this ballot would wasteful. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. I have not looked at the poll results so I don't know if this is the case, but if (a) clearly is the winner without applying the STV process, then it makes to only have (a) on there. If (a) only wins after a few rounds over an option (b) with the numbers being split no better than, say, 60/40, I'd recommend both options. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me to do it that way, Masem (and I haven't checked it today, so I don't know if my option is leading or not :-) ). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that since we started the poll expecting two, perhaps three options in the big poll we should stick to that unless the numbers are so overwhelming that it shows that won't be a runner. I don't like changing the rules mid-ballot. I think that detracts from our credibility. -- Evertype·✆ 18:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do we class as overwhelming, because from where im sitting the front runner has an overwhelming lead. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends (and no, I've not looked nor will look until the 1st) on the overall vote distribution. I would consider that if one option - without resolving STV, got 66% of the votes, while no other option got above 5%, that's overwhelming. But if it was the case that one option got 66% of the votes and a second option - without STV resolution, got the other 33%, that's not overwhelming. But I'm hesitant to call out exact numbers where I believe the line is drawn instead seeing exactly how the poll works. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable, although the main poll willl benefit the most from a single outcome rather than having several choices needing to be placed in the poll. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, you have tough standards. So if you were competing in a quiz of 100 questions, you got 33 questions right and your competitor got 66 questions right, you wouldn't feel "overwhelmingly" beaten? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost count on how many polls I'm participating in on this Collaboration. Anybody have a clue? GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for another post on this, but there seems to be very little comment and agreement above about if there will be statements or not for the vote options. Need more views on this matter thanks otherwise its going to push the date for the poll starting back a few days when we finally get round to debating this. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is very little likelihood of gaining consensus on what should go in each of the statements. As an alternative, perhaps editors could write their own statements in userspace and add a link to each one of them from the statements section. There may be a long list, but it would allow uninvolved voters access to something to read. Fmph (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth at least trying to see if we can get consensus. Above, it was suggested we use the 'Postition argument summaries', and it was further suggested we leave out the summaries. So each option in the final poll would essentially one or two lines saying why it should be used and one or two why it shouldn't be used. We could further refine that so that only "positive" statements (with their counterarguments, of course) were included. So "Cakes are best because they're full of sugar"/"It's been proven that too much sugar is bad for you." rather than "Noone should eat cakes because they're full of sugar, they should eat cereal instead"/"Some people are allergic to cereals." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the members want this, I could write up such statements (I'm neutral to any choice) with any necessary unbiased refinements as seen fit. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great if u have the time Masem thanks, most of the points have already been made on the link provided by Bastun, just a case of weeding out the nonsense. Pros / Cons with no summary so people can make up their own minds. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a list of pros and cons written up by Masem would be ideal. Scolaire (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol ur wasting ur time. Although i think u should of included that he keeps removing comments from pages he claims ownership over despite not being a mod. Damn dictatorship. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, way OTT kiernan, you never edit these pages anyway. Tfz 14:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz, why did you take it upon yourself to delete a word from BritishWatcher's statement? -- Evertype·✆ 14:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DrKieran, well done. -- Evertype·✆ 14:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everytype, why have you removed other editors text, here [128]. Tfz 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not text. It's bait. -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I have to agree with DrKiernan, I'm fed up with the disruption, incivility and POV pushing on this talk page, and I think DrKiernan is right, it's the best thing to do. --Domer48'fenian' 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On this talk page???? Sarah777 (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sad, different opinions aren't welcome. Tfz 16:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Different opinons is what's made this Collaboration necessary. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see some worthy admins still inhabit this website. A sign of hope, no doubt. Tfz 00:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those worthy admins said everyone should just ignore Domer. Very good advice yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's everyone's prerogative to ignore anyone they wish, I assume most here are adults. For example, I totally ignore Bastun. Now, don't ask me why, that'd be another thread. Tfz 22:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz, your accusation here that I am canvassing is unfounded. I posted to Kittybrewster's page because he made a mistake here, and I was explaining his mistake to him. Your hatred of me is misplaced, as should be obvious as Kittybrewster is unlikely to vote for my favoured option of "Ireland (country)". DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur (having looked). DrKiernan was not canvassing. -- Evertype·✆ 09:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BritishWatcher. Despite my zero input so far i would say that ignoring is the best thing you can do for now. If persistence is kept up then you can try again, with the moral high ground.Willski72 (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a wonderful collaboration page. Tfz 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In truth its to be expected. Some people will not compromise, on both sides of the divide. Its the age old problem....Willski72 (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is outrageous. I don't even like DrKiernan's preferred vote (as it's completely different from mine, heh)—but I think that he has a right to make his vote and be counted. He did not canvass. He explained the parameters of the poll to someone. I did the same thing and no one accused me of "canvassing". The accusations were in bad faith. -- Evertype·✆ 12:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (SarekOfVulcan, please do not delete my comment again. -- Evertype·✆ 18:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I don't think it was intentional. Sarek was undoing DrKiernan's removal of his own posts and your comment just sustained collateral damage. BTW, I agree with you 100% but I think it would be better without the bold.Scolaire (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. My sincere apologies, sir: I thought I had properly reviewed my edit to make sure I was only restoring DrKiernan's comments, but I obviously didn't do it properly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I popped in here expecting this collabration to be a few steps on from when last I was here. This thread for example has no real purpose other than to cause disruption and deflect away from proper discussion. I propose that any future arguments of this type be deleted or moved somewhere else for the simple reason that this page is for editors to collaborate. Jack forbes (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Descriptions of the main poll options
Whether or not provide we statements for and against each option, I think we should also provide a fuller description of each option. The current version at
User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/sandbox defines each option in terms of the existing pages, which will be confusing for editors who are not familiar with the ins and outs of the status quo. I think it would be useful to add a table to each option to illustrate what the initial text of each article would become. For instance voiting main poll Option D could appear something like this:
D: The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).
Ireland is an independent state in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign state occupies about five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned on 3 May 1921.
Ireland (island)
Ireland is the third-largest island in Europe, and the twentieth-largest island in the world.
Ireland (disambiguation)
Ireland commonly refers to: ...
This approach also has the advantage in that it illustrates what Options E (Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article) and F (A general "all-Ireland" topic) might actually say in practice.
I have cobbled together a draft of what the description might look like for each main poll option at User_talk:Hallucegenia/sandbox. The intial text for the Option E and Option F articles are taken from Tasmania and China respectively. Would this approach be helpful in the main poll? Hallucegenia (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at this the more I like it. With an STV vote - even for those familiar with STV - there is always a fear that you have voted for the wrong thing, or in the wrong order. This table shows exactly what you will be voting for when you vote for each option. Scolaire (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That method with a table and the start of the intro is very clear and we should use then, although i still feel its very important the arguments for and against must be presented along with that table BritishWatcher (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much less confusing, bravo!Willski72 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BritishWatcher, I think that arguments should not be on the poll page itself. Would we ever be able to agree on the pro- and con-arguments? It could take weeks. Having said that, apart from some small bits of formatting I think that Hallucegenia's draft makes good sense. Should I merge the two? I could do that on my own sandbox or in Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's. -- Evertype·✆ 09:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should do it at Rannṗáirtí's (ar bhosca ghainimh Rannṗáirtí?). Per BRD, if anybody has a problem with it, it can be discussed there. As regards pros and cons, Masem might still come back with a list - see above. We should leave that open for the moment. Scolaire (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, I saw this after I saw Hallucegenia's comment below, and what's done is done. It will be great if Masem comes back with a list... but I still think that arguments should be on a separate page, not on the ballot page itself. Currently I find many or most of the pro/con arguments to be POV (even for options that I happen to prefer myself). -- Evertype·✆ 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments by definition are statements of POV (= points of view). NPOV does not mean absence of POV, it means a balanced statement of differing POVs. The whole purpose of the poll is to ascertain what users think is the best option i.e. which POV they agree with. A statement of pro and con POVs can only help voters to make up their minds, surely! Scolaire (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gets my (virtually valueless) vote!Willski72 (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we're starting to draft out different versions of the main polling page, then can I suggest that sandboxes are probably not the best place? We need to keep track of changes and other contributors need to see what is going on. I hesitate to suggest it, but are we now in a postion to start building the actual polling page? We could build the voting page at, say: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll (Draft), and copy it across to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll when the vote goes live. When the results of the "Ireland (xxx)" poll are known, when we have decided which order the alternatives should be presented, and when we have decided if and where Pro's and Con's should be located, we can add them as we go. Does anyone here dare create the first draft? Hallucegenia (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on this now. -- Evertype·✆ 08:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished this draft. I took care to make sure that things lined up, that spellings were correct and consistent—no "(State)" alongside "(state)" for instance—and that the choices in the informative boxes corresponded to the change option listed. When the Poll on Ireland (xxx) ends and when the decision as to what "(xxx)" options are going to be listed on the poll, I will be happy to add them into the template. I think it will be best if I use the same method for randomizing the entries in this poll as I did for the current one. Is this agreeable? -- Evertype·✆ 09:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What should the name of the poll be? We have Poll on Ireland (xxx), where the choice is just about what Ireland (xxx) will mean. The header I took from Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's page said Poll on Ireland/Republic of Ireland. We can't use that in a URL because of the syntax of "/". How about Poll on Ireland article names? -- Evertype·✆
'Poll on Ireland article names' is clear and concise. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Anyone else? -- Evertype·✆ 11:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The poll has been running for a week now and with just 10 hours to go has attracted the sum total of 50 votes. Now, while this is enough to decide on what two (or three) options qualify for the final poll, for such a "controversial" topic that was advertised here, on all the relevant project pages, on the Ireland articles, and with a note to every participant of this project and at the Arbcom case - it's a less than whelming response. Masem, you said above that you weren't in favour of using a Watchlist hatnote to advertise the final poll. I would ask you to reconsider this (assuming there's consensus), as the last thing we want is for the final poll to take place and then to have the "losing" side claim that a low poll means that there is a lack of community consensus for whatever decision is reached. I really think it's vital that as many as possible participate. Thoughts? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think 50 !votes is pretty spectacular! How many contributors were you hoping for to consider the poll to be not low? Have we ever had 50 previously on an "Ireland" issue? --HighKing (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me a Watchlist hatnote? -- Evertype·✆ 11:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and that would turn up where? In anyone's Watchlist who is watching one of these pages? -- Evertype·✆ 12:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear at the top of very nearly everyone's Watchlist. (AIUI it is possible to opt out of the messages. My guess is that not many editors have.) Mr Stephen (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many editors will not vote simply because they don't understand the issues and complexities, so 50 'quality' votes is infinitely better than a larger random vote. It's for these reasons, and a few others, that I objected to the poll. Anyway the poll is likely to proceed irrespective. Tfz 11:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mind reading, Tfz? -- Evertype·✆ 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51 votes and counting. Will there really be a claim that a "low poll" is a lack of community consensus? I have never come across this before. What constitutes a low poll anyway? Jack forbes (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. For one thing, the poll wasn't advertised as widely as the next will be. -- Evertype·✆ 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know it seems reasonable, some will of looked at the poll and not bothered to vote because they dont support any option like that one, i wasnt going to bother voting but thought it was a good chance to practice for the real one. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Bastun canvassing for a large turnout of non-Irish editors knowing that he is likely to lose if this is restricted to those who are actually interested in the topic? And extreme results? Really? Which of the slate of options we are voting on would you regard as "extreme"? Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for "low poll"; I'd say a turnout oif 50% of the IrlProj editors would make the poll "high" enough. Sarah777 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as this is about "consensus" (allegedly) and not "majority rule" we could give ordinary editors with no history of editing Ireland-related articles one vote; Irish editors who contribute to Irish articles regularly 5 votes and regular editors of Irish articles who live in the Ireland (country) 10 votes. That seems both fair and consistent with WP:COMMONNAME to me. A "solution" forced through by a majority of non-Irish votes against a clear preference of Irish editors will have no consensus and lack legitimacy. Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's too complicated. I'm confused enough, jumpers I've gotta record my support/oppose choices again. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, take your insinuations and shove them. I'm canvassing for a large turnout because I want this to be a final consensus arrived at by the community, rather than by a handful of editors who haven't yet been driven away by bad-faith accusations. Do you want a low turnout so you can rally a few friends - apparently willing to give their addresses - on to your "side". I deliberately didn't mention the actual votes on those earlier polls, but seeing as we're now throwing mud... the first one had twelve people supporting various (six) moves and thirty-three actively in favour of the status quo. The second link shows thirty-one actively in favour of the status quo and nine supporting "another set up". The interesting thing is a large proportion of the supports for the status quo seem to have come from Irish editors. Certainly more Irish editors appear to favour the status quo than want to change it. So drop the rhetoric. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun; WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL etcetera. I'm not sure where you get the "Irish editors" tally. Are you including British folk living on the island but outside the country that the "RoI" article refers to? "final consensus arrived at by the community" is a myth - this is a vote. It is important that it isn't decided by political bias and that WP:COMMONNAME is accepted "by the community" and that Ireland is called by it's proper name - certainly no title that suggests the name of the country is "Republic of Ireland" can ever get consensus. Sarah777 (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are seeking a "compromise" here; the status quo isn't a compromise. Sarah777 (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no. We are seeking a consensus. All the move requests over the years were considered to be unfair because they required a two-thirds majority to overturn the status quo. Now we finally have a procedure by which it will be changed with a simple majority using proportional representation, if that is the consensus. If the consensus is in favour of the status quo, then the status quo remains. Either way, we all keep our lips buttoned for two years from the day the consensus is enacted. Our concern must be to ensure that the result is a fair reflection of the views of all - Irish, British, American, Australian, African and Asian - not to stack the votes in favour of any one option. Scolaire (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Sarah, you don't get to decide what is and isn't acceptable - the community does. My definition of Irish is as per the Irish constitution, I don't know or care what yours is. But as Scolaire points out, nationality is irrelevant in this anyway. Any editor (with an account older than June 1st) can vote. That's one, unweighted vote. Your apology for breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL above is noted and accepted, though you should have thrown WP:AGF in there too. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Draft of main poll
We now have a draft of a possible version of the main poll at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll (Draft). To help structure the discussion about this draft, I have taken the liberty of setting out below the main areas that we will need to discuss. If I've missed anything out, then please just add them to this list.
Unless anyone prefers another approach, I will create a discussion topic thread later today for each of these topics. Hallucegenia (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done this. Most of the comments already in this paragraph seemed to go best into the Pro's and Con's section, so I put them there. Hope that's OK with the various authors; please undo if I've got it wrong.... Hallucegenia (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The poll is looking good, i like the shape / layout etc. Just need agreement on the pros and cons for each of the options as far as i can see. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that having pros and cons on the ballot itself could be considered a kind of canvassing. I would be supportive of a link to a separate page outlining pros and cons, but have yet to see an argument for putting it on the same page. Also I'd like to see Masem's draft before agreeing to anything.... -- Evertype·✆ 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the arguments for and against the options should be on the same page because people who may not be aware of the "controversy" may just come along and vote for 'obviously it should be option x', possibly without even realising that there are issues around the naming of Ireland articles. I'll avoid the stereotypes ;-) But I'm sure you know what I mean. Including the pros and cons on the main page means that there's an increased chance the voter will think about their choice(s) rationally. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with putting them on the main page. But i would suggest that they are put underneath the actual poll with a clear distinction between them so that people do not become confused.Willski72 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no pros and cons, period, the wording of any listing would be problematic in the extreme. Let the poll speak for itself, and possibly link to all previous discussions, for a laugh. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me this is a strong vote not to have pros and cons on the main page, at the very least. -- Evertype·✆ 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My view is this: everybody who's discussing this is intending to vote. I'm guesing that all, or nearly all, know how you're going to vote. But how do you know? Is it because you've been reading the arguments for the last three weeks or three years? I imagine so. Would your vote be more valuable if you hadn't read it? Hardly! So why do some of you not want uninvolved users to read the arguments - on the poll page - before voting? This isn't like sticking a pin in the Grand National field to decide who to back. We're looking for informed opinion here. So let's put the arguments on the top of the page, and let our voters know what it is they're voting for. Scolaire (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. My main concern is that a preponderance of UK !voters that haven't been following this discussion will result in a Status Quo. Don't forget, under current UK legislation, the name of the state is Republic of Ireland, and a lot of UK editors will be used to hearing this on the BBC, etc, because that's OK there. Just not everywhere else... --HighKing (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns are not my concerns. What I want to see is a fair and durable result based on consensus. If that result is Republic of Ireland then so be it. I have no interest in rigging this vote - quite the reverse. Scolaire (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this poll is going to be a vote, not a !vote. Scolaire (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've used Hallucegenia's "embed" option here. Scolaire (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awful! It is already difficult enough for people to work out their preferences using STV, and then with the added box showing the implications of the change. To add in a list of arguments inside the ballot is a very bad idea. The very top italic paragraph can point to a page where there are arguments. People could even open it up in a separate tab or window. But please let the ballot itself be simple. -- Evertype·✆ 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ballot itself is not simple! Probably the great majority of voters have never had experience of STV before. Even those of us who are used to it are accustomed to writing our numbers against a candidate name, party name and photograph, not messing about with curly brackets. More info on the top will make it easier, not more difficult, for all of us. You say: "It is already difficult enough for people to work out their preferences using STV...". but how are people to work out their preferences if not by weighing up the options, the implications and the arguments? Scolaire (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding in these controversial (and as yet unwritten) statements will surely not make the ballot any easier. We've just had a practice round with a format that worked. It's not wise to do what you propose. What I mean that it's difficult enough to work out their preferences means "it's hard enough to make sure that A is A and B is B -- without adding in lines of contentious text making each of the paragraphs even longer. As it is we're likely to be adding a whole set of options under "(xxx)". I object to having this material put onto the ballot itself. I do not object to making it available to voters via a prominent wikilink at the top of the ballot, but just like in a REAL election, the arguments need to be in a separate place from the ballot. On this point you won't find me compromising. Ill help to improve the pros/cons, as neutrally as possible. I'll be as accommodating as anything. But I will oppose strenuously putting the arguments on the actual ballot itself, because I believe it's fundamentally wrong to do that. -- Evertype·✆ 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Evertype. They should be on another page and linked to if necessary.MITH 20:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have every right to oppose it, strenously or otherwise. But please remember that, however much work you have put into this lately, you have no authority and you cannot dictate how things will be done. You can only suggest like the rest of us. I have stated my case and I am going to let it rest at that. I suggest you do the same. Scolaire (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything about dictating. Hyperbole! But I don't believe there will be consensus to mix arguments into the ballot. I suppose the next thing to do is try to wrestle with some sort of neutral description of pros and cons. I hope Masem has been able to work on that. -- Evertype·✆ 21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my considerable ignorance but is the ballot classed as the whole voting page or just a part of the whole voting page?Willski72 (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First impressions: the arguments are fair and they are well written, but for me they are a little too general as a guide to ranking the options below them. Ideally, I would have specific pro and con arguments for each of the options A to F (or A to I or A to L as applicable). Failing that I would at least divide the arguments into "names for the island article" and "names for the political entity article" sections. Scolaire (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a tally and put the results here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of Ireland (xxx) Poll results and implications for the final poll
So we have three options.
As Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid has said, the runaway winner is F, Ireland (state). We could just go with that. On the other hand, we did enter into this assuming that we would take two options, possibly three.
In the run-off for two candidates, we saw F, Ireland (state), get elected on the first count and it took till the fifth count before A, Ireland (country) was elected.
In the run-off for three candidates, we saw F, Ireland (state), get elected on the first count; A, Ireland (country) was elected on the second count, and it took till the sixth count to elect C, Ireland (Republic of).
Personally I'd be happiest with F only as this makes the ballot easier for voters. Failing that we should go with F and A. I don't believe the support for C was strong enough to warrant putting all three on the ballot. -- Evertype·✆ 08:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My 2¢ is to go with just F since it get three times as many votes as A or C. I know some editors will be very eager for A to be included, and I would be interested in knowing if there would be a swing from "state" to "country" when we advertise the main ballot to *everyone* - but aside from that I don't see any merit in including A or C. So, "F" or "F and A", but would argue for just "F". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Evertype and Rannpháirtí. F had an overall majority of first preferences i.e. more than all the others put together. Realistically, all options containing A and/or C will be eliminated early on in the big poll, and not all of them will transfer. Including them will make the poll more complex, with zero gain for anybody. Scolaire (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree - including Ireland (country) and Ireland (Republic of) seems pointless. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what would we actually be polling if only one option is included? Mooretwin (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We would be polling the six options currently listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names (Draft), as opposed to the nine options that would be required if "Ireland (country)" were included as well as "Ireland (state)", or the twelve that would be necessary if "Ireland (Republic of)" were also included. Scolaire (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pros and Cons
For my sins I have written a set of what I believe to be neutral points regarding the pro and con arguments. PLEASE DO NOT FLAME ME. This is a thankless task. Please see the Poll_on_Ireland_article_names_(Draft). For what it is worth, everybody, I think that the Poll on Ireland (xxx) went well, and I am willing to do the same work (including notifying the communities) to finalize the Big Poll, if you are willing to have me do it. (I don't see much point in saddling Masem with the task as he is here to moderate, not to draft and process documents.). With regard to the pro/con arguments I have given, when you review them, please do so with some things in mind.
The goal is not to prove anything, merely to state what is believed by some factions.
The goal is not to be encyclopaedic or utterly exhaustive. It is to summarize.
My intent has not been to piss anybody off. I have genuinely tried to be neutral. If you have suggested edits to any of the bullet points, please make them. And make them nicely.
Thanks to those who have expressed their happiness with the way the Ireland (xxx) poll went.-- Evertype·✆ 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
