Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 5

This is not what I signed up for

I and many other editors were notified on 5 March that this project was taking statements. (Gnevin (talk · contribs) kindly used AWB to notify lots of editors).

After taking my time to consider how the process was structured, I signed up as a member of this project 8 days later, on 13 March.

I don't think that the project page has substantially changed since then, but I am still going to focus on the version to which I signed up.

That page is explicit on a number of points, and for me the most significant of those was under the heading Graham's pyramid, which I will reproduce here in full:

Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments, moderators will use the pyramid to the right.

That is a clear commitment by the moderators not to simply count heads, but rather to assess the validity of arguments. That's why I signed up for, and that's how I expected this process to proceed.

Unfortunately, that is not what is now happening. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel#Preliminary_outcome, the moderators have done absolutely nothing to weigh any of the arguments or to assess evidence.

Instead they are doing the exact opposite of what was promised, which is making a headcount of the views of participants. And on that basis, they have ruled out several options: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel#Analysis.

How they arrived at those figures is another question, because the total number of supports and opposes counted on the major points at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel#Preliminary_outcome significantly exceeds the 29 currently-signed up members of the project. As one example, look at one of the figures under the heading "Total": Republic of Ireland: 41/41

That's a claimed total of 82 participants, more than three times as many people as have signed up to the project. There are several possible explanations for this:

• that 56 people who are not members of the project have expressed views on these proposals, and have been included in the total
• that the moderators have added crudely together the total number of supports and opposes for several similar proposals, even though there may be significant overlap between the list of names in each case. (This would be double-voting)

So on two key points, the path which the moderators are currently following is at odds with what was set out at the start:

1. They are counting heads, rather than weighing evidence
2. That people become members to participate

Over the last few weeks, other editors have expressed concerns about the apparent inactivity of the moderators, and I have tried to support the notion that they needed to time to come up with a way to make the next steps on this process. I assumed in good faith that the moderators would do what they had promised at the outset, and I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

But what I now see at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel removes any doubt in my mind, and it is clear that the moderators are now running phase 2 of the process in an entirely different manner to what was set out at the start. And to add the absurdity, they appear to be double-counting votes.

I hope that moderators will come here and explain both what they think they are up to, and how they plan to get the process back on the path which was advertised to those of us who committed our time and energies to participate in it.

But right now, it appears that the since the path they are following is so radically different from what the stall that was set out, that none of us need feel in any way bound by the outcome of this process. I hope that the moderators will be able to persuade me that I am wrong, and that we have not all been wasting out time for the last few months, but that's how it looks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is just head-counting, which is why it's totally impossible to reject my suggestion for a community poll, without appearing to favour the opinion of this dedicated minority over us in the rest of the community. On the other hand, the latest suggestion is that they put some proposal to a community poll. The "mods" have not "gotten around" to giving feed-back yet, so we are dependent slightly on speculation (but see the page). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that nothing has been decided yet; those are preliminary figures. I'll counter one poiunt hough: noone was required to 'sign up' for this project, so there being more statements then members has no relevance. I must also debunk the sense that the results merely ammount to a headcount, which is defenitely not the case.

It is the arguments that count, and it is the arguments that the community has had a chance to support or oppose, not the titles. The analysis extracted the possible titles from the statements and the degree of support each of those arguments have secured. The moderators were never intended to determin the validity of those arguments; we are only here to structure the debate and guide toward and outcome. That has been the whole idea behind the non-rebuttal process. — Edokter • Talk • 21:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

How does that tie in with "Proposal: To assess the validity of arguments, moderators will use the pyramid to the right."? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That proposal was put on the back-burner in favor of the non-rebuttal process. It aslo has little use when there are no rebuttals. We can still use it in a second round. — Edokter • Talk • 22:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh lord theres a second round? This is all so confusing lol BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

and how have the mods "structured the debate and guided toward an outcome"?

what kind of debate excludes rebuttals?

graham's pyramid was and is under "agreed procedures". Kittybrewster ☎ 00:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to say i think this whole things a complete mess, but i certainly dont think the moderators are to blame for this. Arbcom should of actually tried to be helpful and resolve the problem or lay out a clear framework on how the community had to resolve it. Instead they just passed it back to the people involved in the original dispute and said come up with something urselves, like people havnt been trying that for how many years??? :\

Im sure what ever method the mods come up with some people will oppose, and when the final verdict is handed out one side is either going to be very angry or both sides will feel like they have lost. Sharing the pain has gotta be the safest way forward. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So, what is going on here? Preliminary counting of figures? Assessment of the arguments? Analysis of each person's NPOV? Refraining from discussing the individual Ireland naming options? Agreeing on a procedure? Adopting a third moderator? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

All, some or none of the above :) Just give em time to sort it out. We can wait a few more months to resolve it, i bet everyones glad we didnt set that deadline of may, we would have failed to meet it for sure.BritishWatcher (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh Lordy :(

Edokter has confirmed that the structured analysis by the pyramid, which was the methodology set out when I signed up and which is still the methodology set out on the project has been "put on the back burner". That's a pretty fundamental change to make, yet I see no effort at any stage to communicate it to project participants (I wasn't even aware of the existence of the panel talk page until today). This is not a good situation, to put it mildly. It seems to me to be essential in any fair form of structured process that if the rules of the game change, then that should be clearly communicated to the players.

I know that this will sound like nitpicking, but to me its fundamental: the writing on the panel-talk-page currently suggests excluding a range of options on the basis of numbers of supporters and opposers. Yet Edokter's explanations above offers two slightly different versions of what those numbers: first that he "must also debunk the sense that the results merely amount to a headcount, which is definitely not the case", secondly that "the analysis extracted the possible titles from the statements and the degree of support each of those arguments have secured". That sounds like counting heads on different arguments within each proposition, rather than simply counting heads on different statements ... but either way it's counting heads.

Now maybe I've misunderstood this, but I'm listening. So please, Edokter, please explain what those numbers mean, and how they were arrived at.

Edokter says the the "moderators were never intended to determin the validity of those arguments", which I'll note is not the approach adopted at CFD or AFD, where closers are expected to weigh the arguments. It's also completely at variance with the pyramid which was the basis on which editors were asked to participate in this process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that de facto practice on WP:RMs and such things is that while all us admins who close such things harp on about the importance of individual arguments, such things are only considered after numbers. I.e. when the result falls within a certain range, arguments come into it. So head counting is the primary tool, and as thus will be here. Any attempt to actually use arguments primarily will lead to a paradox, namely that the closer/moderator was too opinionated to be classified as "uninvolved", and thus shouldn't be closing. All the more reason to leave the "argument strength" mantra in fairyland and have a binding Gdansk-esque community poll that keeps the decision in the hands of the community as a whole rather than leaving it in the hands of a band representing mainly the most extreme/committed element. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a deletion discussion, but more akin an RfC. We're still in the middle of going through the statements, and trying to get a third moderator. Chances are, we will be having a second, open round, where the pyramid will be centerpiece. This will be a short period. We do not expect to solve all controversies, but we all will have to make a choice. Please stand by. — Edokter • Talk • 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well nobody else was using the room so I have started the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Discussion. Enjoy. Kittybrewster ☎ 01:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Building on what we have done so far and getting to a conclusion

As per my other recent comments, I think that this process is now in a big mess. I don't think that our depleted number of moderators have a clear idea of how to proceed, and Edokter's comments above seem to me to show that the moderators have departed significantly from what was proposed when editors were invited to participate in this process.

But I think that there is a way forward which brings all these strands together, and it's based on Deacon of Pndapetzim's proposal above, drawing on the Gdansk poll.

We have now had the statement process. It has been very valuable, because all sides have placed their evidence and their arguments on the table. Personally, I have found that it has helped enormously, both to clarify my own reasons for the options I prefer, but also to better understand the arguments of those with whom I disagree.

The question now is what to do with this material to make it usable in a community-wide poll of the sort that DofP prosed. It's a bit of a sprawl; some statements cover several issues, some cover one issue, but in a different way to others reaching similar conclusions. But nonetheless, most of the evidence is there; it just needs to be re-organised for clarity.

And I think that there is a way of doing that which needn't place an excessive burden on the moderators, if we use an approach like that of the pre-trial stage of civil proceedings in a modern judicial system, where a lot of preparatory work is done: both sides prepare evidence bundles and produce a copy for each side and one for the court; and both sides also prepare skeleton arguments so that the issues can be considered in some sort of logical fashion.

The problem is that there are 26 members of this process, so we may end up with 26 sets of arguments on each of the questions to be addressed. But we can easily enough avoid that by giving members an incentive to produce joint statements. What I propose is simply that all statements appear on one page, and the order in which statements are presented is determined by the number of signatories:

1. each member may sign only one statement on each issue, but up to the closing date may switch their endorsement from one statement to another
2. the statements are presented in reverse order by number of signatories, with the largest number of signatories at the top
3. in the event of a tie in the number of signatories, the statement which reached that total first goes to the top.

The moderators need merely announce a deadline, and editors can do the rest. X drafts a statement, Y signs it; Z says they'll endorse it too if it is changed, and they discuss it until the statement is submitted. Then it's up to people to sign or not sign, as they choose. And if someone else produces a statement which they all prefer, then Z, Y and Z can all abandon the first statement.

This process will lead to a major consolidation of the sprawling sets of arguments currently dispersed over dozens of statements. My guess is that on each issue, we will end up up with two or three statements which each attract five or more signatories, and then a number of lone voices.

If we do this first for Problem 1, and put it out for a vote like that for Talk:Gdansk/Vote, we will have the best of all possible worlds: all the best arguments for and against each option, prioritised by the level of support they have received from those closest to the issue. So on Problem 1, we may have a statement recommending option 1A signed by 7 editors, followed by a statement recommending option C signed by 6 editors, or whatever. Some statements may not prefer a particular option, but may instead make general comments or choose to say "anything other than option X", or "whatever decision you make, remember these points". So far as the moderators are concerned, it wouldn't matter what the stance is of a statement, so long as editors endorse only one statement.

This will provide a strong incentive amongst editors to remove weak or false arguments, and to focus instead on the most important points which they want to make to the voters. If a group of editors want to argue that Ireland should be an article about milk quotas in Ballyporeen because Granuaile taught Nelson Mandela how to make space-rockets out of mackerel, that's their lookout.

Once this is done for problem 1, we will have narrowed down the options for problem 2.1, and can address it in the same way; then we can do problem 2.2

This approach won't be quick, but it will allow everyone concerned to focus the case they want to make, and will allow the wider community to assess the arguments made by participants in this process, without placing on the moderators the burden of making an analysis of their own.

My idea may need refinement, but what do people think of that outline? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it. It is robust. It is wikilike. It builds consensus. Fmph (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Approve. DrKiernan (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoroughly approve. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, i agree with the proposal and we should do it if the moderators are willing to support the move or are unable to come up with a reasonable alternative. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, but would be even better if it could be done without re-inventing the wheel. We have most everything that has been said, and needs to be said, already here. We need participants to focus only on a solution, and resist the temptation to rehash the same old diverting arguments. Rockpocket 17:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Statenent process - The Rerun" - what a joke - Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If this process ever reaches a conclusion, then it's a good move. The problem might be to get Irish editors interested again, otherwise the process will be skewed. Put the crisis in diplomatic language, create a new page named Irelande, let the argument discuss who has the privilege of using the new page. The loser gets the Ireland page. Mission accomplished:) PurpleA (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Redking7. My reading of things is that we are looking for guidance in agreeing a procedure to take us forward. The crumbs are on the table; we now have to push them into shape. There seem to be three routes. First that the moderators magically impose an acceptable-to-all answer (which they cannot and will not do). Second that we, the few, settle the issue (not easy). Third that we, the few, narrow, distil and express the options and arguments and then present them to the larger wiki community to determine the matter. I can’t see a better way of earning a Nobel Peace Prize. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In the absences of anything bar headcounting so far from the moderators, I too would support BHG's proposal. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Approve. -- Evertype·✆ 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Noble Peace Prize - "First that the moderators magically impose an acceptable-to-all answer" - There is no possibility of a solution "acceptable to all". What is necessary is for the Moderators to weigh up the options and impose a decision. Its as simple as that - as for "distilling the options". Are you serious....Are you really saying they are not already distilled....its "Ireland", "Republic of Ireland", "Ireland (state"). Hardly any need for any distilling etc...Where have you been...See the project page...The "options" are perfectly distilled! Lets get a decision. Only Moderators have the authority to make one "one way or the other". Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the Moderators?

I thought they were to weigh up the statements and if no consensus emerged "close the discussion", i.e. make the decision? Why have they not done so? Redking7 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My recollection is the 31st March deadline was always for the first round only. PhilKnight (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Redking7, how and why did you form your view? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"First round?" What does that mean? Please explain? Which "round" is next? How many "rounds" will there be? Redking7 (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That has not been decided. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Hi Redking7, this process originated here, I don't honestly believe it was intended as a ruse, more of a back up plan. That said, I think setting a timeframe for this process is a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC) " Why the change of mind PhilKnight? Now you don't think a timeframe is a good idea...Why don't you just set a timetable - a fundamental and basic part of any credible process. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to moderators...please endorse the bhg plan. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. BHG is not a moderator. Let the real moderators do what they have to do.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You too can come up with a plan. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with MusicInTheHouse - I do not support BHG's "plan" and I agree that it is for the Moderators to make the decisions. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Any update on the what is going to happen? 14 days since end of statements. Maybe this process has failed?--T*85 (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A plan is being formulated no doubt. Why the impatience and pessimism? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Redking, it is not for the moderators to impose a decision. That was never agreed. If you want a decision imposed, then the matter will have to be referred back to ArbCom. DrKiernan (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

DrKiernan - First off, may I ask are you one of the Moderators?

Second - Please read the following (copied and pasted from a passage above where I had asked, inter alia, whether the process was a "ruse" etc)....My understanding from the following exchange is that the Moderators can decide to impose a solution - You might set me straight if I am wrong - My understanding from the below was that as Edokter said, the Moderators can "decide the outcome". Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We have a mandate to "establish a procedure" that will help the community in reaching consensus. But if these procedures fail, the procedure could well mean that the moderators decide the outcome. I just hope it doesn't come to that. — Edokter • Talk • 01:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Redking7 seems to think that "closing the discussion" is some sort of passive act. At AFD and CFD, it is far from that: the closing admin takes a pro-active role in weighing consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks BrownHariedGirl and Moderators - Yes, I did misunderstand "closing a discussion" - It sounds like the moderators will be able to make a substantive decision on 1 May after all. Well I am glad to hear it. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did "on 1 May" come from? My belief is that the moderators are merely considering where the procedure goes next. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Its over a week since even one edit...Moderators!

The Staements Process is over. I don't think any "Endorsements etc" are going on. Not a single edit has been made on this discussion page in over a week.....MODERATORS - The process is over. Please now make your decision and "close the discussion". Why the delay? You are letting us all down. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

lol the moderators are not to blame for the mess we are in. Please direct your anger at ARBCOM which didnt have the guts to tackle this hard issue themselves and simply sent it back for the same people to try and resolve something that has been disputed for years.

The silence on this page is rather disturbing though. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Moderators - I do not like to sound melodramatic but perhaps you could each do the decent thing, resign and ask new Moderators to step in. You don't seem to be contributing anything to the process which now needs to be closed. (note to Britishwatcher - the Moderators took on this role and owe it to us to fulfil their role). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to recall as an admin, so I guess I should be as a moderator. So, if 5 members ask me to resign, I will. Otherwise, I'll find time tomorrow to post on how I think we should try and move forwards. PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I vote for patience. Thank you for your time and thought. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kitty. If 5 editors ask you to stay, will you stay? There is no reason to rush. All of us here are volunteers. The world has survived the current state of play. It hasn't contributed to the global recession, nor any death's. Hopefully any decisions made as a result of this process will be good enough to stand the test of time. Let's give them some time to develop. Fmph (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was calling for heads Phil, just some feedback of what might happen next and when , which you have now given. Everyone appreciates the time being spent on this issue by the Mods. RashersTierney (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

At least, the squabling has slowed to a crawl on the Ireland naming related articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay..the "ruse" I first referred to some weeks back (above) is working. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We should take as long as needed to resolve the matter, till then the articles current names remain the same, they are accurate. Im strongly against any of the mods resigning at this point, bringing in new people would slow down the process even more. Just give everyone a chance to move forward. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving forwards

To recap, there has been a first round, based around statements, which hasn't produced an especially clear result. The approach of making Ireland a disambiguation page probably has the most support, but there isn't enough consensus to declare a winner. Consequently there has to be, at the very least, some sort of second round. Given the lack of a clear result, in the second round, other rival approaches to making Ireland a disambiguation page should be allowed. Also, there has been some discussion about whether the next round should be a poll where votes are counted, or a discussion where consensus is assessed. From this discussion, the next round probably shouldn't just be a poll, and editors should be allowed to make comments. However, I doubt that threaded argument will get us anywhere. Accordingly, I propose the second round should be similar in format to Request for Adminship, where editors make comments under headings of 'Support', 'Oppose' and 'Neutral'. Some discussion is allowed, but longer threads can be moved to the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My oh my - so many weeks waiting for that! Please PhilKnight - resign (as I suggested above). A few lines of vague loose suggestions hardly counts as leadership and shows the time committment you have made to the process. Not even a mention a timeframe for the next "round".... Wow. How you can stand over that performance, I don't know. I suppose the other Moderators are even worse. They've stayed silent yet again. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if that helps Redking. Why do you think his proposal is no good and what would be your alternative proposal on the way to go forward? Jack forbes (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Answer: I wouldn't regard the vague suggestions (lots of "some sort", allowing "rival approaches (?)", "probably shouldn't...have polls", "make comments" (on what?), "doubt that threaded argument...", "similar in format") as amounting to a "proposal". Answer to what should be done: The Moderators should close the discussion and choose where the island, state or DAB pages should be etc. Redking7 (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It will never be possible to get everyone to agree on a single solution, so the next best solution is to go with the majority. For problem 1 there seems to be a majority for Ireland to be a disambiguation page. On problem 2.2, everyone is agreed that the island of Ireland article should either be at Ireland or Ireland (island), so a decision on problem 1 will also decide problem 2.2. We should now check to see if there really is a majority for "Ireland" to be a disambiguation page. If we move forward on this point, at least we should be able to decide on two of the problems. In the past, polls have been opposed for the republic article because of concerns that UK editors will outnumber Irish editors. Are there such concerns for a poll/debate on the island article? DrKiernan (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I remain in favour of BrownHairedGirl's approach. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the suggestion by Brownhairedgirl above might be the way forward. As for Redking, he needs to stop trying to pick a fight and actually contribute to the debate, not cause trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So, given the (almost unanimous) enthusiasm for the BHG route, let's just DO IT. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha. Since when is one person 'almose unanimous'. I say go for what the real moderators want to do. I just hope they become decisive in their actions sooner rather than later.MITH 09:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There were 8 in favour. We should do it, as it is the only option of the four proposals (mine, BHG's, Phil's and Redking7's) with more than two supporters. DrKiernan (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what the point is of having moderators if their ideas are dismissed. Wouldn't it be wiser to wait for the other moderators (or ask them) to give their opinion on the way forward? Jack forbes (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to try Phil's proposal, if that is the majority choice. DrKiernan (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The moderators are saying very clearly that it is for us not them to take this forward. It sounds to me that we have three proposals. First Redking7 who thinks the moderators should decide an outcome now and then Philknight should resign. Then edokter should resign being worse than phil. I am unsure how this works or takes us forward; it seems gently anarchic. Second solution ís philknight’s who proposes more statements. Not sure how that works either. Third solution is BrownHairedGirl’s which is constructive, purposeful and has broad support. My proposal is that Arbcom add Snowded and BHG as additional moderators, and that we proceed with the BHG route. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

BHG has already emphatically shown her partisanship in this matter so proposing her as a moderator is a non starter. RashersTierney (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent with Rashers but I'd tolerate her now that you have recommended another editor to be a moderator alongside her. But her disagreeing with the apparent consensus from the first round of statements is a problem, without doubt.MITH 11:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what PhilKnight (and other moderators reading this) think of BrownHairedGirl's suggestion at the start of the Building on what we have done so far and getting to a conclusion section above? That seems to have all the same elements as PhilKnight's proposal here, but in a way that should reduce the number of possibilities that we are discussing / voting on to a manageable number whilst simultaneously allowing anyone to bring their own variants to the table. — ras52 (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong here but shouldn't moderators come in with no POV on the subject. I'm not saying BrownHairedGirls suggestion should not be implemented but perhaps not as a moderator. I can see the process stalling due to other editors objecting to this. If BHG'S suggestion is implemented then why not let the present moderators continue their moderating as before. To clarify, I'm not saying BHG would not be a good moderator, only that there may be some objections to it which would not be a good start. Jack forbes (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what "I'm not saying BrownHairedGirls suggestion should not be implemented but perhaps not as a moderator" means. BHG's suggestion doesn't require her to be a moderator if that's your concern. I don't believe that she is proposing any change to who the moderators are or what they should do. — ras52 (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Kittybrewster above suggested bringing in Snowded and BrownHairedGirl as moderators. Jack forbes (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, well that's not what I was talking about. As I said, I was referring to "BrownHairedGirl's suggestion at the start of the Building on what we have done so far and getting to a conclusion section above". That has nothing to do with who the moderators are. And I would still be interested to hear the moderators' opinions on that suggestion. — ras52 (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So you do understand what I meant when I said there was no reason not to implement BrownHairedGirls suggestion (which you mentioned in your post)? My mention of BHG's possible role as moderator was my opinion on Kittybrewster's proposal. Glad that's cleared up then. Anything else you don't understand just let me know. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need more moderators than we have (which is 2). That is a different issue from following the BHG proposal which also sounds good to me. I too would like the moderators' views on it. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see how this process is going to solve the entire Ireland naming dispute. Changing the titles of two or three articles does not solve the dispute about how to refer to the state in the many hundreds or thousands of other articles throughout Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would think it's a case of one step at a time. Jack forbes (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No. All the issues need to be solved together. It won't work otherwise. Mooretwin (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If all the issues were solved together it would be a win win for everyone. Easier said than done though. If you believe that to be the case how would you go about it? Jack forbes (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mooretwin and Jack. Win win is good. BHG route should get us there and is consistent with PhilKnight's (rather less specific) recommendation. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with DrKiernan's sentiments and the general expression of disappointment with the moderators. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly would like the moderators to direct us to follow the BHG process. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the need for more moderators. Your suggestion of Snowded and BrownHairedGirl sounds fine to me. My only worry was that there may be others who would object, or maybe not. Would it be a good idea to put the possibility of it to Snowded and BHG and find out if they are even willing to do it if asked? Jack forbes (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

JackeForbes - "My only worry was that there may be others who would object" - appointing BHG as a "Moderator" was floated before and the same logic applies - BHG is partisan not neutral - if she is being appointed, I want to be appointed to. Same applies to Snowded. Neither can be regarded as "neutral". (Note to Phil and other Moderators - are you each going to resign now please - you've proven you can't be bothered with the process). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Only Arbcom can appoint mmoderators. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The way this might work is demonstrated by: Statements Process IECOLL. I suggest a deadline of 15 May for the end of the statement drafting/endorsing process. DrKiernan (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Was that the procedure/process used on Gdansk? If so I am inclined towards it. But not the deadline. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I think that was just a straight vote like this: . DrKiernan (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So the big differences are (1) supporting votes only (2) only one vote each. Do we start a fresh round of statements? Who removes existing support and oppose votes? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My version of the statement process says any editor can remove oppose votes. The endorse votes can stay as long as the statement remains unaltered, but substantive edits (as opposed to simple typos) require the agreement of all endorsers. For people who've endorsed more than one statement, I suggest removing the older vote. DrKiernan (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am happy about that but we need consent from Phil who proposed "editors make comments under headings of 'Support', 'Oppose' and 'Neutral'." without proposing the purpose behind his proposed Round 2. Can you get Phil, Edokter and BHG to contribute here??? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I am confused. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your confused! Thank goodness, I thought I was the only one. Jack forbes (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To DrKiernan. Did the Gdansk poll work, and if so did the decision actually stick? If it did then I would be inclined to go with a tried and tested method. Jack forbes (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it did. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As with any Vote, it worked for those who shared the majority view. RashersTierney (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The rules determined by the vote still apply. DrKiernan (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am stepping down as a moderator

I am sorry to inform all of you that I will resign as a moderator of this project. I have failed to provide any usefull contributions as such, and find myself unable to assign any more time and effort. The two main reason being that 1) I have no experience in such a big mediation, and accepting the task has been a mistake. 2) I have been involved in a dispute of my own that is consuming all my attention, making it impossible for me to focus on any other task that requires a long-span attention. I will inform ArbCom of my decision. — Edokter • Talk • 22:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making your decision in order for the project to progress. Can you also ask ArbCom to appoint another moderator in your place?MITH 22:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll resign as well. I'm sorry for not being to help. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The decision by both of you on this matter is understandable and i think its wrong for anyone to blame either of you for the current state of affairs. The only people guilty of incompetence and a failure to provide leadership are ARBCOM who despite years of disputes and months of attempting to get them to act simply passed it back to everyone here to try and resolve.

Its about time ARBCOM had the guts to decide something themselves instead of passing it on like a ticking time bomb. Edokter and Phil thank you both for stepping up to try and help solve this problem in the first place, most other people would of refused (even Jimbo Wales did).

Anyway we are back at stage one again, the current setup should remain and we should all just move on with our lives. Peace =) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's rare for the Arbcom to create & force a solution on such disagreements. But, they may eventually have to, in this case. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think ArbCom should just get User:ChrisO on the job. He wrote Wikipedia policy, the most notable of which is Wikipedia:Naming conflict. You really can't do better than that.MITH 15:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the decent thing and resigning Edokter and PhilKnight. I agree with those who would like to put this on ARBcom - clearly mediation has failed. Redking7 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, the right thing? They buggered off for a month after the statements had closed and then after doing nothing they came in and quit. I don't see "thanks" as appropriate here. -- Evertype·✆ 08:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I ask again - what was wrong with the solution provided by the Ireland Disambiguation Task Force? Mooretwin (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What was IDTF's solution (I'm too lazy, to look)? GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

See here Mooretwin (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actually mediation failed exactly 11 months ago and now moderation has failed too. The Ireland Disambiguation Task Force also failed because it was populated by too few interested editors. Arbcom needs to take this in hand themselves and make a final decision. ww2censor (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

IDTF got more interest than anything else I have seen on the subject. Far more than this shambles. Mooretwin (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have put a note on User:ChrisO's page to ask his opinion. -- Evertype·✆ 08:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on content dispute resolution

There's a Request for comment on content dispute resolution which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Movement

Reading this page, it seems like there is general agreement (although not unanimous) that BHG's proposal for determining the solution to Problem 1 is a useful way forward. If what you need is a thoroughly neutral party to assist with organization and to set a deadline, then I'm sure an appropriate and willing editor can be found. I'm happy to volunteer, but I'm sure that with such a simple job description many other neutral editors would be willing to assist. I think its quite possible that this method will lead, eventually, to a permanent solution; on the other hand, if the outcome isn't conclusive, then the exercise will have been valuable of itself. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 23:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to see someone offering their services but in reality we're looking for administrators to take charge. They're alot more accountable for what they do then your average user. However I'm sure I can speak for us all when I say it'd be nice someone new contribute here day to day.

On a side note User:ChrisO - the admin who designed and wrote Wikipedia naming conflict policy has agreed to put some input into all this. He's currently pretty busy sorting out the Macedonia naming dispute but hopefully he'll post here sooner rather than later.MITH 00:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Moderators

• Cross-posted from: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Ireland collaboration.

The three moderators appointed by the Arbitration Committee for WikiProject Ireland Collaboration are no longer active in the project under that capacity. These disengagements occurred voluntarily and separately under individual conditions without controversy. PhilKnight (talk · contribs), Edokter (talk · contribs), and SebastianHelm (talk · contribs) are all thanked for their hard work and efforts as moderators. In response to the openings, the Committee appoints Masem (talk · contribs) and Xavexgoem (talk · contribs) as moderators, thanking them for taking on this task. A third moderator is not yet appointed, pending discussion with the participants.

For the Committee, --Vassyana (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of ambivalence towards the previous round of moderation. What had failed on the part of the moderators, and how do we now fix that? --Xavexgoem (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The failure was no clear process, we got bogged down in nice pretty little charts and tables but nobody had a clue what it all meant. We all submitted statements which people could agree or disagree with but as was obviously going to happen the people were divided over which had support and what they opposed. So after the statements were in there was no plan on what to do with them. Thats when it all broke down, the moderators were certainly not to blame we just jumped into statements too soon without thinking of how to come to a final resolution. For this not to be another failure we all need to know very clearly what will be decided, who will make the final decission, how it will be made and when it will be decided once and for all. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In the previous round we agreed on the problems, and agreed that a statement process was the best way to proceed at first. However, at the end of the statement process there was no clear consensus on (1) what they showed or (2) how to proceed next.

On point (1), this is because the statements are wide-ranging, numerous and various, and sometimes unfocused or lacking a certain clarity. In future, we need to ensure more focus on the problems and a smaller number of more specific statements, where the arguments on each side and the number of editors supporting each side are clear. This is suggested as option 1 of the four #Options for next phase. While this may not provide consensus either, it should at least make clear the majority view, or produce clear potential statements that could be taken forward into discussion or used as the basis of a poll.

On point (2), I fear it will be too difficult at this stage, with a set of unclear statements, to agree how any future decisions will be reached. Option 1 does not prejudge any future phases of the process but it does provide a stronger base from which to proceed. Clearer statements with clear numbers will make it easier to discuss the shape of the next phase. DrKiernan (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

On point 1, the moderators did identify what they showed. Right here in fact.MITH 10:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but we need to confirm that it is the consensus or majority view. Otherwise, the arguments over page names will continue. DrKiernan (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I may be reading this wrong, but Ireland as a disambig seems to have the broadest appeal (31 for, 10 against). Am I correct in assuming that the larger problem, broadly speaking, is the naming of the articles the disambig could/would point to? Xavexgoem (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I'm still collecting all the info, so for the moment I might be a bit slow

In a way yes, though in my opinion, I'd say there already is consensus for Ireland (state) and Ireland (island). The problem is the previous moderators never really took any action to confirm it or implement what they said was consensus or anything. They took statements and a rough consensus could be seen, but left it at that.MITH 11:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(note: my previous question still stands for anyone who wishes to answer) What are the likely results of a moderator implementing those changes based on that rough consensus? Xavexgoem (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If those results are intrepretated as consensus it would involve Ireland being moved to Ireland (island), Ireland (disambiguation) being moved to Ireland, Republic of Ireland being moved to Ireland (state) and a new Ireland (historical country article being created. The moderator would also need to clarify the situation what would happen with related articles. ie. Would History of the Republic of Ireland be moved to History of Ireland (state) due the parent article move and all that.MITH 11:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would you impose "Ireland (state)" when there are 21 votes for it and 41 votes for "Republic of Ireland", according to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel#Totals. (I'm not saying these "Totals" are correct, in fact I think they're incorrect, which is why we need them confirmed.) DrKiernan (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't, which is why I ask. Any result will be unpopular, but it's been asked for a moderator to go through with what they determine is the consensus. Does this project want moderators who keeps discussion civil and are therefore unpopular because they do not implement anything, or does this project want moderators who are unpopular because they implement a weak consensus? Or is there hope that a near-100% consensus is attainable? Xavexgoem (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Because there is more opposition to Republic of Ireland; there is also 41 votes against it. Ireland (state) has 15 votes against. Thats what consensus is about, finding the solution that the least amount of people disagree on. The whole case started due to the disagreement of Republic of Ireland. It didn't have consensus itself for being the title it only remained as it was the status quo. This process has shown there is not much objection to the use of Ireland (state).MITH 11:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We have all known from the start and the statement results prove it as well that there are two options with huge opposition which are unacceptable to different parties. Ireland (the country) at Ireland Is unacceptable because it ignores the fact theres also an island called Ireland and its shared with another country. Ireland (the country) at Republic of Ireland is unacceptable to some people because its not the real title or commonly used title of the country. These are the two options which cause the most conflict.

The other choices are less of a problem such as having a disam page at Ireland or keeping the article on the island of Ireland at Ireland. It would probably be easier and result in a resolution sooner if we removed the two choices which clearly cause conflict and decide on the moderate options which are reasonably acceptable to all people. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"The whole case started due to the disagreement of Republic of Ireland. It didn't have consensus itself for being the title it only remained as it was the status quo." ~MITH. This is disingenuos and not entirely accurate. Many editors strongly prefer the status quo as a favoured option. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The result of it being 41 for and 41 against ROI in this collaboration would prove my point. I'm not denying there's a number pro ROI, but there's certainly no way you can say there was ever an overwhelming consensus to keep it in the last 18 months or so. Back then (this is before on I edited on Wikipedia) I saw there was move requests every second month nearly and it always ended up being a stale mate leaving the status quo. With Mooretwin's proposal there was a large majority to move it away from ROI, however that broke down due to lack of consensus in other areas. Looking through the archives of the talk page the last vote I can see was 12-11 in favour of ROI in August 2008. That's not exactly an obvious consensus is it?MITH 18:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

One point that I saw when looking at the history was not just the impact on the naming of the country article and the geography article, but also the impact on the naming of "Something of X" articles. Does anyone have a list of what articles may be affected in naming only by the results of this collaboration? Is it worth considering how those are to be affected by this? --MASEM (t) 13:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The closest you'll get to a list is Category:Republic_of_Ireland, however there are some sovereign state only topics which just use just 'Ireland' in the title and they are located at Category:Ireland. My own thoughts are that I thought that related articles would just simply follow suit in the naming of the sovereign state article and that a seperate discussion wasn't necessary.

However I know that there are other opinions. Some feel Ireland should be used for all related articles for the state as they feel there is nothing so notable about the island by itself to have its own articles and break the mould of having articles relate to the sovereign countries like elsewhere on Wikipedia. Then there are a few others who wish to have Republic of Ireland in related articles even if the main article moves to Ireland (state) for linguistic and aesthetic reasons. The previous moderators didn't acknowledge this issue and it would be up to yourself to say what you think should be done on the matter.MITH 16:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly do-able, but very early yet. It occurs to me that [[Ireland (island)|Ireland]] and other piped links will work when the context is obvious in text. It can be worked out in a case-by-case basis where it isn't. Is that a good solution? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is familiar with piping, especially when it comes to the Ireland naming issue (check out WP:IMOS), so I think that's a perfectly acceptable solution.MITH 10:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that a separate discussion should not be necessary but it is worthwhile to consider what impact the result here has on the names of the related articles. There is some confusion between an aspect of the geography and an aspect of the country, particularly with overlap (there's Category:Economy of Ireland and Category:Economy of the Republic of Ireland, for example). Thus, I think it's worth a bit of extra effort to make sure the end solution propigates well to any Ireland-named article. (Inline links will have to be worked out separately). -MASEM (t) 13:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're going over ground that's already been discussed in the IDTF. Mooretwin (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to give a link to this discussion that took place on related titles to help the moderators? I'm not seeing one myself.MITH 14:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the discussion in the IDTF page that I linked earlier (in the post to which you replied at 12.00 today). Mooretwin (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That links to the discussion on your proposal which failed to gain consensus not to a discussion about other related articles. Xavexgoem says he/she sees it, I don't. Could you provide a link to the discussion about how related articles would be affected and which are not about the moving of the main articles. Thanks.MITH 15:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I see it (Republic of Ireland → Ireland (state)). There is still the option of using that compromise, too, although it looks like opinions have shifted. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

A third moderator has not yet been appointed. Some participants have indicated that the presence of an arbitrator on the project could be helpful. In general, how do members of this project feel about one or two arbitrators taking a more active role here? If one or more arbitrators take part, should they officially be project moderators? What sort of role should they take? Should they be directly active, as would be traditionally considered for a moderator? Should they take a more distant role, focusing on occasional advice and oversight? What would you expect from an arbitrator looking to assist this project? Thank for your time and consideration of these questions.

For the Committee, --Vassyana (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support an arbitrator with a brief to manage and structure the process and prevent constant repetition of the same points/arguments, focusing on securing and recording agreements progressively. Limited discussion to agreed issues as the process unfolds. One of the issues here is the degree of knowledge of the issues necessary. Some language to an outsider may appear inconsequential but will carry historical baggage (to just take one example). I think some knowledge of the historical context, the tensions before an around the Troubles and the GFA will be necessary. --Snowded (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly support one or two arbitrators taking an active role in trying to resolve this long standing problem. The main focus as said by Snowded should be on sorting out the process fully before we proceed to make sure there is a final resolution, what ever that may. Otherwise we will end up with a process like before where we all spend weeks agreeing to statements with no idea what to do with them after. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also very much support an arbitrator getting involved. What I would like to see is someone who sets out whats to be done, how we're doing to do it and what it'll mean in the grand scheme of things. They wouldn't have to been involved day to day but for example if they've set a deadline on something, then they'd need to be involved in that process making sure everything was adhered to etc. MITH 23:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

An Arbitrator would be cool. Also (hang on to your hats) a non-Administrator would be acceptable to me. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we just take the Ireland disambiguation task force Ireland Disambiguation Task Force to its conclusion? It came very close to reaching consensus on ALL issues, but was supplanted by this crazy process. Mooretwin (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin if there was consensus obtained elsewhere it would have been implemented. You're the only one who keeps referring to the task force as the piece in question was your proposal. You're becoming a bit of a broken record on this. Notice that no one else think consensus was gained there and no one else is mentioning it. The task force happened, it failed and we moved onto arbitration. People are now putting their effort into that rather than looking back over the same old arguments and debates where consensus wasn't reached. There are moderators here now. Let them do their job so we can move forward once and for all.MITH 12:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason why "arbitration" or "moderators" couldn't implement the Task Force proposal. Have you actually read the page? Have you seen the extent and breadth of support it achieved? Why are you scared of it? Mooretwin (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That link is actually very helpful to us. It at least tells us that there is a strong incentive to have Ireland refer to the island, and not a disambig to both the island and the state. --Xavexgoem (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The IDTF proposal was implemented. That's what led to the RFAR. DrKiernan (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't implemented. You're referring to an arbitrary attempt to implement one aspect of a solution whose very purpose was to be comprehensive. The IDTF proposal has to be agreed and implemented in totality. Mooretwin (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Merits of "Ireland as disambiguation" compared to merits of "Ireland as the island"

I have seen two broad-ish consensuses - which my spellchecker is informing me is actually a word - that either support moving Ireland to a disambig, or support keeping it in its present form as an article on the island. I want to start with this, since this seems to be the less troublesome divide. Assuming for the moment that Ireland will be either of these two choices, what is your opinion on your preferred choice over the other? Xavexgoem (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC) This isn't an exercise in consensus; I just need to nail down why some people prefer one over the other so I can move from there

• In my opinion this is largely covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Statements#Statements on problem 1. DrKiernan (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Touché ^^; Alright. I'd still like to hear the opinions on the other option -- that Ireland should refer to the island -- particularly from Mooretwin and others. --Xavexgoem (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• Disambiguation per the overall agreement of my statement.MITH 12:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• What's the point in repeating the process of asking everyone for their opinions again? This has been done countless times. For the record, (i) the primary meaning of Ireland is the island (has been for centuries) and not the state (so-called (controversially) for a mere 72 years). The state takes its name from the island; and (ii) having Ireland as a disambiguation page just means thousands of WP users are sent to a useless page rather than the one they want (which is most often the "island" page and not the "state" page). Mooretwin (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Point 2 is easily addressed with a bot and/or hardwork; that can be handled by the moderators. That leaves point 1: Ireland is primarily referred to as the island. I myself, when thinking of Ireland, think about the state. Can you be swayed, Mooretwin? --Xavexgoem (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How would a bot address point 2? If it by-passed the disambiguation page what would be the point of having a disambiguation page? And where would it direct users to? You may think of the state when you think of Ireland, but 1.7m people living in Ireland but outside "the state" do not. Nor do most others in my view, such as the authors and readers of travel guides. It is rare, in my experience for people to distinguish between the two - when I travel I am from Ireland, people don't care if it's North or South. Mooretwin (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No bot then; it will have to be up to us to implement any changes. Bypassing a disambig is reasonable if the correct article can be linked to from context.

My main point was that you hold a minority position, the merits of any position notwithstanding. If most say do this, and a few say do that, what happens? Nothing can come of this if there isn't a clear consensus. Is there any concession here? --Xavexgoem (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Who says I hold a minority position? The answer to your question is you seek a comprehensive compromise such as that at IDTF, which involves everyone agreeing to a package, elements of which they like and others they don't. The compromise on IDTF involved changing the name of the "Republic of Ireland" page, which I do not agree with, but am willing to accept as part of a compromise package. Mooretwin (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin could you please stop trying to push your 6 month old proposal? Frankly nobody cares about it other than yourself and it wasn't mentioned once during this process which has gone one for a few months. To help this along I will quote Wikipedia policy on disambiguation pages: If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".It seems clear to me what should be done.MITH 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say it wasn't mentioned once during this process when his proposal forms the substance of his Statement submitted to this process (endorsed by a number of people), which means it is as much a part of this process as any idea. Nuclare (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise his previous proposal formed his statement. It wasn't really mentioned as having the potential to be something which could gain consensus in this whole process. Only 3 supported it while three times that number opposed it.MITH 13:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It may not get consensus, but that doesn't justify statements like "nobody cares" and "it wasn't mentioned once". As much support as your statement seems to have had in the statement process, it doesn't follow that even that will ultimately get the consensus needed for your idea to be implemented either. I think both your proposal and Mooretwin's are reasonable and, frankly, (although it may not seem so at first glance), they really aren't all *that* different. You support a disambig page for "Ireland"; Mooretwin proposes a trimmed down 'all-island' page (a disambig page--it should be noted--*is* an all-island page, just, pressumably, a much shorter one). You both support removing "RoI" as the title of the state's page and both acknowledge the need for use of "Ireland"/"RoI" in text (not just titles) to be addressed, and both believe that RoI does need to be used sometimes in text. Nuclare (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still catching up; I apologize for that characterization. It's beginning to appear that the ArbCom case was a bit strange. It may have been better if their decision was to provide mediation on the discussion you started at IDTF, instead of starting from scratch. The problem is that we're all the way over here, now, and the problem appears more obfuscated than it did originally. I'm getting a ton of mixed messages. That compromise did have a lot of support... why wasn't it resurrected? The more I look at this case, the more I feel I'm at some point in one giant, bizarre circle. --Xavexgoem (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your final point is the one thing on which everyone is agreed. DrKiernan (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin's proposal was deliberately structured as a package. The benefit of the package was that it demanded a little bit of compromise from nearly everybody, but that it actually had as close to a consensus that we've seen. I don't believe you'll achieve the same thing by addressing points singly. I welcome the active participation of Arbitrators on this topic. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Moderation isn't going to work with the present discussion; there's too much inertia in totally separate directions. I'll contact the committee tomorrow; I'm very, very tired. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Disambiguation, as so many places historically & present, use the name Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And, yet, every last one of them is in some way tied up with the same one island. Even Ireland, West Virginia was named after someone who came from there. :-) Nuclare (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"... as so many places historically & present, use the name Ireland." - No more or less than any other place. I notice, GoodDay, that Canada (disambiguation) got more traffic last month than Ireland (disambiguation). Are you suggesting that a page that got 2,032 hits last month should be put front-and-centre over the 93rd ranked page (at 200,904 page views last month) on Wikipedia. That is what would happen if you made Canada a dab page.

The simplest argument against Ireland being made into a dab page is that so few of our users visit Ireland (disambiguation). There is no evidence of demand from our users or such a drastic change. It is unwarranted. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is deeply flawed. If a disambiguation page replaced the island of Ireland article then it would get just as many hits as the current article, what reader is going to type "Ireland (disambiguation)" instead of just "Ireland"?T*85 (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Flawed? I think the logic that says "I know people want to read about the island, but lets show them that there is a disambiguation dispute first" is entirely flawed, and is written from the perspective of the editor/member and not from the perspective of the user. Fmph (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just be aware that your argument appears to be based on an assumption that people type in "Ireland" in order to read about the island. What about people who type in "Ireland" and want to read about the state. A lot of this debate has been concerned with primacy - which article do readers want to get to. Evidence has been produced for both arguments, and this is what has lead to the suggestion of a dab page. --HighKing (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We had evidence at one point that most users who went to "Ireland" stayed there, with only a minority moving on to "Republic of Ireland", thus indicating that the "island" topic was more popular than that of the state. Mooretwin (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretation is unsound. The argument was based on traffic to the two articles, and there was no evidence to suggest that people started at one article and selected the other. AFAIK, this isn't possible to detect. Please correct me if this is incorrect, but I cannot locate an argument that supports your assertion. --HighKing (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I neither have the time nor the inclination to go hunting, but, if I did, I would go first to the IDTF pages and then to the RM (which I think was on the ROI page), or perhaps some of the discussions on the Ireland page (probably archived by now). My recollection remains that which I recounted above, but without the evidence, I cannot be 100% certain. Mooretwin (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The argument was that if there was a desire among our readers for disambiguation then we could expect the current dab page to get more traffic. Going by the basis of current site traffic, there is no evidence that our users want/need us to prioritise the dab page. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the splitting of Ireland, a very recent, and probably temporary, thing (to take a long term view). For most of Ireland's history, the island and the state have the same thing. Even when Ireland as a whole was just a constituent part of the British state (by whatever name) the Nothern/Southern thing was not applicable, and the island and the constituent-country-of-the-other-state. Since some time after the start of the 20th century only part of Ireland isn't Ireland (the state). And it's a small part, and it belongs to the state over on the other island. What is the point of this early-morning meditation? If we are seeking primary topic, the island/state are really one thing, taking the long term view. In terms of primary topic, I am sure it is a fair bet that in the news "Ireland = State" wins out over "Ireland = Island". I don't see a strong reason, apart from prejudice, against Ireland = state, Ireland (island) = georgarphy etc, and Ireland (disambiguation) as a stub for towns in West Virginia or personal names or whatever. -- Evertype·✆ 08:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with your analysis up to the point where your argument equates "ROI = the state" "[f]or most of Ireland's history" (you don't do this literally). I think you will also see the internal contradiction in this: on one hand you say that the partition of the Ireland is "a very recent, and probably temporary, thing", and that we should take the long view, then you say that the "primary topic" is one part of the partitioned island.

The primary topic is the island (or "country" or "nation"). The ROI/NI states are secondary topics (being logical sub-topics or the "country", "nation", "geography", "culture", "history" and everything else of Ireland).

(And, yes, it is a "fair bet" to say that when *in the news* "Ireland = State" because news converge is overwhelmingly concerned with the current affairs of contemporary states. When confusion arrises, however, news media nearly always revert to the tried-and-trusted "Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland" that we currenly employ on WP. In almost every other aspect - sport, religion, history, geography, culture, art, people, etc. - "Ireland === island (/country/nation/people/...)". Only the most obtuse contributor this this page would disagree - see for example those that would say that Belfast/Lough Neagh/the Bogside/Omagh/etc. are not in Ireland ... even *before* the "Ireland", in any sense, might have meant a 26-county state!!) --89.101.220.70 (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think the primary topic is "the cultural and administrative entity that runs the island" diachronically, meaning "the State" for as long as we have history and some more-or-less centralized post-tribal governance here. Even under the Crown "Ireland" was "the whole island". Partition is accidental and likely to be temporary in the long term: I doubt very much we will have a partitioned Ireland in 2209. So yes, I do think that "the big part" of the "partitioned island" is the primary topic, and I find it endlessly tiresome that a small but vocal minority with a different view keeps this pissing contest going and going and going. And yes, too, I think that what people mostly come for when they look for "Ireland" is not geography or recipes for stew: they come to find out about the State, just as it is on the news. I reject your suggestion that "the ROI/NI states are secondary topics"—In the first place, NI isn't a state, but a constituent part of a state, and the ROI is in fact "the cultural and administrative entity that runs (big part of the) the island" whether some people like that or not. I am the one who tried to bring this to an end by asking for arbitration because of what seems to me to be a deeply hostile and bad-faith game played out by the vocal minority. The result has been disappointing at best. We never managed to get the three Admins we were meant to have, and then two of them have bailed without even offering a shred of hope or direction in terms of some sort of solution. Now we hope (patiently, it is admitted), for help from someone who may, indeed, be able to help us. In the meantime, I find this whole thing to be more than demoralizing, and way beyond sad. -- Evertype·✆ 19:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What an incredibly POV statement. It is an Irish-nationalist (and particularly a Southern-Irish-nationalist) POV that the 26-county state is, in fact, the real and only true "Ireland", with Northern Ireland as a temporary aberration. This view is a product of De Valera's belated acceptance of the Treaty, and his attempt to justify his acceptance of partition through the 1937 constitution, which required him to portray the 26-county state as "Ireland". This POV is also the outcome of a state-centric mindset (itself something of a nationalist (in general terms) disposition) that sees the state as of supreme importance, and geography and culture as secondary. This is why the state-centric nationalist demands that "Ireland" is primarily the name of the state and not of the island from which the state takes its name. This state-centric mindset may be common on Wikipedia but I suggest that amongst the majority of ordinary people across the world - people who do not give a damn about political questions - Ireland means the whole 32 counties. When someone from Ireland (North or South) travels abroad he or she is received as being from Ireland (not from the Republic and not from Northern Ireland). Tourists come on holiday to Ireland (the island). In everyday conversation, Ireland means the whole 32. Mooretwin (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with some of Mooretwin's points here. The POV may do a good job of representing a stereotypical Nationalist view, but is not a majority view. Equally, Mooretwins argument that a state-centric view is also a Nationalistic view is equally guilty of tarring everybody with this view with the same brush. For me, the most important aspect are the simple facts. I prefer to use the correct term in the appropriate context. So that means using Ireland to be the correct term for both the island and the state. And I am not a Nationalist... --HighKing (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That "small and vocal minority" has been the majority in countless polls that *some editors* have insisted on running and re-running. The majority view has been the status quo on this encyclopedia for the best part of a decade. The majority view is that the ROI/NI are secondary topics to Ireland. The unnatural emphasis placed by *some editors* on the names of states does not do our readers any good.

Some (sensible) inspiration might be got from other encyclopedias. Britannica, for example, has only one article on Ireland. Ostensibly, that article is about the southern state (or at least the opening paragraph would lead you to think so) but the content is the equivalent to a merger between our Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles. They have no article specifically about "the island". (By the way, I don't think anyone in favour of the status quo is concerned with the "island" per sé, but with the broad cultural/historical/political/etc. topic of "Ireland").

I think that there would be problems with such a solution here because of the pedantic and battling nature of Wikipedians and that there is a snowballs chance of a merger of Ireland and Republic of Ireland. If, so, we are to continue with the existence of both articles then it is Ireland (being the logical super topic) that is the primary topic - as has been seen to be the view of the majority of editors in countless polls on this subject since we split Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland almost a decade ago.

(Might I suggest too - without wanting to provoke you or put you down in anyway - that the reason you find the whole thing "demoralizing, and way beyond sad" is because you are not getting your own way ... either through consensus, polls, or by asking the (other) ArbCom parent.) --89.101.220.70 (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your "suggestion" does not in any way accurately describe my motivations or my state of mind. -- Evertype·✆ 21:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

← The poll data I have now is insanely contradictory, and any more polling is going to cause more confusion. With that in mind, it would be for the best if we stayed away from the majority/minority comparisons; I'm not seeing it in the data, particularly as all the polls existed in their own context. Aside from which, if one were to insist, some folks are in a majority on one subject and in a minority on another.

I'm still thinking on this. --Xavexgoem (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The polls I was referring to were the countless ones on this subject that have been run on Talk:Ireland and Talk:Republic of Ireland over the past eight years. All with the same result. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

To make sure I'm clear, it sounds like there are two options on the table based on reading all the past information:

• Option 1 - The geographical island at Ireland, the country at Ireland (country), and a disambiguation page at Ireland (disambiguation)
• Option 2 - The geographical island at Ireland (island), the country at Ireland (country), and a disambiguation page at Ireland.

The natural third option, with the country at Ireland, seems to have the least support. This also discounts having the country page at Republic of Ireland, leaving that as a redirect to wherever the country article ends up, as this seems to have little support as well. Am I correct in this assumption? --MASEM (t) 22:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe you pretty much have it nailed. I also believe that Option 1 will achieve consensus just about. --HighKing (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct option one and two are acceptable to the vast majority of people, i think option one is the better of the two and China / Taiwan articles are handled in the same way. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that more people would approve of Option 1 but Option 2 is more correct according to Wikipedia's policies. I'd be happy with either, they're both a big improvement on the current situation.MITH 08:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Option 2 would be more in keeping with Wikipedia policy. But what's this Ireland (country)? I thought "country" was ambiguous and Ireland (state) was preferred. -- Evertype·✆ 09:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in any poll, I would like to see ALL options displayed, not just the front-runners. That way people could mark their first, second, third etc preferences, which is one way of evaluating a range of options. -- Evertype·✆ 09:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree i think we should leave out the two options we know have alot of opposition to avoid dispute and focus on the two reasonable alternatives which are acceptable to all. Whilst country is ambiguous, i think saying Ireland {state} would confuse people because it would be like Georgia (state). Country is there for probably better but im ok with either. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

For purposes of simplifying this process and resolving it, I believe the best way to approach the vote (assuming this is what involved editors want) would to present the above two options, and add "neither of the above" as a third, and use some type of preferential voting method (where you rank your choices). If, after the voting, the "Neither" option has a strong amount of support, we'll need to re-investigate other options. But, as I laid out, I don't believe that any option outside of the above two will gain strong support in a vote simply reading through the past work done on this. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Options 1 ... but not Ireland (country). I needs to be Ireland (state). "Country" is too ambiguous particularly in relation to Ireland. The Ireland that composes of 26 counties is unambiguously a state (indeed the only state currently existing called Ireland). But both "Irelands" (32 county and 26 county) can equally be described as countries, and both commonly are. Ireland/Ireland (country) is more ambiguous than what we have now (i.e. Ireland/Republic of Ireland).

As for a vote, PR-STV is something that all people living on the island of Ireland are familiar with and would IMHO suffice for a voting method (i.e. preference voting like Evertype suggests). For those unfamiliar with it, it is a method that accurately calculates a winner from "preferences". (But since there is only one "winner" in this "constituency", it is more accurately described as an Instant-runoff voting method.) --89.101.220.70 (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that the opinions of Anon IP editors may be discounted/ignored in polls. Please log in if you wish your opinions to be heard should this be viewd/construed as a poll. --HighKing (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If it comes down to a *vote* (again), that's only sensible. ... although ... if you think about it ... the more logical approach would be to discount the votes of logged-in users and only count the votes of IPs - since that is the surest way to prevent sock puppetry/double voting ;-) --89.101.220.70 (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That ain't how it's done, though. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

When I rule the world, "GoodDay", or whoever you are, there will be no users names, we will all be numbers in the matrix. Until then, it is practical that IP **votes** (not !votes or discussion) should not be counted. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It could be Ireland (sovereign country). That's the wording used in the top-of-page hatnotes at the moment. Or is that just too much name? Nuclare (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the country is already going to have some disambig clause in the title and thus not likely to be an immediate search result without stopping through a hatnote or disambiguation page, and that we can redirect the "less accurate" versions to that, I could see this as an option. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. No matter what we put in the brackets, no one is likely to search for "Ireland (...)" so the "user friendly" versions can redirect to the more accurate.

(Ireland (sovereign country)/Ireland (sovereign state) is a little OTT, don't you think?). --89.101.220.70 (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be Ireland(country), state has different meanings in different parts of the world. USA, Australia, Mexico, India, Brazil, Venezuela, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Palau... Country does not have the same problem.T*85 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't option 1 basically the same idea that user Mooretwin proposed back in December that ultimately fell apart for some reason?76.118.224.35 (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. For what its worth - The short bit - If the RoI article is not to be moved to "Ireland", I agree with the compromise proposal that:

• the RoI article to "Ireland (state)";
• the island article to "Ireland (island)"; and
• "Ireland" be a DAB.

For those who wish to read on:

There are a bunch of states that have geographic names that do not fully correspond with their borders – Examples:

• Luxembourg – The state of that name does not include Luxembourg (Belgium);
• Mongolia – The state of that name does not include Inner Mongolia;
• Samoa – The state of that name does not include American Samoa;
• Solomon Islands – The state of that name does not include the North Solomon Islands;
• South Africa – The state of that name does not include lots of places in South Africa such as Swaziland;
• Papua New Guinea – The state of that name does not include Papua (Indonesian province);

....The names of all of the above states have Wikipedia articles that follow their usual names.Why is Ireland being singled out? Regards.Redking7 (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Because in none of those cases is there an island and a state with exactly the same name? Fmph (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A far more comparable example would be China. Northern Ireland, for example, doesn't include everything north of Athlone, as in your "South Africa" example. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea that Ireland is being singled out is pathetic and has been gone over before. As mentioned by the IP there is China but also Taiwan and Georgia. Now whilst i would accept a dab page like Georiga it makes sense to follow the method used at China and Taiwan where there is an article on the island / geographical location whilst making clear at the top of the articles there are separate articles on the sovereign states.

We should follow the example of China / Taiwan, frankly this is what should of happened from the start. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BritishWatcher - the examples at China and Taiwan are good examples of what can be adopted for Ireland (country/state/republic). --HighKing (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't. If you follow the China example, you end up with an article that for all intents and purposes includes every government of Ireland (the island) up to and including the government of the big part of the partitioned island. Otherwise you get an article which includes government information for all periods of Ireland bit STOPS that kind of coverage at partition. Entirely unworkable -- and not, I think, comparable to the article about "Chinese civilization". An article about "Irish civilization" will have us dancing at the crossroads and I doubt anyone much wants to look at an article like that when they come here. Ireland (island) can handle geography and climate, and other "island" things. -- Evertype·✆ 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Below I recycle some China/Ireland type arguement: Regards Redking7 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In case any genuine non-POV users might get confused and consider China some sort of acceptable example to follow:

• PRC (Peoples Republic of China) is the official name of the most widely recognised China. The large majority of countries recognise the PRC as the only Chinese State;
• ROC (Republic of China) is the official name of the much less recognised China - more commonly know as Taiwan (which is where the non-Communists established themselves after the Chinese Civil War and where the Communists have never ruled). A minority of countries, for example, the Vatican City recognise only the ROC (Taiwan) as the Chinese State;

That is broadly the reason for the way the China, the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of China have the article names they do.

In contrast:

• RoI (Republic of Ireland) is not the official name of the Irish State;
• "Ireland" is the name by which the Irish State is recognised by every country in the world (including even UK of GB and NI!);

In short, there is no comparison between the Chinese and Irish article names! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition, some one raised the Georgia example - This is the example I believe the Irish should follow. Georgia is the official name of the Georgian State - thats respected in the article name. The same should go for Ireland. I've always said "Ireland (state)" - similar to "Georgia (country)" is a fair compromise. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've said the same thing too, but that receives nothing but such bad faith that I decided to support my actual preference, since any time I say anything it gets gainsaid anyway. -- Evertype·✆ 21:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the discussion here has been about changing ROI to "Ireland (state)" or some similar "(...)". So what's the complaint? Regardless of whether China/Ireland make ideal comparisons, the general principle that 'nation' articles can be transjurisdictional (if Ireland were to remain located as is) is the point, I think. Nuclare (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ireland should be a DAB - same logic as the DAB for Georgia. Its not complicated. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Except there's an easy choice between the two Georgias because they are entirely and utterly unrelated. It's not the same with Ireland where one could easily want both the state and all of the island at the same time and, frankly, one could also easily not *know* whether they want the state or all of the island of Ireland until they read quite a bit more about the subject than a DAB page offers. What is your objection to having all of the island of Ireland at Ireland? Nuclare (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What is your objection to having the reader go through a DAB page to get to the island article? If they really want to know about the island they will make one click, if they want to know about the country they will make one click T*85 (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Precisely what I just said: "It's not the same with Ireland where one could easily want both the state and all of the island at the same time and, frankly, one could also easily not *know* whether they want the state or all of the island of Ireland until they read quite a bit more about the subject than a DAB page offers." What does it mean to "want to know about the island"? Is that a purely geographical concern? Or does it concern that which crosses the border, culturally, historically, etc.? There is, I get the sense, some underlying disagreement about what the 'island' and 'country' pages should be that shapes some opinion on these issues. The current set up already serves a DAB function--the two uses of Ireland so dominate over all the others ('Kathy Ireland', etc.) that having it go direct to related content and having the hatnote to the state and an opening section that, again, gives clear indication and another link to the state serves a DAB function. Nuclare (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not regurgitate past arguments here - I'd like to make sure that the two options (Ireland as DAB or Ireland as island) are likely the only significant and well-supported options available for us to consider should the next step be a poll to vote. We've gotten the merits of either side through the previous commentary phase here, and don't need to rehash it. (Note, I'm not asking for opinion one way or another, just making sure that no other major option hasn't been brought up as a likely possibility). --MASEM (t) 14:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

When is this vote likely to happen?MITH 14:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Once we've confirmed we've got the right options to be voting about. Hopefully that's sooner (like within a week) than later, but rather make sure we get this right the first time and take our time doing that. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

On what authority do you speak? Mooretwin (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Masem is a moderator. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Has he been given authority to organise and conduct a poll? Mooretwin (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

He has the authority to help resolve this dispute and progress seems to be being made. Note Masem said "should the next step be a poll", i dont think its final that one will be held yet. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Polls haven't worked in the past because picking off individual disputes does not solve the whole issue universally, which is what is required. We need consensus agreement on all aspects of the dispute. Mooretwin (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So what would you consider to be all aspects of the dispute? --MASEM (t) 15:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See my statement. The dispute is about more than the titles of articles: it is also about the name used to describe the 26-county state in other articles throughout the encyclpaedia. Mooretwin (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your statement got mass rejection so let's just concentrate on the what goes where and then we can concentrate on other things.MITH 16:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, a comprehensive solution is required: not picking off one particular aspect of the dispute. The proposal gained unprecedented support on the IDTF - an initiative which attracted far greater interest than the paltry interest being shown in this. Polls on individual moves haven't worked in the past and are unlikely to work in the future. What is it about a comprehensive package that you are scared of? We will all gain something, but also have to concede something else. Mooretwin (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Point 2 and 3 in your statement are important points that everyone should agree with no matter the outcome on what belongs at Ireland. If we rule out "republic of Ireland / Ireland" for the country article then point 1 of your statememnt will happen. That just leaves point 4 which is what a poll would be on If its a dab page or a page about Ireland (Geographyc, history / culture etc). BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Point 2 and 3, though, are not agreed by everyone, and I do not support point 1 unless point 2 is agreed. It is actually point 2 which has caused the most problems through edit-warring. Points 2 and 3 also need to be worked out in detail, and the question of "The politics of ..."-type articles needs to be worked out, too. All of this has to happen as one. Mooretwin (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm agreed, these matters do need to be addressed and agreed to. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) To make sure I'm clear on Mooretwin's concerns, it's not just the naming of the island/country/disambig page, but also:

• The naming of articles like "Geography of Ireland" or "History of Ireland" articles.
• How "Ireland" should be referred to in other articles.

Now, reading over everything, the most important factor of this entire case is the naming of the island/country. I think that once those points are settled, moving on to look at related article names and how it should be called will fall out naturally - I mean, there will probably be options, but the options will be within an established framework of the core article names, and the resolution of this case should be considered closed until those are decided. Yes, we could consider a number of complete solutions, but with each added factor, the number of possible solutions grows exponentially. I feel that the easiest route to reach the end of this is to deal with the issue that is 90% core of this case, and then propagate out from there instead of trying to do it in one fell swoop. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Changing the names of the current Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles will not in any way lead to other solutions "falling out naturally". How would it? Whatever the current state article is called, there will still be an issue as to how to describe it within the texts of other articles as the name "Ireland" will always remain ambiguous, and hence there will always be a need for disambiguation in articles where the meaning of Ireland is not necessarily clear. What, pray tell, is the problem with agreeing a comprehensive agreement? Mooretwin (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The naming of "other articles" and use of "Ireland"/"Republic of Ireland" in other places is long worked out and have been very stable for as long as anyone can remember. It is a non-issue. Overview of current practice is to always refer to the state as "Ireland" in article text (and to pipe link to Republic of Irelnd as appropriate), unless there is a specific need to distinguish it from Northern Ireland (or to a lesser extent Ireland-the-island). When naming of articles to do with politics politics, we use the official title for offices, etc. where one exists (hence Government of Ireland, President of Ireland, Flag of Ireland) otherwise use "Republic of Ireland" (hence Local government in the Republic of Ireland, Politics of the Republic of Ireland). For topics where the modern states are no such a defining element, an all-island approach is taken (hence List of cities in Ireland, Music of Ireland, History of Ireland).

The WP:IMOS *had* specific guidance for naming of geographic locations (though I notice this is gone). The advice was to use for example, "[[Cork]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]" today, but "Cork, Ireland" before 1922. Whether it is in the MOS of not, this still common practice and his very stable. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That is completely untrue. The naming of "other articles" and use of "Ireland"/"Republic of Ireland" in other places is NOT "long worked out" and has only been stable because editors have ceased edit-warring in the (so far mistaken) belief that an agreed solution was on its way. There was never any agreement and the "piping" solution at IMOS (now gone) applied only to geography articles, although it was used by Southern-Irish-centric editors on various articles to disguise the term "Republic of Ireland" (these attempts led to edit wars). There is no agreement as to when "there is a specific need to distinguish it from Northern Ireland (or to a lesser extent Ireland-the-island)". Mooretwin (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You clearly haven't edited a lot. There have been huge debates over the titles and many edit wars over use of ROI. Of course IMOS guidelines are gone. Things have changed - there is no guidelines, that is what is being sorted out here.MITH 11:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you give examples of these wars? I have been editing for far longer than either one of you (from what I can tell the the contribution histories attached to your accounts) and it seemed very stable to me. Use of "Ireland" in info boxes to refer to the state, I remember, used to cause consternation, but that was worked out. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I used to edit as an ip and lurk like yourself (before I saw the benefits of getting an account) so I am familiar with all the edit wars that went on. I'm not going to get diffs for you, but if you want to search for some that happened, looking at Mooretwin's block logs wouldn't be a bad place to start.MITH 11:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with trying to aim for a single-shot poll to determine a comprehensive solution is that we will be here forever trying to decide every possible permutation of those solutions and will dilute any reasonable poll or the like; that stated happening with the first set of moderators and appeared to be part of what caused them to leave. Have you ever heard of how the US Congress will add rider after riders to proposed bills, making them 100s of pages, and as such, a lot will stay in there with very few Congressmen reading the entire thing? That can happen if we don't break this into smaller issues. The reason I think things will fall out naturally if we start with the most critical decision (Ireland as island or disamb) is because that will naturally limit the possible scenarios for any other affected articles or conventions; also, as noted above, there already seems to be a useful order to some of these affected articles, so I think those will be much faster to resolve once the core naming dispute is dealt with. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Your approach is flawed because, once a decision is made on Ireland, there is no incentive for the "side" which wins that poll to compromise on anything else. If a majority votes one way in a poll on Ireland, then they will vote to reinforce their "victory" on other issues. That is why a package is the only way to achieve compromise. If there is 51:49 support for one position, and separate polls are held on each issue, then the 51% win every time, despite being only a very narrow majority. If there is a package, then both the 51% and the 49% are forced to agree to a compromise.

As for your suggestion that we will be here forever trying to decide every possible permutation of those solutions - not so, since the work was already begun by the IDTF. It was suggested there that a team be appointed to come up with guidance on when to use ROI and when to use Ireland in the texts of Ireland; and another to identify all the "Economics of ...", "Culture of ..." articles and come up with a solution for agreeing how to title them.

You say agreement on "the most critical decision (Ireland as island or disamb)" will naturally limit the possible scenarios for any other affected articles or conventions, but it won't. Regardless of that, it would still be possible to refer to the state in other articles by other names. Mooretwin (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the objections to package-solutions, but I'd also be wary of thinking that *anything* in regards to these subjects is going to fall out naturally. Actually at the moment, what puzzles me is where the ROI-supporters have gone. I doubt they've changed their minds. Conceded defeat? Or are they just absent from fatigue? Are we saying that a move of the state's page from ROI to something else is a done-deal?? This all just seems a little too easy at the moment? Not that I don't support such a move, but there's a strange silence in this section from anyone who disagrees with the moderator's statement above that DAB page or Ireland (country) or some similar (...) are the only workable solutions. Or did I miss something?? Nuclare (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say they're bored, frustrated and disillusioned. Each attempt to find a solution gets less interest as people simply lose interest with each failure. IDTF had the most interest, followed by the recently-closed futile exercise (and waste of everyone's time). Even fewer are still interested now in this conversation among a tiny few editors. Mooretwin (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fatigue is a good guess (or boredom - or the simple fact that "they" don't have to participate here: ROI is the status quo). This page is still an obscure corner of the encyclopedia and no place to determine consensus. Why not take it to Talk:Ireland/Talk:Republic of Ireland to get wider input if it it thought that something workable has come out of this. --rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say once a definite process is in place everyone will be giving an opinion, because the last one fell apart a few have lost faith in this I guess. It's the job of the moderators to make sure everything is clearly defined in what is going to happen for all the interested editor's sakes.MITH 21:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• "PRC (Peoples Republic of China) is the official name of the most widely recognised China." / "ROC (Republic of China) is the official name of the much less recognised China." French Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, United States of America, Commonwealth of Australia, etc. ... we've been over this. The number of articles on states that are located at the official name of that state is few and far between. The necessity to use the "Republic of ..." formulations to divide the state commonly called "China" from the wider concept of "China", is analogous with the Irish situation.
• "'Ireland' is the name by which the Irish State is recognised" - and when people say "Ireland", they do not always mean the Irish state. There is a wider topic of "Ireland", which is a more extensive that topic than the Irish state 1939-present. When necessary to distinguish between the two, the state is usually called "Republic of Ireland" (as we do here). Indeed, even when talking about the "politics of Ireland", you cannot assume a person means the Irish state. And when talking about something like the culture of Ireland (or geography, or history, or people, ...), it would be ludicrous to assume a person means the narrow "Ireland": the Irish state 1937-present. Without doubt, it is the wider concept of "Ireland" a person means.
• "...genuine non-POV users..." - way to demonstrate good faith. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• User:BritishWatcher, and User:Mooretwin are POV-pushers and should be ignored. The project would be much better off without them. User:BritishWatcher is going around Wikipedia claiming that there are a group of editors trying to remove the term "British Isles" from Wikipedia. Such a load of bunkum, and a voice not worth listening to. I have asked him to name names, but the requeswt goes unanswered. Either 'put up', or 'shut up'!Purple ☏ 02:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

wow Purple Arrow, you are the one that has changed a name of one article with no consensus to something so stupid and incorrect (Military history of the peoples of the British Islands) the entire article is now having to be deleted because its pointless. You say we are imagining or making up the fact that some are seeking to remove British Isles from wikipedia? Rubbish, the facts speak for themselves. For a start people have been trying to change the article on British Isles claiming that certain other terms are "used more" which was an outright lie as the suggested names didnt even cover what British Isles is. We have the joke currently happening on British Empire where a sentence mentioning the British Isles has existed for two years but the POV pushers have arrived and seek its removal along with their appeasers who also have clear political motives too. We have History of the British Isles where Snowded attempted to have the title changed.

Some people on wikipedia are on a campaign to remove British Isles from this site. Its pathetic and theres plenty of evidence to back up the fact this is happening. It really is troubling how dangerous this website is when a few people seek to rewrite history because of their political views. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• You have just exposed yourself again for the pov-pushing that you do so well. Quite frankly your opinion will cease to be held in any esteem if you continue. There was agreement going back, not to add or remove 'Brutish isles' to or from any article, and Setanta747 did just this some months ago, without any consensus, and quite deliberately too. I undid Setanta747's pov motivated edits, and created a level playing field again on that particular article. The strange thing is that a certain clique were demanding a consensus to return the article to its former name, something that wasn't forthcoming. Almost every other day I see the term BI being questionably added to articles, and I hardly ever see the reverse. Purple ☏ 12:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ive not been POV pushing, im simply stating what has been happening on several articles in response to your claim that i am lying about some sort of campaign against the use of British Isles throughout wikipedia. You say there was some form of agreement (which i havnt seen) which said British Isles shouldnt be added or removed without consensus, if you have a link to that agreement it would be helpful but the very fact an agreement had to be made saying people should seek consensus to "remove" British isles suggests its been happening for some time.

In the case of Setanta changing the article to "Military... of the British Isles" i have always said on that talk page i see the reasons for wanting it there but accept changing it back to what it was before or something else or even deleting the article, but the current title is just wrong. As for only seeing it being added to articles and hardly the reverse, i just gave you a few examples in my previous post. No better example sums it up than whats happening at British Empire. British Isles was in the article for two years but now all of a sudden theres a massive campaign to try and remove it, even changing it to something thats incorrect is better for some people than British Isles remaining in the text. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Purple Arrow is a POV-pusher and should be ignored. The project would be much better off without him. Mooretwin (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there is POV on both sides, probably unfair to say one side is worse than the other?--T*85 (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree thats a bit unfair, there is most definitely POV on both sides. User:BritishWatcher I think is generally quite fair in his comments (and his BI comment does have some grounds.) Mooretwin asks me above why I'm scared of his "comprehensive solution package". The answer is, and I'm being honest here, the fact that he has a history of being extremely disruptive whilst editing (8 separate 3RR blocks is a lot), which makes me wonder whether he is looking for certain things so that he feels it will justify him in further edit warring behaviour in the future.MITH 07:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask why you were scared of MY package, but why you were scared of (any) comprehensive package. Mooretwin (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Comprehensive packages" are have a very bad track record across WP. They involve a tiny number of editor coming up with a "solution" that fixes their own little problem but which throws thousands of other articles and editors in to acrimony.

Other people at other times have resolved their own issues to their satisfaction. "Comprehensive solutions" turn those resolutions upside-down. They are a bad idea. --89.101.220.70 (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you this. Things need to be solved one at a time in order that we get the best solutions.MITH 11:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I had a terrific idea (months ago), it was a trade-off between the articles British Isles & Republic of Ireland. Here it is (was) 1) move British Isles to Britain and Ireland, keep RoI as is. 2) move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (country), keep BI as is. -- Both sides in both discussion didn't like my plan (note, that both sides were in agreement, atleast). GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

lmao, that would never of been accepted and it wouldnt of resolved matters. If you rewrite article titles because a couple of people are on a campaign to remove certain words where would it end. Some of these people would support burning books with the term as well, i seem to recall that sort of thing happened in the build up to World War 2 because of appeasement too. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As GoodDay pointed out, NOBODY accepted his suggestion, so why the need here to compare editors to Nazis to make a point about it? The editors above trying to have other editors dismissed as POV-pushers isn't helpful either. I thought this sort of thing was supposed to stop in this process and is partly what got us here in the first place. Nuclare (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Trying to remove any mention of certain things from wikipedia sounds alot like burning books with content that people disagree with to me, The Nazis doing the same and also being appeased seemed like a good example. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks; what other editors have done in POV-ish manners in other naming conflicts is not a factor we are considering here. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is unreal

The most reccurent theme and arguement is firmly on the term Republic.
This kind of talk about the Republic of Ireland term > "...should always be avoided", "...is not official", etc. and then debating it, describing references etc. There is more talk page material on that than in any article. That debate could be compressed to 10% everytime by enshrining some facts about the names, North, Republic and island. Then in any debate about where the term Republic came from or how and if it is official to the state, it is right there on the project page, debate is halved, productivity is doubled. Even if the term Republic is voted in as ridiculous to use for the state, it has been used and has been official. Nothing as a fact has been more debated. The members of this project have a sort of duty to point out that, the term Republic of Ireland was created by the Irish government, is an official Irish term for the state, and not an unusual name at all.
If you were on WikiProject Green and received a new person every week that says "Blue is not a real part of green" should have a clear sign that "Blue is real even if everybody likes yellow."
There should be a clear annoucement about the nature of that term, even warnings about getting the wrong idea, because it is so often confusing, so much more so than any other well known term. ~ R.T.G 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's some more relevant recycling (this time from the Names of the Irish State article):

The distinction between a description and a name has sometimes caused confusion. The Taoiseach, John A. Costello who introduced the legislation explained the difference in the following way:^[1]

"If I say that my name is Costello and that my description is that of senior counsel, I think that will be clear to anybody who wants to know...[Similarly, the state's] name in Irish is Éire and in the English language, Ireland. Its description in the English language is "the Republic of Ireland."

-- Redking7 (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Except Mr Costello's analogy didn't work. The correct analogy would either be:

"If I say that my name is Costello and that my description is that of John Costello, Senior Counsel, I think that will be clear to anybody who wants to know...[Similarly, the state's] name in Irish is Éire and in the English language, Ireland. Its description in the English language is "the Republic of Ireland."

or

"If I say that my name is Costello and that my description is that of Senior counsel, I think that will be clear to anybody who wants to know...[Similarly, the state's] name in Irish is Éire and in the English language, Ireland. Its description in the English language is "republic."

Mooretwin (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Costello's analogy worked just fine. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work at all, for the reason given above. Mooretwin (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The description of the United Kingdom is Constitutional monarchy, but we don't do Constitutional Monarchy of United Kingdom here. No, we don't do that here for UK. Tfz 16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If the description of the UK is "constitional monarchy", then the description of the 26-county state is "republic". Mooretwin (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's because United Kingdom can mean only one thing, while Ireland can mean more than one thing. ~Asarlaí 17:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well ... no. The "United Kingdom" could refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain, or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or the current meaning which is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant in the present day. Currently there's only one entity called the United Kingdom. ~Asarlaí 17:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that Constitutional monarchy is the description? Have you got a citation for that? Personally I would have thought that United Kingdom is the descriptive part of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For me 'United Kingdom of ' and 'Republic of ' are pretty much the same type of thing. But I'm willing to be proved wrong. Fmph (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Republic" refers to the system of representation in Ireland. The UK has a "Constitutional Monarchy" system, as opposed to a republican system. I really should have written Constitutional Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Tfz 19:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't 'monarchy' equal 'kingdom'? Or am I missing something? Fmph (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Constitutional Monarchy" would not be the same as Kingdom, although a Kingdom could be just that, as in the case of the UK. A Kingdom could be anything from a democracy to a dictatorship. But it would not be a Republic. Tfz 19:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Tfz, you can read WP's article about the Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Otherwise, I think what you mean is the Kingdom of the United Kingdom (monarchy/republic are forms of government, kingdom/republic are forms of states). Kingdom of the United Kingdom is, of course, a tautology (since it's plainly obvious from its name that the United Kingdom is a kingdom). Whereas Republic of Ireland (like Republic of South Africa or Kingdom of the Netherlands) is not a tautology. Ireland has in the past been a kingdom. The Netherlands has in the past been a republic.

What all of this has to do with anything, I don't know. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Second largest city in Ireland?

Both of the following statements could be argued against, at least as being unclear and potentially misleading:

• Belfast is the second largest city in Ireland
• Cork is the second largest city in Ireland

It is simple enough to clarify the former by restating it as

• Belfast is the second largest city in the island of Ireland

How should the latter be clarified? --81.151.192.243 (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it in the island of Ireland or "of / on" it? "in the island of Ireland" doesnt sound right to me for some reason. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the most difficult issues is that of context. Quoting a single sentence like this doesn't give the context of the article. For example, if the article is discussing the state, or some aspect of the state, then saying that Cork is the 2nd largest city in Ireland is fine. If the article is discussing aspects of the entire island, then the first sentence is fine. If the context isn't clear, then make the sentence clearer by adding that Cork is the 2nd largest city in the state, or in the Republic of Ireland, etc. --HighKing (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Belfast is the second largest city on the island of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Most people on the island of Ireland - north and south - would say Belfast is the second largest city in Ireland. Fmph (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think most people would say Cork, because Belfast is in Northern Ireland. Usually when we talk about cities we also usually refer to their countries too. So Belfast would be the biggest city in Northern Ireland, Dublin the biggest in Ireland, and Cork the second biggest in Ireland. Tfz 20:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The above shows just how far the ROI-phobics are prepared to depart from common sense and reality. Mooretwin (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Still beating the drum, eh? The newest 'twist' of this sordid pov-campaign is that there are two Irelands. There is only one country in the world called Ireland, and pretty obviously you WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sorry, there is nothing I can do about that, will just have to live with the reality. Tfz 01:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

By stating, on the one hand, that there is only one Ireland, and then, on the other, arguing Belfast is not in Ireland, you merely reinforce the assessment noted at 22.36 yesterday. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 "Irelands". There is the Island of Ireland, the country of Ireland and we can not forget Northern Ireland (which could be considered a 3rd) which is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The question being raised here about how to handle whats the second largest city in "Ireland" is a good one, because it just saying Cork is the second biggest city in Ireland, doesnt make clear if we are talking about the island or the country. Its good that we address these matters before reaching a final solution on where the Ireland articles belongs BritishWatcher (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you oppose my interpretation so fiercely? When we talk about the biggest city, and the second biggest city, we are talking in a particular country. And when we talk about the second biggest in Ireland, we are talking about Cork. And Ireland is the only country in the world called Ireland, so any idea of a mix up is a red herring. Tfz 10:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How does the reader know that (a) "we are talking about a particular country" and that (b) that "particular country" is the 26-county state (as opposed to Ireland generally)? Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's as simple as this. Anyone who would bother to read an encyclopedic article must have some intelligence in the first instance, if that's what they want to do. Intelligent people pick up ideas and concepts quite easily. Your theory would say there are two Washingtons in the USA, the major ones that is. Well it is so simple to understand once pointed out, that one is a state and the other is a city in a different state. And it does not cause any problems for Wikipedia, I was reading them last evening. We don't have to assume that everyone who reads WP is incapable of understanding the difference. Tfz 10:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask again. How does the (intelligent) reader know that (a) "we are talking about a particular country" and that (b) that "particular country" is the 26-county state (as opposed to Ireland generally)? Regarding Washington, if someone were to ask, say, what proportion of people in Washington vote Republican - how would the (intelligent) reader know to which Washington was being referred? Would disambiguation not be necessary? Mooretwin (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Context, context, context. If we were talking about American cities, we would immediately know, if we were talking about the American states, we would also immediatly know, it's never a big deal. Rarely these things are alluded to without context. In an article about the six counties, Belfast would be very simple to explain, as NI is a small area. Have faith in the reader, they'll get it. Tfz 11:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. So you accept that, where context demands it, one would, in fact, need to say that Cork is the second-largest city in the Republic of Ireland. Maybe we're getting somewhere. Mooretwin (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not in that case, unless we are talking about islands specifically. And seldom do we talk about the second largest city in a particular area. It's usually within countries, and Belfast being second largest anywhere would be less significant than being the largest in the six counties. There is sometimes room for a bit of disambiguation, my preferred use of 'republic' as I wrote somewhere before, it is republic of Ireland, and only when absolutely necessary. Simple word-craft can eliminate most of these perceived issues. Tfz 11:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Not in that case"? And what case is that? And why "republic of Ireland (state)" (made-up term) rather than the actual term "Republic of Ireland"? Mooretwin (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Has nobody thought to see what is currently written on the Belfast and Cork articles? (At least before people from this page begin to edit war over words used on articles that they had never edited - maybe even never read - before.) Since both answers to the question are correct, current practice can give an indication to consensus among articles that this question actually pertains to. Actual current practice is certainly more likely to indicate consensus than mere academic discussion here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The way the articles currently deal with it are good, but ofcourse this gets to the heart of the problem. Certain editors here think its unacceptable for it to say "Republic of Ireland" on the Cork article, in my opinion its reasonable to say republic of Ireland in that case and it should be acceptable.. this is something we need agreement here on, otherwise once a name change happens theres going to be a group of editors on a campaign to remove "Republic of Ireland" from articles to replace it with just Ireland which leads to the confusion mentioned above. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the Cork article is set in Ireland, and there is absolutely no need to write anything but Ireland, we are not talking geography here. Somewhat amusing that you fiercely protest that British Isles is not in the least bit ambiguous on the British Empire page, and you argue the complete diametrical opposite argument here about Ireland. It makes me wonder if encyclopedia improvement is the only motive pushing these arguments. Tfz 12:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Who - other than you - says that, in the Cork article, "we are not talking geography"? Mooretwin (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cork is a city in Ireland, and subject to the Constitution of Ireland, it has a political existence in Ireland. I meant to write geology, my misprint is not as important as facts are, and that's what matters here. You just can't let go of your quest to put ROI into every article, even when other editors are trying to be reasonable. Tfz 12:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Cork is also a city in Ireland (the island), it has a geographic (and geological(??)) existence in Ireland. Facts are what matter here. You just can't let go of your quest to purge ROI from every article, even when other editors are trying to be reasonable. Mooretwin (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Do they sell pop, in Cork? GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism now, is it? I jest. It is also on planet Earth, third rock from the Sun, somewhere in the Milky Way galaxy. Anything more that can be added to the article? Like the planets, these arguments go around in circles, and I'm away to get some Sun. Tfz 13:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Certain editors here think its unacceptable for it to say "Republic of Ireland" on the Cork article..." It would appear so. It would also appear appear not to be unacceptable there. And unless it is, we here are inventing problems for there that don't exist.

"...once a name change happens theres going to be a group of editors on a campaign..." Ah, yes. Campaigns. The good citizens of Cork and Belfast don't know what lies ahead of them, do they? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely this shouldn't be a big deal? Its pretty easy to use the correct terminology clearly and accurately. For example,Cork is the third largest city on the island of Ireland, behind the Irish capital Dublin and Belfast in Northern Ireland. It's not the best example but it can easily be done.MITH 15:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"Cork is the second-largest city in the Republic of Ireland, and the third-largest city on the island of Ireland" ... what's the problem with that? ~Asarlaí 15:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's step back here. In general, when we introduce a term that is non-obvious from context (both Ireland and Washington apply), we are generally going to expand that term out and wikilink it the first time it is used to establish that context per wiki-standards. In the specific case of Cork, this is going to come back to the naming of the articles scheme, but we would not start the article off with "Cork is the second largest city in Ireland" since that is immediately vague, but instead, that "Cork is the second largest city in the (Republic/country/nation state/soverign nation) of Ireland." (whatever we decide on the name for the 26-county country.) Similarly, "Belfast is the second largest city in Ireland." is also vague, and requires expansion. Now, what happens in the rest of the article depends on how "Ireland" is brought up elsewhere. In the case of Cork (the current state of that article) it mentions both the nation and the island, so care has to be stated throughout. In Belfast, the only use of Ireland that I can easily see is to the island (otherwise, it's spelled out Northern Island as the body it is in), so once it's stated "the island of Ireland", it can be presumed to remain that for the rest of the article. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

At last. Progress. Hope. Sensible suggestions, let's keep this moving... --HighKing (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Crazy changes being made at Republic of Ireland

Can the moderators urgently take a look at whats been happening BritishWatcher (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The same has been happening at Ireland too. ~Asarlaí 16:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The shorter version is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the procedure mandated by the Arbitration Committee for settling this dispute — i.e. the discussion going on here. I suggest filing a report at WP:AE. — ras52 (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we've only been given "powers" (such as they are) to moderate this discussion, not to enforce arbitration. As noted above, WP:AE is the right place. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You dont need "powers" to contribute to the debate at those locations to explain that Domer is clearly acting outside of the rules and violating ArbComs rulings. He doesnt seem to think hes done anything wrong, he needs setting straight. We should also address the fact that people have been allowed to contribute here without signing the project page.. it should be compulsary. Also requesting Move protection on all the Ireland articles is clearly needed to prevent nationalists acting up like this again. Weve obviously had too much sun here the past 48 hours. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I really think the moderators need to setup a process as soon as possible in order to avoid something like this happening again. What happened to the idea of polling what should be at Ireland? Wasn't that meant to be starting shortly?MITH 18:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well things were going well until an important point was raised above about how we handle mentioning Ireland in articles, and i agree that we need to get agreement on that before we decide on the name. If we agree to a name change which moves ROI to Ireland (something) then a bunch of editors will go around removing "republic of".. from articles and just leaving it as Ireland which in the above example of Cork makes things confusing. That needs resolving before any vote.

After todays attacks on the Ireland / Republic of Ireland articles, i think the template on the talk pages there need updating too. At the moment it says "Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements."... We need a note on those pages linking to this but saying DONT try to move articles etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that had pretty much been agreed. A proposed WP:IMOS text was given and pretty much all the editors agreed to it. Is the Cork example the only thing thats holding it back? Once that is sorted out is it presumed that we are going ahead with the article titles process?MITH 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the cork thing is just one issue where there is clear disagreement about how things need to be handled. These are the things that really do need to be resolved before an agreement to name change happens, otherwise im sure there will be dozens of removals of text which make spark dozens of arguments on different talk pages.. far better to be sure we are all agreed here first. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Only one editor - Tfz - has made any issue of the "Cork thing". Mooretwin (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You started name calling because I pointed out that cities are usually discussed in relation to their country, and not to their continent/island/territory etc. You WP:IDONTLIKEIT my opinion, so you called me a "phobic", remember to AGF, as it's policy here. Tfz 14:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Well the cork thing is just one issue where there is clear disagreement..." Except, that is, among editors that are actually doing the editing on those articles. There, there doesn't appear to be any sign of disagreement. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed there they have consensus and a well worded article. My concern is as soon as theres a name change, (which is almost certainly going to move the article on the state to something other than Republic of Ireland). A gang will start going through every article mentioning republic of Ireland and seeking to remove the "republic of" from the text. It seems sensible to ensure there is agreement here on these matters before the mob is unleashed resulting in dozens of conflicts on many different articles BritishWatcher (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why we need to go back to the Task Force solution, which was all-encompassing. Mooretwin (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"A gang will start going through every article mentioning republic of Ireland..." Which is not in the interest of the encyclopedia. And against the current consensus in articles (where it actually matters). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to vote?

Is it time to have a vote on this? If so, I propose Ireland, country as my first choice, no brackets. This discussion page will go on for years and years, and really it's doing the project no good whatsoever by having this unharmonious loose end hanging about. All other issues will fall into place once the move is made, as they always do. Tfz

So if there is a big vote one way or the other....Does any one here have any authority to move the page? If they don't, there's not much point having a vote. PS "Ireland, country" is a new one on me. Never heard that suggestion before. Things had narrowed down to "Republic of Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" but here we go again. I still support "Ireland (state)". Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Could go with Ireland, state, I don't like brackets, and another editor was making a big deal about brackets earlier in the year, and claimed that was their reason for staying with RoI. Tfz 05:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to go against the disambiguation guideline here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya can't go wrong with moving Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) or Ireland (republic), Ireland to Ireland (island) and Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A brief summary needed

Could someone please make a brief summary of how things are going on? Is this moving forward? Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Endless circle. No. DrKiernan (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

... meanwhile, apart from one or two determined editors, out in the real world of Wikipedia, life goes on as normal. This is a non-issue to most. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've become lost on this Collaboration, too. It's giving me a deer in the head-lights feeling. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There are probably a small number of editors whose views could be seen at being at the extreme ends of a bellcurve. Fortunately, the bellcurve appears to be getting steeper. Significant progress is being made. My only wish is that the ArbCom participators would regularly capture the progress and agreements so that we can avoid having to redo discussions and just point back to an agreement or decision. --HighKing (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a long process which attracted the most contributors of any other - the Task Force - reached the same conclusions that are essentially being repeated now. It's a pity the Task Force was superseded by the nonsense "statementing" process which crashed and burned. Mooretwin (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, those 2 Taskforces (don't forget the BI one), must have cob-webs in them by now (due to neglect). GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: process to find our current position

So much of our argument/counter arguments are lost in the depths of discussion that they are lost to anyone looking from the outside. In order to summarise our current position, I'm proposing that we engage in a relatively short collaborative statement of our current positions. The exercise would see us collaborativly summarising the arguments and counter-arguments and the outcome of them that we have had.

Each argument, counter-argument and outcome (summary) should be written - collaboratively - in one sentence. These should not be statements, but arguments (i.e. the need a "because"). They should relate only to a outcome that we want to see from this (so nothing about "Cork is in Republic of Ireland because..." since "Cork" is not a potential outcome for this process). All of the arguments should be "positive" argument (i.e. no arguments like "The article on the state should NOT be moved because..." or the "The article on the state should NOT be at Republic of Ireland because...") - this is so the process is less adversarial and more focused on outcomes.

The counter augments should ONLY address the specific argument that comes before them. The summary should contain a NPOV summary of the results of the argument vs. counter argument.

Both 'sides' can edit any argument, counter argument or summary.

So for example:

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.

Argument: The state article should be located at the Ireland because that is the state's official name.

Counter argument: Most articles on states on Wikipedia do not appear at the official name of the state (e.g. France vs. French Republic)

Summary: Most articles on states do not appear at the official name of that state.

The intention is that the end of this process (we can set a date - two or three days from now), we will have a summary of every argument we've had. And an NPOV summary of the result in a digestible form. (Plus we - hopefully - won't be at each other throats while we are doing it.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just vote now? We all know what it is at this stage. Qaziphone (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(Sarek had two summaries here, but moved them)

Thats great but its just another delay most people already know what they want to do and know the arguements up and down. Maybe as a way of preserving how the consensus was reached this would be helpful but its not necessary to get to chose an option Qaziphone (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Though I prefer moving the 3 Ireland articles-in-question. I must admit, that their current status has advantages (in avoiding confusion). GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So make a arg/count/summ in the section below. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your's sums it all up, accurately. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

MITH, while I was wrong to delete your comments, note that we're trying to summarize the arguments below: hence, they're not "your comments", just like the lines I edited aren't mine. --SarekOfVulcan ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 16:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I am not trying to make my points, just rational points in general.MITH 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Recap

The short bit - If the RoI article is not to be moved to "Ireland", I agree with the compromise proposal that:

• the RoI article to "Ireland (state)";
• the island article to "Ireland (island)"; and
• "Ireland" be a DAB.

For those who wish to read on:

There are a bunch of states that have geographic names that do not fully correspond with their borders – Examples:

• Luxembourg – The state of that name does not include Luxembourg (Belgium);
• Mongolia – The state of that name does not include Inner Mongolia;
• Samoa – The state of that name does not include American Samoa;
• Solomon Islands – The state of that name does not include the North Solomon Islands;
• South Africa – The state of that name does not include lots of places in South Africa such as Swaziland;

....The names of all of the above states have Wikipedia articles that follow their usual names.Why is Ireland being singled out? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(How may times/places are you going to post the same thing? Anyway, here's the same reply as I posted to you this morning.)

And there are states where, like Ireland/Republic of Ireland, the opposite is the case. E.g.:

• China/People's Republic of China/Taiwan/Republic of China
• Congo/Democratic Republic of the Congo/Republic of Congo
• Korea/North Korea/South Korea
• Micronesia/Federated States of Micronesia

As we all know, too, hardly any articles on states on WP are located at their "official" names. Nobody is "singling" Ireland out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(This dicussion is taking place on Talk:Republic of Ireland.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And over there redirects to here. Lets just keep the dicussion here instead. --Qaziphone (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re the China "counter-example" referred to above, Below I recycle some China/Ireland type arguement

In case any genuine non-POV users might get confused and consider China some sort of acceptable example to follow:

• PRC (Peoples Republic of China) is the official name of the most widely recognised China. The large majority of countries recognise the PRC as the only Chinese State;
• ROC (Republic of China) is the official name of the much less recognised China - more commonly know as Taiwan (which is where the non-Communists established themselves after the Chinese Civil War and where the Communists have never ruled). A minority of countries, for example, the Vatican City recognise only the ROC (Taiwan) as the Chinese State;

That is broadly the reason for the way the China, the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of China have the article names they do.

In contrast:

• RoI (Republic of Ireland) is not the official name of the Irish State;
• "Ireland" is the name by which the Irish State is recognised by every country in the world (including even UK of GB and NI!);

In short, there is no comparison between the Chinese and Irish article names! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Congo and Korea - Firstly, none of the 4 states concerned claim to be simply "Congo" or "Korea" as the case may be. More importantly, even if the Congos or Koreas did claim they should be known simply as "Congo" or "Korea" as the case may be - they would be claims of multiple states. In contrast Ireland is the only state in the world that asserts that its name is Ireland and that name is recognised by every state in the world without qualms.

Re Micronesia, that name is more comparable with the America (check where that link brings you - its a DAB, somethin I suppor Ireland becoming). No comparison with Ireland. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move - Outline of Ireland

It has come to my attention that there is an article named Outline of the Republic of Ireland, which, upon inspection is not about an outline, or list, of articles about the republic of Ireland, but instead clearly lists all subjects related to Ireland, and is clearly misnamed. Any objection to excluding it from the ban on moves and move it? In any case, were it to be about a list of articles or outline of the republic of Ireland, it would still need to be renamed, as republic is not a part of the name of the country Ireland. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with this, since the outline as it currently stands contains much more than just Irish State-specific material. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Struck per MiTH's clarification below.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is of the "outline of countries" category. The content should be changed - not the tile. Once the title for the sovereign state is decided the page can be moved to reflect that.MITH 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is newly created, and may not be properly categorized. However, there clearly is no dispute over the name of the country, only over the names of articles about the country, and the article did not appear to be about that. If it was, it is poorly written. If it is supposed to be about the republic of Ireland, then republic can not be capitalized. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Republic can be capitalized. There is no rule saying description's can't be capitalized especially as it does have a capital in the Act when the description was declared. I've read the article and it does mostly deal about the sovereign state. The intro is all sovereign state and so is most of the content. It isn't written that well and does need to be improved. It's title should match the new title given to ROI (whatever that will be) so we should wait.MITH 00:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

MOS does not permit camel case. ROI is not a proper noun, and can not be capitalized in the title of an article, unless it begins with Republic, and thus R is the first letter. 199.125.109.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

The first letter 'r' in the noun phrase Republic of Ireland is always capitalised (see examples). Deliberately decapitalising the 'R' in order to emphasise one thing or the other would distort NPOV. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability also.--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If the article is about the state, the title should remain Topic outline of the Republic of Ireland. Otherwise, readers may assume it's about the whole island. ~Asarlaí 10:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Six counties should be used instead of NI, because readers might think NI covers the whole of the northern part of Ireland. Tfz 23:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There isn't an island called "Northern Ireland" that people might confuse with the state. ~Asarlaí 23:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time I've noticed that article. Outline..?, shouldn't it begin with Border..? GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, it should remain at its current title (at least while Republic of Ireland remains at its current title). GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is solved - The outline is now specifically about the country only, and the links to the island's subtopics have been corrected to point to the country's subtopics instead. Now redlinks indicate what articles need to be created for the country. Or redirects could be created for those, pointing to article sections that cover the subjects specified in the links. Have a nice day.  :) The Transhumanist 00:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No its not. See the talk page and the article itself. I'm afraid your naivety in the subject and resulting actions goes against Arbcom regulations.MITH 00:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Facts not Pov

Political battles should be fought at Parliament, not here at Wikipedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to state the facts, not the pov. BritishWatcher, Mooretwin, and Asarlai are obviously on a concerted campaign to add confusion into the compilation of this encyclopedia. Enough of this please. Tfz 13:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Political battles should be fought at Parliament, not here at Wikipedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to state the facts, not the pov. Tfz and other editors are obviously on a concerted campaign to add confusion into the compilation of this encyclopedia. Enough of this please. Mooretwin (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not resort to personal attacks. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. Many others will agree with me. About time somebody said this. Domer is suspended for a week for trying to add some clarity to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately that's becoming the order of the day here. Tfz 13:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Far from seeking to add confusion, my interest is to end it by replacing ambiguous and misleading terminology with clear terminology. Mooretwin (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Shooting accusation arrows at editors, won't help this Collaboration process. Best we keep our frustrations in check. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It near impossible to miss "the elephant in the room", even if you don't want to admit it's there. Tfz 13:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that Domer was suspended for asking a question - which was deemed to be disruptive editing ?? - ClemMcGann (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

He was suspended for doing this and this without any discussion. ~Asarlaí 18:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Curious (and thanks for your explanation). In the Log of blocks on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names the Sharek says he was banned for because of disruptive editing relating to Remedy 2. which brings us to "Please provide a link? " ClemMcGann (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting into a debate about that incident is not a good idea and will simply set back any possible progress that is going to be made here. Lets wait and see what is decided at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Ireland_article_names so we know exactly what the policy is on if people are allowed to discuss this in other places or not. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link ClemMcGann (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland, state is a complete violation of the naming rules. Factalicious!. MickMacNee (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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) Time, unfortunately, is proving my original scepticism right. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. An arbitrator really needs to take this thing by the balls are sort it out once and for all. (Pardon my French).MITH 00:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What are the alternatives? If editors are genuinely interested in change then they have to start giving an inch. The majority of involved editors already have endorsed the compromise position, which may not be their personal preference but they understand it encompasses the alternative viewpoints and thus has the best chance of being accepted. However, a significant minority on either side are holding out for their personal preferences and are intolerant to any other option. Those are the editors who are standing in the way of progress.

There are only three options as I see it. Either A) those intransigent editors have a long hard look at themselves, acknowledge they are the problem here and start to engage. B) We accept that certain people are never going to accept alternatives and, rather than requiring a traditional consensus, instead go with the option that has the most support or C) we try and convince ArbCom or a panel of moderators to make the decision for us (though they should be aware what sort of abuse they will get when they make the wrong decision). Does anyone else see any other serious alternative? Rockpocket 01:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ever guess why parliament needs whips? Everyone here should know that by now. I think ArbCom will have to come in and impose the solution. They are going to make everyone outraged and happy at the same time. And the solution, right down the middle. Prediction, Ireland becomes Ireland (disambiguation), island becomes Ireland (island), and state becomes Ireland (state). Now if everyone can live with that solution, then that will do just fine. Forget about piping until afterwards, that too will sort itself out. Tfz 03:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, though, that's a solution I see working, and would not raise an objection to, though it wouldn't be my first choice.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. I think it is my first choice, because if Ireland continues to refer to the island, it will still have the potential for ambiguity. Making that the disambiguator makes it much easier to distinguish where new contributions should go.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I also proposed this long ago and it remains my preferred solution for the article names. We also need policy for when it is legitimate to use "Republic of" where necessary to disambiguate within articles. I think that Ireland (disambiguation) —> Ireland is a legitimate option and I would like to see it considered seriously by ArbCom for the article names. -- Evertype·✆ 08:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a joke that people seem to desperately want to be told what to do by arbcom. They are not your mothers, they are not your teachers, they are not your betters. You can't really blame the naughty kids for this disaster, the fault of the absolute failure of this process to come up with anything but repetition primarily lies with absent administrators, the only reason nobody is interested in this crap anymore is that not a single person is ever pulled up for tendencious editting. Of the hundreds available, the two examples that come to mind quickly are Redking's incessant copy pasting of the same points, and Mooretwin's incessant harping back to IDTF, and that's before we go over old ground about AGF and accusations of POV/CABALs. I predicted as much in the arbcom case, if a proper accountable and available panel of admins were not appointed to oversee behaviour with the expectation of actually doing what they were appointed to do and enforce behavioural policies, then nothing would get done here that didn't resemble all previous train wrecks. Did any of your all seeing all knowing arbitrators listen, did they bollocks. They cannot even bother themselves to examine a simple request for an ammendment to stop the latest batch of bad behaviour. The pitiful participation count we are down to now on this page would not produce any legitimate solution at all. This page ceased to have any meaningfull mandate long ago, considering anything it comes up with has to demonstrate consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have long supported the Dab/state/island compromise. Is there a way we can get ArbCom to make a binding decision? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate Mick's point about the arbcom not being our betters - and they are not - if anything they are less informed of the nuances. Yet a solution is required, Too much time and effort is being squandered. And votes on absolute positions are not a solution Red is putting forward a compromise, albeit imperfect, but still a solution: ::Ireland->dab. Ireland(state). Ireland(island). and RoI is a football team

I know thats wrong, but its the lesser of two evils, Why not have such a solution for a trial period? ClemMcGann (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is the obvious compromise solution regarding the titles and it should strongly be looked into.MITH 13:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And if ArbCom imposed a solution that you didn't like, would you abide by it? ArbCom have said they will not arbitrate on content disputes, which is essentially what this is. Their compromise solution was to arbitrate on the process. Their appointees were supposed to devise/impose a process. As far as I can see no one has a clear idea what the process involves. It has metamorphosised a number of times, its been hijacked, all to no real effect. Yet agin the discussion here centers not on the process but on what the preferred solution is. It's just a nonsense. It has alienated a large number of formerly interested editors who will only contribute when eventually someone says "Let's vote!". Fmph (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You've utterly missed the point. Everybody knows what you want, you've repeated it a billion times. But if you tried to present this solution supported by facts and consensus to the wider community, where is your evidence? You don't have it, because the process to show it is a sensible and legitimate move in an organised manner, that somebody could read in a few hours, has been a bloody disaster, and we are down to two or three people left, repeating the same thing said a year ago, in the same format. It did not get consensus then, so what do you think is different now, because the community has not been following this car crash at all. It won't be interested in the logic behind any change, no matter how much people insist it is 'the obvious solution'. And tediously, to make up for this failure, as usual, people are still insisting arbocom should just implement it, which for very obvious reasons, is not what they do. MickMacNee (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't call this whole process a ruse (as that isn't AGF), but if it were? it sure has been effective, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would call it a ruse and I agree with you, its been very effective. Unfortunately. Redking7 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "[ArbCom's] appointees were supposed to devise/impose a process" etc. They did that long ago. See the statements on the project page. Re "It did not get consensus". Of course not. No consensus will ever emerge. ArbCom needs to pick an outcome. Re "the logic behind any change" has to be shown etc. The arguments (on the stateaments page) gave the reasons. The arguments don't change and thats why they get repeated over and over (by me and by others). In summary, the process has long since run its course. What is outstanding is for ArbCom to issue a decision. By not issuing a decision, they are ofcourse, making the decision to uphold the status quo. But at the end of the process, they should come out and make a decision. Why would ArbCom "for very obvious reasons" not want to arbitrate - isn't that their function? It has long been time for ArbCom to play its role. Otherwise, this absolutely has been a "ruse". Regards. Redking7 (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the Arbitrators (via simple-majority vote, among themselves) should force a solution. But, that's not gonna happen, as Arbcom doesn't dictate article content. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is about article titles, not article content. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I meant article titles too. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a joke this process is then. Perhaps you could tell me where arbcom's own page is so I could ask them if they are going to make a decision directly. I will also ask them if titles are outside their remit. If they are, I don't know what is in their remit...! I can see I am fighting a loosing battle. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Issuing a content decision is not arbitration. That's a basic fact right there, which won't change no matter how often or how long people bang on and on about how something must be done. The process failed because there was barely any definition of what the process was, not least, nobody had a clue what was to be done with the statements when compiled. And that's ignoring the lack of any administrative control. The next step is not then to just do something anyway because the process has run its course - it hasn't run its course at all, it has crashed and burned. But what to do in that situation? Well, you've answered your own question on that: if there is no consensus shown to change anything, then nothing changes, there is no decision to be made. And I speak as someone who is also not happy with the status quo. But I am not daft enought to start throwing around baseless accusations of sekrit cabals and sophisticated ruses. It would not have taken an elaborate ruse to be able to predict as I did that if left unchecked and undefined, the discussion would become an unruly uncontrolled farce and end up showing nothing, returning as it would to the well trodden path repeated ad nauseum on the article talk pages. MickMacNee (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In agreement MickM. The status quo remains, as the onus of getting a consensus falls on the pro-movers (like me). GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay...where do you think the majority is...For of against change. Lets get a poll going I suppose and then close the process. There is no consensus for the status quo or for the change. Regards.

I've opened a poll re the "RoI" article on its talk page. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your silly little poll is just going to cause more conflict, what on earth was the point in doing that. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The time has come for pro-movers (like me) to accept facts, we're never going to get a consensus for title changes. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Community Poll

I do not mind Deacon's moving the poll to the project, or even to taking a poll, but I object to the poll's not offering the option to move Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland and I believe it should allow people to rank their votes in terms of preference. See the Talk page of his poll, please. (These objections are made in good faith. There is a reasonable number of people who have supported Ireland = disambiguation, Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) as a compromise.) -- Evertype·✆ 15:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. And some sort of 'preference' is also a good idea. Regardless, I presume this poll won't upon until after Arbcom have dealt with the current resolution? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem's (moderator) take on the issue

(Note, this is only my take, not the other moderators) Per above, it was suggested that a restatement of what this issue is here would be helpful. Let me outline what I see this as:

Issues at hand:

• "Ireland" is the most common name applied to both the island and to the 26-county nation that covers most of that island, among other means of the word "Ireland". As such, disambiguation of some type is needed.
• Based on common names the most common uses of "Ireland" are either the island or the nation, but there's no simple answer to say which of these is the most common use.
• There are no appropriately obvious non-disambiguation alternative names that readily work to clear up the issue:
  • For the island, there is no proper name like "Island of Ireland" or "Ireland Island" (along the lines of "Isle of Man" or "Easter Island"); the island is simply called "Ireland". (This doesn't prohibit the phrase "island of Ireland" to be to used to describe it, but that's not a proper noun).
  • For the nation, it is recognized international as "Ireland"; the name "Republic of Ireland" (what the nation is currently at) may be justified but this not appear to be an officially recognized name (the descriptor "republic of Ireland" is correct, but not the proper noun "Republic of Ireland").
• There are no consistent cases of other political/geography naming conflicts (akin to China, Luxembourg, and Georgia) that can be used as a consistent basis to resolve this.
• There is a contention with this naming issue with the political tension and issues between the nation and the United Kingdom, and thus a solution should not be sought that will purposely inflame these.
• Attempts to resolve this by normal consensus means has failed, leading to the need to have ArbCom-appointed moderators.

As such, for the naming aspects, we have no policy or guidelines to really follow, and past attempts to come to consensus have resulted in little progress.

Past just the naming of the island and nation articles, there is a need for preciseness in the writing of articles related to the island, the nation, or both. Just as "Ireland" being a common name that without context is difficult to resolve to the island or the nation and prevents an easy solution on renaming, it poses the same problem in article text bodies and the like. Thus, there needs to be a scheme for how to distinguish between these two when they come up in such articles.

The method of solution, given that consensus has been tried and failed, thus should be as follows:

• Survey participants for their input as to what they consider the best solutions (this has been done through statements)
• Evaluate those responses and identify the solutions that have multiple editors that support them (this is, I'd say, presently being done)
• Prepare a poll or some means to present these solutions to all editors (participants and others to determine the most accepted solutions. (Not done)
• Implement those solutions (Obviously not done)

As this has been going on for some time, and has already exhausted three moderators, it is in everyone's best interest to try to resolve this as soon as possible. --MASEM (t) 16:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that "Republic of Ireland" should not be used as a proper noun? Because http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1948/en/act/pub/0022/sec0002.html appears to use it as a proper noun, though not as the name of the State.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Masem, you summation seems accurate, with the exception of "the name "Republic of Ireland" (what the nation is currently at) may be justified but this not appear to be an officially recognized name (the descriptor "republic of Ireland" is correct, but not the proper noun "Republic of Ireland")." - Republic of Ireland is not a name for the state - this is disputed by noone - but it is an official description and is used as a noun, "Republic of Ireland", not "republic of Ireland". Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarak, as noted by Bastun, "republic of Ireland" is the proper descriptor of the nation, but it's only a descriptor, not a proper noun. (counterpoint: "People's Republic of China" is both the descriptor and the proper noun, just as is "United States of America") --MASEM (t) 16:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he was quoting you when he used the lowercase r -- the rest of it seems to support my position. See the original act I linked above for how the Irish Government thinks it should be capitalized.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As I read your link, "Republic of Ireland" is a descriptor, but not a name. That is, to use it as the name of the nation raises several issues because the nation is still named "Ireland". This seems to be the point of contention for using it as the article name, but not as a distinguishing name for article texts when the nation needs to be made clear from the island or other Ireland name. That's why I don't think the present situation is considered to have satisfactory for some since it's using a non-proper name. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think use of Republic of Ireland is far better than saying republic of Ireland in article texts or as the name of the article (if im following this debate right). This is why i said the problem in its most simple form without getting bogged down in the actual options we have.

Ireland is ambiguous - Thats the whole and only problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I agree that it's not the name of the country and should not be used as such. However, I disagree with others here about whether it can be used as the name of the article about the country named Ireland -- while it's not my first choice for the article name, I don't consider it absolutely wrong. But I do take your point, and will shut up for the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying whether its right or wrong to use "RoI" as the name of the nation, I'm just saying that there are opinions that it's can't be used, and thus it is not a clear "winner" in terms of an easy out from this situation. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Masem for defining what you see as the problem. I agree also with the point Bastun has made re: Republic of Ireland. For a clear explanation on "Republic of Ireland" see here, to understand why it does “purposely inflame” and should be amend accordingly.

• It is agreed that some type of disambiguation is needed but not between island and State IMO, because that would involve some type of WP:OR and as you say “"Ireland" is the most common name applied to both the island and to the 26-county nation.” You also point out that “For the nation, it is recognized international as ‘Ireland.’” This point is addressed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names in the section titled naming conventions and in disambiguation in the section titled “Primary topic”.

• In my opinion the disambiguation is needed between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Though it is not mentioned in your reasoning, you intimate as much in your first point when you say "Ireland" “that covers most of that island.” Now WP:Disambiguation dose provide us with the ways and means of dealing with this.

The options are:

1. disambiguation links – at the top of an article (hatnotes), that refer the reader to other Wikipedia articles with similar titles or concepts.
2. disambiguation pages – non-article pages that refer readers to other Wikipedia articles.

We already have both of these opinions on the Ireland Article with a third under discussion:

• For the constituent country of the United Kingdom, see Northern Ireland.
• For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation).

Now we already have articles on both Ireland and Northern Ireland which can and are used were clarity is needed. So the whole Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) options are first off, based on WP:OR, devoid of verifiability and against neutral point of view. What we as a community need to do, is identify areas were clarity is needed and formulate wording to address the issues in articles.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

on the Northern Ireland piece, yes, that's part of this picture, but it's happily sitting at Northern Ireland and I don't expect to see anyone contest that. Dabbing to that (either on a disambig page or hatnote) from whatever both the Ireland page and the nation of Ireland page end up seems to not be at issue. And the factors of making sure that, in an article primarily about the 26-county nation, that it's clear that Northern Ireland is treated differently as the northern part of this 26-county nation. But in the overall scope, it's not a naming issue.

But your claim that we'd have to invoke OR for the island and nation - well, not really. We do need to nix choices that are not supported by literature, we suddenly can't call the nation "The Happy Fun Land of Ireland" as the article name; this is why I point out that "RoI" has some support but contested since it is not its official "name" but official "descriptor". But I think to simply this and get us to a solution as fast as possible, we have to come to recognize that this process will takes months to resolve if we spend the time arguing whether the island or the nation is the most common implication when someone says "Ireland" and that to jump to the logical conclusion, it's pretty much impossible for us to tell. Thus, we should use a simple poll to deal with that factor once and for; it's the last option we have barring having one person make a decision for everyone else. (note, ArbCom will not make this decision for you, nor us moderators). --MASEM (t) 18:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We need to becareful, we are getting bogged down in the debate again. I support a poll aslong as it allows us to rank or select several options rather than just one which is going to lead to no consensus. Although i disagree with the method of having 3 short questions as i mentioned above. There seems to be some people here who dont want a poll, perhaps they should be encouraged to state how they think it should be worked out so everyones ideas are heard before starting or sorting out a poll. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem I was simply reasoning out what you yourself said, "Ireland" is the most common name applied to both the island and to the 26-county nation" and "the nation… is recognized internationally as "Ireland." Is this disputed? Ireland is the common name of both the island and the State. Why is there a need to differentiate? On the RoI / Ireland , Europe state quite clearly “NB:Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’ now that is very clear an unambiguous. Now editors can all agree on that? I would again point out this point is addressed in by ArbCom in the section titled naming conventions, which say "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." --Domer48_'fenian' 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Good lord, there is an island called Ireland and a country called Ireland, both have the same common name there for they have to be located somewhere, one isnt going to be on its common name. You have to make the case that the state belongs on the common name, not simply dismiss the fact its ambiguous which everyone else accepts. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read both the comments by Masem and myself, "Ireland" is the most common name applied to both the island and to the 26-county nation" and "the nation… is recognized internationally as "Ireland." The question I ask was why is there a need to differentiate? This point is addressed by by ArbCom in the section titled naming conventionswhich says "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity." It also says "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." --Domer48_'fenian' 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence to show that the Island of Ireland is more recognized than the Republic of Ireland which only came about in the 20th century which is why the island should take priority over the state as happens in the case of China and Taiwan. Anyway we are going round in circles and this is meant to be deciding about the process. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's avoid making statements that can't be backed up - it just paints bulls eyes on statements. --HighKing (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a clear need to differentiate the content the deals with the island and the content that deals with the nation. The two pages are only two pages out of any other possible "Ireland" topic, save for a disambiguation page, which should be at Ireland, but both cannot co-exist at that same page because there is a very defining line between that content. They are two separate articles and thus the goal here is to find two separate article titles here for them. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree Masem, there is a need to differentiate in a number of contexts - and I suppose this is where the disagreements leading to edit warring will begin (have begun). For example, in an innocent article on, say, drinking, a sentence might read "The best Guinness is found in the capital of Ireland, Dublin". In another article on cycling, a sentence might read "cycled from Belfast, capital of Northern Ireland non-stop to Dublin, capital of ????". The second example needs disambiguation because it is in the context of Northern Ireland, and it might be too easy to confuse using the term "Ireland" with the island. I believe many editors accept that there are occasions where disambiguation is required. --HighKing (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is concerning that a moderator is making statements like the descriptor "republic of Ireland" is correct, but not the proper noun "Republic of Ireland". I am also concerned about the use of the term "nation" rather than state, since this is ambiguous. The 26-county constitution defines the "nation" as the entire island. Mooretwin (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm using "nation" but not insisting that is ultimately the word we use to avoid confusion between "country" and "county"; I have no desired outcome of this moderation save to see it to its end. As for the "Republic of Ireland", I've looked at all the arguments, and it is clear that "the Republic of Ireland" is the correct description but not the correct name of the country. Does that mean that Republic of Ireland should not be a choice? No, that's why I put it as a poll option; I'm only noting, per the request by some to explain what I see this case to be, as part of the issue - "RoI" is not the proper name of the nation which lead some to suggest the nation needs to be at a different article title; in other words, the alternative name for the nation in light of the need to disambiguate is not simply solved by called it "RoI". --MASEM (t) 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If an reader types in Germany are they looking for the state or the country, so does that mean we need to have disambaguation there? BigDunc^Talk 21:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a difference between Germany the country and Germany the state? I don't see anything that says there is - "country" and "state" and "nation" are terms that are used synonymously with each other in this discussion. Nor is there a difference between Ireland the country and Ireland the state (presuming we're not talking Irish Free State here, but the modern, present-day governed nation).--MASEM (t) 21:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Ireland that is not a state is commonly called a country in the same way that England and Scotland are commonly called countries. Country, state and nation are largely synonymous with each other but that does not mean that they are the same thing. Or that the word "country", like "Ireland", can't have more than one definition. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a be of clarity, "The 26-county constitution defines the "nation" as the entire island." Not true, please read the Constitution. Thank you Dunc, you make the point very well. If there is a clear need to differentiate the content that deals with the country and the content that deals with the State, it must be true then of all countries and States. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm confused, but I don't see a difference between "the state of Ireland" and "the country of Ireland" - from everything I can read, they seem to be the same, speaking to the 26-county nation. But if there is a difference, please explain this. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is. The country and the sovereign state are the same thing. I don't think its NPOV to say otherwise.MITH 21:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

MITH and Masem are right, What is this nonsense about Germany? There is a place called Germany it can be described as a nation, a state, or a country... its all the same thing. That is not the same situation as Ireland where there is an ISLAND called Ireland and a (country/nation/state) called Ireland. I cant believe we go over and over this nonsense all the time. what a joke BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher please treat the contributions of editors with the same courtesy as you would expect yourself. Now there is a place called Germany it can be described as a nation, a state, or a country... its all the same thing. Likewise, Ireland is the name of as a nation, a state, or a country... its all the same thing. No difference! So why have separate articles on Ireland (State) and Ireland (country) it makes no sense. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when was there ever the recommendation to have Ireland (state) and Ireland (country)?MITH 22:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: There's 2 entities called Ireland. One is a country/state etc, within the other which is an island. An island which includes a part of the UK (i.e. Northern Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No GoodDay, there is not. Ireland the country and Ireland the State and Ireland the island are all the same thing. There is an article on Northern Ireland. MitH see this here --Domer48_'fenian' 22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the poll Domer. Ireland the country and Ireland the island are not the same thing. GoodDay is completely right. Do you deny that there is another country (the UK) on the island of Ireland?MITH 22:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent summary, Masem, except (as mentioned above) where you say that "the descriptor "republic of Ireland" is correct, but not the proper noun 'Republic of Ireland'". Republic of Ireland, whether it is the official name or not (we all know that it isn't), is invariable used as a name (not merely a description) and the 'r' of 'republic' is always captialised. See examples. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

MitH, Ireland the country and Ireland the island are the same thing. There is the state of Northern Ireland on the island of Ireland. Are you saying that we need disambiguation between Northern Ireland and Ireland? Is the difference not obvious? Is this on the top of the article not enough For the constituent country of the United Kingdom, see Northern Ireland? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No they're not. 26 counties are part of the sovereign state (FACT!), while there are 32 counties on the island (FACT!). Therefore the island and the sovereign state are not the same. I can't believe you're arguing that! I am not saying disambiguation is necessary between Northern Ireland and Ireland because NI is a constituent part of the UK while Ireland is a sovereign country or an island depending on context. There is no confusion between NI and IRL.MITH 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

26 counties are part of the sovereign state Ireland, while there are 32 counties on the island 6 counties are in Northern Ireland. The island and the sovereign state are the same depending on context. Therefore disambiguation is obvious, Ireland / Northern Ireland depending on context. Is this on the top of the Ireland article not enough For the constituent country of the United Kingdom, see Northern Ireland? Please try to remain calm. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We should all of had to agree to certain core principles before being allowed to contribute here. One of them should of been accepting the undisputed fact that there is an Island called Ireland and a country called Ireland which are two different things making the term Ireland ambiguous. Some people sadly just can not accept fact BritishWatcher (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"The island and the sovereign state are the same depending on context." Um, no? The state of Ireland is 26 counties. The state of Ireland, in a constitutional referendum passed by an overwhelming majority of the population, dropped it's territorial claim on the other 6 counties. If you are arguing differently, please provide evidence. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement with BritishWatcher. In terms of the Wikipedia, it is clear that a typical solution to such ambiguous situations is for the dab page to be named Ireland. -- Evertype·✆ 06:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We have certain core principles, they are WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and editors must accept them before being allowed to contribute here. Please read what the Irish government see as the Irish Nation. The Irish government accepted that unification would only come through "the consent" of the people in both jurisdictions in the island. Now BritishWatcher you are correct there is an Island called Ireland and a country called Ireland. As Masem has pointed out "Ireland" is the most common name applied to both the island and to the 26-county nation" and "the nation… is recognized internationally as "Ireland." I'm encouraged that both editors are now suggesting we use evidence to support our opinions, and this should be welcomed and seen as progress. Could editors now provide evidence to support their view that "Ireland" in the English speeking world is considered ambiguous. Once again I would ask editors is this disambiguation hatnote on the top of the Ireland article not enough For the constituent country of the United Kingdom, see Northern Ireland? --Domer48_'fenian' 07:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"...the undisputed fact that there is an Island called Ireland and a country called Ireland which are two different things making the term Ireland ambiguous." There are two 'countries' called Ireland. One is an internationally recognized state (sometimes called the Republic of Ireland). The other is a traditional country in Europe.

"Could editors now provide evidence to support their view that Ireland in the English speeking world is considered ambiguous." Open a dictionary. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two 'countries' called Ireland? No, there is only one and that's an internationally recognized state. Thanks for the ref, but it does not support your comments. Thanks again, --Domer48_'fenian' 09:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you create an article, then, Irish Nation, where you can outline the differences between the Irish nation and the Irish state, with special reference to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland. Meanwhile, this project is concerned with resolving the ongoing naming disputes between the article pages for two distinct entities, the state, and the island, which are both named Ireland. That ambiguity therefore exists is self-evident, and does not require a reference. You seem to be the only person who disputes this or who claims that there is no ambiguity, on any of the current or previous debates. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is only one that is an internationally recognised state. There are many definitions of the word "country". "A state" is just one of them. The "Ireland" that is not a state fits several definitions of a "country" e.g. "the territory of a nation", "the land of one's birth or citizenship", "any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions, by a distinctive population, etc." In the same way, England and Scotland are countries, but they are not states. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were going to support our comments with evidence and not just offer opinions. Bastun articles Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland which are replaced with the principle of "consent" in the Irish Constitution, so I can't see the point you are trying to make, but you are using Diff's and that is to be welcome. Now could one of you please provide a link to were there was agreement that there is two islands called Ireland. WE all agree then that there is only one Irish State that is an internationally recognised state. Rannpháirtí anaithnid you appear to be going off in the wrong direction, we don't need a defination of the words, we need a sourced reference saying that there is two islands called Ireland or Ireland is ambiguous according to...? But thanks again for starting to use references very positive efforts. Once again I would ask editors is this disambiguation hatnote on the top of the Ireland article not enough For the constituent country of the United Kingdom, see Northern Ireland? Thaks --Domer48_'fenian' 13:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Domer, you are misrepresenting what people are saying and the issue as a whole. I can no longer AGF where you are concerned on this issue. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Bastun, if you feel I have misrepresenting what people are saying please show me and I'll correct it stright away. Could I ask you is this disambiguation hatnote on the top of the Ireland article not enough For the constituent country of the United Kingdom, see Northern Ireland? Just so we can move on from it. If it is not could you explain why? Thanks again, and sorry if there is any misunderstanding, --Domer48_'fenian' 13:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"...there is two islands called Ireland..." Well, actually, yes. There is Ireland Island also, but I don't think that's what you mean.

"...or Ireland is ambiguous according to..." Why do we need a reference to say that Ireland is "ambiguous"? People are saying that there are two "Irelands" - there is a state of that name and an island (or two!) of that name. Do you disagree? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer we are not talking about disambiguation between the country Ireland and Northern Ireland. We are talking about the fact there is an Island called Ireland and a state called Ireland, two different things which im sure i saw you accept a little while ago above for the first time. Because the same name is given to two different things its ambiguous. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what Domer48 is arguing is that a statement that "there are two things called Ireland" can be referenced with secondary source (e.g. the dictionary I cited above). And that while a statement that "the word Ireland is ambiguous" is a logically restatement of the first statement, you will not find a source that says (literally), "The word Ireland is ambiguous". It's a game. Domer48 is a troll. I've fed him a little because it's fun, but let's leave it now. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid you ask why do we need a reference to say that Ireland is "ambiguous"? Because we rely on what's known as WP:V, a core policy of wiki. A group of editors just agreeing on something with any supporting evidence is not enough. Editors "are saying that there are two "Irelands" - there is a state of that name and an island (or two!)" I'm asking the editors to support this view with a reference per WP:V. Now even Masem says that "country" and "state" and "nation" are terms that are used synonymously with each other in this discussion. Nor is there a difference between Ireland the country and Ireland the state. Some editors say there is, so provide sources? Hope that helps, --Domer48_'fenian' 14:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid I ignored you personal attack in the hope that you remove the comment, please do. I've been more than civil. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer48, I'm sorry but please observe WP:Talk page guidelines: "The policies that apply to articles apply also (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies" Per WP:V, we will need a verifiable source for your statement that 'we need a reference to say that Ireland is "ambiguous"'. Remember when supplying one that, per WP:V, Wikipedia is not a valid source. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

STOP.

We're going to be here forever if editors keep insisting on reiterating over minor points and trying to rule-broker the situation.

It is very clear (without a need for sources) that two topics have nearly equal claim as the "most common English use" of the word "Ireland" - the island and the 26-county nation. As to which has the "most", we'd be here forever trying to justify some metric that swings one way or another. The core of this dispute needs to start at the fact that it is impossible to assert that the island or the nation is the most common use of the word "Ireland", so the resolution is to find some other means to determine that.

It is also very clear that as of this moment there exists only one nation/state/country of Ireland, that being the 26-county one, regardless of what other connotations that those words may mean personally (as in one's homeland) to people or to Ireland's past history. Under what name that that country resides at is the issue of contention. Or, to be clearer: there are two countries on the island of Ireland: the country/nation/state of Ireland (consisting of 26 counties) and a portion of the United Kingdom called Northern Ireland. None of these means are synonymous with each other. Again, that's fact, not an opinion, but a fact nevertheless that we need to build from, not argue indefinitely.

Now is not the time to be bickering over details; everyone had their chance to argue their preferred choice during the Statement phase; now is the time to progress forward and figure out how we are going to figure out the preferred solution. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's so easy. Allow the disambiguation page to be called Ireland. Then have the country & island named Ireland (state/country/republic) & Ireland (island). GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree GoodDay. That is the obvious thing to do and probably does have consensus, however considering how long this has been going on the obvious thing to do is not going to happen straight away.MITH 15:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly one of the options on the table - but there is at least one more, so it should be considered when this is put to a final poll/vote/whatever. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

MASEM I agree with a number of the points you have made such as “‘Ireland’ is the most common name applied to both the island and to the 26-county nation that covers most of that island” and that “for the nation, it is recognized international as ‘Ireland.’” There can be no argument there, however supporting references should be applied. I disagree however when you say that on “the naming aspects, we have no policy or guidelines to really follow." We do, and it was provided by by ArbCom themselves under the title titled naming conventions.

I also disagree when you say “[I] claim that we'd have to invoke OR for the island and nation - well, not really.” The point I would make is one you yourself made, “there's no simple answer to say which of these is the most common use.” As you pointed out above “‘Ireland’ is the most common name applied to both the island and to the 26-county nation that covers most of that island” and that “for the nation, it is recognized international as ‘Ireland.’” In the absence of supporting references WP:OR is the only option, which you are willing to accept by saying “we do need to nix choices that are not supported by literature.” You are also willing to in the absence of sources to “use a simple poll to deal with that factor once and for” in order to find “a solution as fast as possible.” This is not “the last option we have,” because there is one wiki option which has never been used. That is to ask editors to provide references to support the view that we need to make a distinction between “which of these is the most common use…either the island or the nation.” Who else in the international community supports the need for this distinction.

You go on then to say that “both [the island and nation] cannot co-exist at that same page because there is a very defining line between that content. They are two separate articles and thus the goal here is to find two separate article titles here for them.” However you contradict this by saying “I don't see anything that says there is - "country" and "state" and "nation" are terms that are used synonymously with each other in this discussion. Nor is there a difference between Ireland the country and Ireland the state” But then say you have “no desired outcome of this moderation save to see it to its end.” Based on this I do understand when you say “Maybe I'm confused, but I don't see a difference between "the state of Ireland" and "the country of Ireland - from everything I can read, they seem to be the same, speaking to the 26-county nation. But if there is a difference, please explain this.” Your final point to me is the most important, because that is exactly the question I’ve been trying to have addressed, without any look.

Your summing up under the “stop” title “It is very clear (without a need for sources) that two topics have nearly equal claim as the "most common English use" of the word "Ireland" - the island and the 26-county nation.” I would suggest they have an identical claim, and to try to differentiate between the two is futile, as you say, the “terms that are used synonymously with each other” and that there is no “difference between Ireland the country and Ireland the state.” It is not for us to “determine” this at all because it is “very clear that as of this moment there exists only one nation/state/country of Ireland, that being the 26-county one.” It is obvious what the article title should be based on your observation, “it is recognized international as ‘Ireland.’” On the island of Ireland you have “Ireland” and “Northern Ireland” and “none of these [names] are synonymous with each other. Again, that's fact, not an opinion, but a fact nevertheless that we need to build from, not argue indefinitely.”

Your summary is very welcome, and I’d personally like to thank you for the effort and time you have put in. I may disagree with you on some points but in general you have tried to be pragmatic. I a little disappointed that the only response to your detailed comments was for editors to jump straight in with their preferred options. I am trying to formulate a proposal, but find it difficult to nail the problem editors have down. If they at least engaged with me and addressed simple straight forward questions it would help a lot. The incivility and stonewalling while it is something I’m used too, I’d like to think we could all move on in a more positive and productive spirit. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to accept that "Ireland" is ambiguous

We are never going to resolve this matter if certain methods are used by some editors to waste time. What exactly are we all expected to do when some people refuse to even accept the fact Ireland is ambiguous. If someone cant accept this very simple fact which most people understand, how are they going to accept the outcome of this dispute? We are just going to go round and round in circles if this continues. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Individuals don't outweigh consensus. Wikipedia is not interested in "the truth", it is interested in consensus, which is built and tested using 3rd party quality references. Anybody editing against consensus is edit warring and disruptive, and will be blocked.

So if an individual is arguing that "Ireland" is not ambiguous, and a number of other editors can point to references that it is ambiguous, then that individual can still hold their personal opinion, but cannot edit disruptively against consensus. This is "how are they going to accept the outcome of this dispute?". --HighKing (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is that Ireland is ambiguous, perhaps its for Domer to provide sources which say otherwise?? Domer is intitled to his opinion on what Ireland is or isnt, but at the moment the above debate is just going round and round in circles and disrupting us from resolving this dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record in the statement process i made the following post Statement by BritishWatcher. 14 people agreed with the points including yourself, nobody disagreed. So clearly the overwhelming consensus of the people involved here is that Ireland is ambiguous. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that HighKing, most helpful. To illustrate the point I’ll use this analogy: If ten editors all agree that the moon is made of cheese but one editor disagrees, the consensus then is that the moon is in fact made of cheese. However, to protect itself from such a situation Wiki has a number of safeguards. One of which is WP:V. What this does is it asks editors to provide references to support their opinion. So the sole editor who disagrees with this consensus, provides referenced sources which are both WP:V and WP:RS to support their opinion that the moon is in fact not made of cheese. In this situation, consensus does not override policy. Now a group of editors have said they have a consensus that the term “Ireland” is ambiguous. I asked them to point me to where this consensus emerged and they did not. I asked them to support their view that Ireland was ambiguous and they have not. I asked for supporting references to support their view and they have not. In the spirit of compromise, and in a reasonable attempt to move forward, if I provide supporting references which illustrate that “Ireland” is not ambiguous, will they likewise provide which say that it is. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 16:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. The primary policy is consensus and overrules all others - WP:V is just a way of helping people to make a decision. --HighKing (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer, look at it this way: if someone emigrated from Kilkelly before 1860, they came from Ireland, but not from the State called Ireland. Same thing if they came from Belfast. Hence, there's an ambiguity that needs to be addressed in some form.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer, Ireland is ambiguous because it can mean more than one thing. I can't believe you're actually arguing against that. ~Asarlaí 17:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Would any of you now like to comment on my post? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well domer provide us with the evidence that Ireland is not ambiguous, if you make a good case and we fail to provide references, you win ok? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that BritishWatcher, now all we need is for the editors involved to all sign up to this process and we can really move thing forward. Editors provide sources which are both reliable and verifiable which support the contention that “Ireland” the country and State is ambiguous, and editors who don’t support this view do the same. Shall we use the same process as the Statements before only this time we address ourselves to one question, no comment or opinion just a fact based process. Agreed or would you like to suggest an alternative system for this process? We can all abide by this because it would be supported by the community and our policies. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Im not asking for us to set up some form of process, all im asking u to do is provide the sources which go against the current consensus that Ireland is ambiguous. If u show us the evidence which proves your case, then we will of resolved the above dispute about if its ambiguous or not. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I let editors judge for themselves what you attitude to supporting your views are with WP:V. Disappointing! --Domer48_'fenian' 18:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as i can tell from the comments here and in previous debates there is consensus that Ireland is ambiguous. If you disagree it is you that must provide verifiable sources to correct us, not the other way around. Im sorry but i dont take this matter very seriously because its the oddest position anyone on here has taken. Even people who support the country being at Ireland accept the term is still ambiguous. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer, if you accept that the island is called Ireland and the state is called Ireland, then you automatically accept that "Ireland" is ambiguous. I can't believe we're having this debate. ~Asarlaí 19:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Likewise if Germany is the name of the country, and the State is call Germany, then base on your logic you automatically accept that "Germany" is ambiguous. So when we say Germany, are we talking about the country or the State. That is reasoning and logic you are suggesting. Now you say Ireland is ambiguous, provide a reference to support it. Now here is one for you: Today, the European Union note that the names of the Member States of the European Union must always be written and abbreviated according to the European Union Interinstitutional Style Guide rules and that it states that "Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’ when referring to the Ireland. ^[2][3] So can you explain to me why based on this source which is very clear and unambiguous the article at Republic of Ireland is about the Irish State? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, because we're not a European Institution?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I've provide a source, now provide one to challange it. The EU is made up of 27 countries and this is called a verifiable source, so "Um, because we're not a European Institution" is not a source. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing there to challenge. Try again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided any source that says Ireland is not ambiguous. The fact that the European Union must only use the term Ireland doesnt mean its not ambiguous, the source certainly doesnt back up your claim. Also on that basis we have to rename alot of wikipedia articles because they are not all at where the United Nations would call them. The fact they feel the need to point out to their staff NOT to use Republic of Ireland goes to show the state is known by that term by many. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Now Superfopp, I've aske a question could you care to comment? SarekOfVulcan is incapable of answering and BritishWatcher is simply ignoring the question. BritishWatcher we have moved on and this is a different subject, you were unwilling to provide any sources! --Domer48_'fenian' 19:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite capable of answering, but any substantial answer would probably get me a CIV/NPA block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So you are unwilling to provide a source, not that you can't provide one OK! --Domer48_'fenian' 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this project even exists is due to the fact there's ambiguity. In fact, it's part of the ArbCom findings of fact. Thus, I'm going to say here that any attempts to override this statement will be seen as hampering this process, and could result in administrative action if it continues. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem you've override this statement a number of times yourself, you started the whole Moderator's take on the issue? It also says that "article titles conform with the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view." I've provided a source here that states "Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’ when referring to the Ireland. I provided a whole host of sources on this here which say it is POV to use RoI for the Irish State and why. Now lets address the RoI being listed in the suggestions as a possible location for the Article on the Irish State. We can cite ArbCom findings of fact and at least get that sorted as quick as possible. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from the European Interinstitutional whatchamacallit is a reliable source for how European institutions must refer to Ireland, but it has absolutely no bearing on the name of the article here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm warning about: the point I'm making is that arguing that there isn't any ambiguity between the island and the country name unless someone can provide sources is going completely against the Arbcom-stated finding of fact and the majority of people involved here, and pretty much common sense. Trying to argue against that fact, as you have stated above several times above, is a dead end and is not beneficial for any forward progress. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As someone above mentioned, if there was no ambiguaty? there'd be no Irish naming disputes. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem are you saying that if I provide sources that illustrated that there is no ambiguity between the island and the country that's ok? I'd just like to know so I don't over step the mark. On the Arbcom-stated finding of fact, could you point me to the discussion were this consensus was reached, as I'd like to review the references on which the findings were reached, that would be really helpful. Could you possibly address the issue of RoI I mentioned above with regard to the Arbcom-stated finding of fact re:"article titles conform with the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view." Thanks in advance, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are sources, calling the island Ireland & calling the country Ireland. But, it's impossible to name both articles the same. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think you have sources that say that there's absolutely no ambiguity between the island and country, it would be interesting to provide them, because everything else points in the opposite direction. As for the "consensus" about the FoF from ArbCom - well, you'd have to review the entire case and try to determine how ArbCom came to that decision, but it wasn't decided by the usual "consensus" approach. As for "RoI" and NPOV, as I've tried to outline, using "Republic of Ireland" as a name is inappropriate, but it is appropriate as a descriptor, and it may be appropriate to use that descriptor as the article name for the country if that's what is agreed to and that would not be a POV naming issue if were to end up being the case. If I were judge where consensus was for using it now, I'd have to say it likely won't be the case, but that's not to prevent it from being a valid option. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I need clarification: Is a suggestion being made, that both articles Republic of Ireland and Ireland, shoul be named Ireland? Or both articles should be merged under the title Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Masem re: sources, I'll provide them. On the FoF from ArbCom I have reviewed the entire case and can't find anything. There is a lot of what we had here, such as "it is because I said so" type stuff but nothing else. Rock was the only one to provide anything close to a reference, three of them but nothing else, and they did not support the view. Could ArbCom be asked to point me in the right direction in case I missed it? On RoI, I've provided, like I said a whole host of sources which according to WP:NPOV would rule out it's use for the Country / State. The sources illustrate that it is POV, so how could it possibly be agreed to and that would not be a POV naming issue? Why, based on all the sources I've provided can it not just be said this is not a valid option, and cite Arbcom-stated finding of fact re:"article titles conform with the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view. In addition, we also have the directive from ArbCom Re: Common Name. Can the mod's not cite policy, and direct the discussion accordingly. Again on ArbCom, we have this here on Conduct and decorum. How does this square with this personal attack and the edit summary. Which is the exact same thing as here. Why should I be the only one to have to put up with this? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

@Domer, just referring back to the point earlier. Consensus is the primary and foremost policy and trumps all others. That's Wikipedia. Consensus here is that "Ireland" is ambiguous. The best you can hope for is to open a poll to retest established consensus. But, it would be a trivial matter to show that "Ireland" is ambiguous. Find one reference that uses "Ireland" to mean the state. Find another unrelated reference that uses "Ireland" to refer to the island. And for icing, find a reference that uses both terms to mean different things. Then test consensus on the issue. My bet is a WP:SNOW result for the existing consensus. --HighKing (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. It isn't even one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Neutral Point of View, for instance, trumps consensus in the hierarchy. So if there is a consensus of on a page that the earth is flat, policy doesn't endorse it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For example, here is an ambiguous example CIO Report --HighKing (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Asking for sources to prove that Ireland means more than one thing is like asking for sources to prove the sky is blue. Surely, Domer, you can understand why Rannpháirtí anaithnid didn't take you seriously before. ~Asarlaí 21:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My head is still spinning. Is Domer suggesting the RoI article be gutted out & it's content be merged with the island article? -- GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

lol GoodDay, its safer to think about something else. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi HighKing, consensus is not the primary and foremost policy that trumps all others. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not simple agreement; a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action. Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale – for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. Polls are structured discussions, not votes. Opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a vote. Convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by "forum shopping": asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what I said. Consensus trumps everything else because it essentially evaluates references and arguments (within policy, ahem). If consensus decides that a poor reference is good enough, then it is. You are trying to put your point across based on the weight of your argument, but there is an equal weighted argument opposing your view, and consensus is against you. It is unlikely to change. --HighKing (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

HighKing your example shows an incorrect use of the term Republic, that's all it does not support the suggestion that it's ambiguous. However here in this reference, we see Ireland being used as a "geographical name" and the name of the country. So 27 countries see nothing ambiguous about Ireland, but it is only on wiki and no where else is this discussion needed. I hope that answers both your comments above. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact you are fully aware of this reference, Domer, and I'm sure we have had this discussion before, I'll have another go at explaining why the source clearly acknowledges the ambiguity.

• "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" Mary E. Daly, The Irish Free State/Éire/Republic of Ireland/Ireland: “A Country by Any Other Name”?. Journal of British Studies 46 (January 2007): 72–90.

Now, lets consider that statement carefully and - to simplify things - I'm going to reduce it to a logic statement.

• 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

Taking those two statements together under your preferred interpretation, we are left with: Ireland = 3/4 of Ireland

Now it doesn't take a genius to work out that Ireland in that above equation cannot refer to the same thing (unless Ireland = 0, and if that is the case it does not exist and all our problems are solved!) Therefore the only way that equation can be resolved, and thus the only reasonable way one could interpret Mary E. Daly's statement, is that Ireland is an ambiguous term. If we accept that our equation now makes sense: Ireland_(state) = 3/4 of Ireland_(island)

So we now have a clearly reliable source that now tells us that Ireland can relate to two different things (another clue is in Daly's use of the word also, which means in addition to). Since this supports the current situation which has been stable for years - we have distinct articles on the different things - the onus of on you, Domer, to provide a source that counters it. Its not good enough to give a source telling us that Ireland is the name of the state according to X,Y,Z; we already know that. Provide us with a source that tells us, explicitly, the state and the island are the same thing. Rockpocket 02:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rock: Per MASEM above, "arguing that there isn't any ambiguity between the island and the country...is going completely against the Arbcom-stated finding of fact." If MASEM says I can respond, I will. You could possibly help, if you provide both MASEM and myself a link to the discussion were consensus was reached on this issue, and on which ArbCom based their FoF, both of us are unable to locate it. A list of referenced sources which supported this consensus from the discussions would also be useful. HighKing raised the issue of consensus above and Per WP:Consensus To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. If your open minded and wish to be I'm sure I can provide a reasonable responce free of WP:SYN. I'll highlight editors names I'm addressing and responding to, since one can never get a responce with editors jumping in and the question being buried. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for form of Ireland (your term here)

I have a proposal: if and only if it is determined that article about the 26-county State should have a name of the form "Ireland (blah)", it should be "Ireland (state)", as the Irish constitution refers to it by that term and no other state I can think of has a claim to that term. Anybody currently discussing actually disagree with this? (And if you want "Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland", just hush for now, that's not the question.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont oppose (state) but because we have Georgia (state) i can understand alot of peoples concerns about using that term which could lead to confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand as well, but WP should not be in the business of catering to people who can't read any further than the title... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No disagreement here. Bastun^nutsaB 16:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer (state) over (country)/(nation). ~Asarlaí 17:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer Ireland (independent state) - it's clearer for those lazy readers who don't get beyond the title page. Valenciano (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but what about lazy editors? :-) Personally, I prefer short and sweet -- unless there's a dependent state of Ireland, that wording seems a bit much.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that title is too long. On if theres a dependent state of Ireland, no comment. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:TROUT. (I'm not sure whether it should be used on you for that line, or me for giving you the opening.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

lol we can share the trout if you want. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland (state) has long been the clear choice. I suggest you get a poll going on the point though. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland (Free State) is what it is known by in the country itself, north and south. --De Unionist (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

North and South Unionist Cloud cuckoo land maybe. In the real NPOV world, it's almost certainly not.MITH 23:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So you do know what The Free State refers to then...sort of proves my point.--De Unionist (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See for Irish Free State. --De Unionist (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ochón is ochón ó

I just thought I would take a moment here to weep a bit. -- Evertype·✆ 16:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk • contribs)