Jump to content

Talk:Ireland/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

What sections and information stays?

History

I propose a radical shortening of the history section. We have it across all these 5 places - here, Ireland (state), History of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and History of Northern Ireland. I propose a reasonably long section introductory paragraph summarising Ireland and NI, then another paragraph on early pre-cultural history. Offering all the "Main article:" links of course. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 

:D i love ireland!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.96.10 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Culture - music etc

I would suggest no more that a paragraph on culture/cross-culture (if any at all?). The more we put, the harder it is keeping it small (and under control - as people will naturally add to it if is too tempting to do so). Some of it could go to Ireland (state) - it is in more depth here than there, but there may be a problem with the length of that article. I don't think Ireland (state) has Dance. And to NI too should get stuff back, if it doesn't have most of it already. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) In addition, the links in the music section should be checked. "Dervish" needs to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dervish_(band), not just the word "dervish." --Mth089 (talk)

Places of Interest

I don't think this article is the place for this - it is intrinsically subjective, and the kind of thing you would naturally expect in the main state article. As a rule of thumb, I feel we should think twice about including forked material that might deter people from following the main links, or make them forget that this isn't the main Ireland state article! (which, in all seriousness, can be easily done at times on Wikipedia). --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sport

A lot of this is covered in the politics section - I suggest deleting it (and maybe moving some of it into 'All-island institutions'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Political Geography/All-island institutions

I'm happy with a general section that explain cross-cultural things, like sport. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

They should put a section on currency. im canadian and its a big lost of money if im going to move there. a big loss! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.96.10 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

This is worthwhile, but perhaps could be shortened a little in places. I favour using "island of Ireland" in this article, and "Ireland" for the state (which we would have to pipe here). --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't just change the name of the island! ;) Island of Ireland is not the common name. Start discussions to move this page to 'Island of Ireland', for all I care but don't start something like that without discussing it here first. You of all people ought to know how sensitive the situation is! Best, --Cameron* 13:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking around, I've seen "island of Ireland" a number of 'accepted' places. My above textual suggestion is specifically for this article, any way - obviously we have a specific need here - more than any other page - to disambiguate the word "Ireland". --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Misc

Energy network looks interesting, but I would delete Cities (it just gives sizes) and have a genreral 'Cities and transports' section (best name?), offering the mainlinks, and making it less forked.--Matt Lewis (talk)

Traditional all-Ireland counties map

It was in the infobox (surely not the right place) - so I move it to the section actually convering the traditional counties, and made a variant for the top corner. This isn't a 'perfect' graphic perhaps, but it can always be improved or changed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rail Map in the Transport section

If this section is to be kept in this article, and even if it is to be moved somewhere else, the map used in this section is really of poor quality when one looks at the different ways in which various kinds of routes are shown: the distinction between the colours or shades of colours is not large enough. I know my eyesight requires permanent wearing of glasses, but it isn't that bad that my comment here isn't going to be shared by many other people. The map needs re-drawing with colours that can be more easily discriminated used to represent the different kinds of routes. A perhaps lesser problem is the use of the chevrons: although I guess this represents hills or mountains, it isn't clear that this is the case, and I wonder whether in this kinds of map they are needed at all, since they add a further distraction to the already difficult task of discriminating between the different kinds of rail routes.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at that. -- Evertype·✆ 12:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Argh! It's not easily editable and is all antialiased. I've written to the originator of the file and asked if the original is available. -- Evertype·✆ 13:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Zoney did it. I've asked him. -- Evertype·✆ 10:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. If he can't manage it, I think someone should be able to do it (I could if pressed, though I have other maps that really need doing that are not even in existence on wikipedia in any form, so they might have to take precedence.)  DDStretch  (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: controversial multi-page move

An RfC on the recent multi-page move has been opened at Talk:Ireland#RfC: controversial multi-page move. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Note': Subsequent move reversals turned this link into a self reference. For people arriving here from other talk pages looking for the Rfc it used to point to, it is for the moment at Talk:Ireland_(disambiguation)#RfC:_controversial_multi-page_move. MickMacNee (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sobriquet

Please explain why the "sobriquet" belongs in this article. It's absurd. And please explain why my hatnote was reverted. Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why the sobriquet does not belong in the article. Best, --Cameron* 13:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit childish. No sobriquet appears on the Great Britain article, though a sobriquet exists for it. Shall we add Perfidious Albion to that article? Shall we add Gotham to New York? Columbia to the United States? God's Own Country to New Zealand? -- Evertype·✆ 13:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not childish, it's poetic. I suppose inclusion depends upon usage and consensus. The Emerald Isle is in wide usage. My goodness it even has its own article! --Cameron* 13:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it belongs in the infobox. The US States do have "state birds" and "state mottos" but... well, I'll be happy to add Perfidious Albion to Great Britain if you want. -- Evertype·✆ 13:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to, you don't have to ask me for permission. However, it may not be all too wise to add an insulting sobriquet to a country's infobox. I'll leave it up to your better judgement... --Cameron* 14:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Great Britain is an article about the island, not the state. I think rather that the "poetic" sobriquet should be removed from this one. -- Evertype·✆ 14:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes but perfidious Albion refers to a country: usually England or the United Kingdom, not Great Britain. Feel free to start a poll on the sobriquet... --Cameron* 14:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why the "sobriquet" should have the prominence of the info box. -- Evertype·✆ 15:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Evertype. I understand the point about the label having too much prominence. But I'm not sure that removing it entirely is the best solution. Is it perhaps worth a talk note (or some measured reorganisation) at Template:Infobox Islands? Perhaps to move the sobriquet label/content further down the box? (And therefore make it less prominent?) Guliolopez (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Compare the infobox at Wisconsin, and if you do add this, then by all means add Albion over at Great Britain. -- Evertype·✆ 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Have done. However the situation isn't entirely the same. Albion is more of a historic term, while The Emerald Isle is a proper Sobriquet. --Cameron* 12:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Historic, but used a lot in poetry. -- Evertype·✆ 12:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
That's why I went ahead and added it anyway. ;) --Cameron* 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
But it would be a lot better if it weren't so prominent, like the nickname at Wisconsin. -- Evertype·✆ 12:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(De-indent) OK. I tried a few things and failed at them all. As a "stop gap" I tried tinkering with the parameters locally. To at least make the text smaller, etc. As per the Wisconsin example, the text probably shouldn't be bolded - given that bold is reserved for proper/commonnames. But I can't seem to jerryrig it to either make it smaller or un-bolded. As the "stop gap" didn't work, I also had a look (and a play) with the Infobox template, and - long story short - I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the inheritance model it uses to be able to move the "native name" and "sobriquet" texts to a less prominent position. (Like possibly under the image in a "name" section. Not unlike the "demographics" section). I've given up I'm afraid, and would possibly recommend maybe leaving a note on the Infobox talk page requesting the change. Guliolopez (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dabbing

Please explain why my hatnote was reverted. "Not to be confused with Ireland (state)" seems very brusque. Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 14:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a now a piece of code - per jza84. The benefit is that it is pre-formatted, which is useful right now, I feel. It is so brusque that the "what is a country?", and "can it really cover pre 1922?" questions shouldn't feature too much now (though that latter has - but not very forcefully). It's clearly wiki-code (a good thing right now imo) and personally I think we should maybe look at it again, when things are more setttled.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I know it's a piece of code. I don't think its content is appropriate. Over at Ireland (state) we have a plain-text version of the same hatnote. Why must we have a piece of code here? "Not to be confused with the state" seems POV to me, and I think the manual hatnote is more neutral. -- Evertype·✆ 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
OK - I agree with jza84, that we should leave this to later, but here are a few ideas of my own:
1) "for the country..".
2) "for the sovereign state..",
3) "for the state..",
4) "for the country and sovereign state..",
5) "for the Irish country and sovereign state..",
6) "for the Irish nation and sovereign state.." ,
7) "for the Irish state..",
Some problems could be:
  • When it just says 'state' (and not 'sovereign' perhaps), people insist that pre-1922 should be in Ireland (island).
  • When it leaves out 'country' people complain, as 'country' is a standard on Wikipedia (an is used for Northern Ireland) - so why not Ireland?
  • When it says 'country', some people argue that the term is ambiguous (though this is unfair perhaps)
  • It has been argued that the island is the 'real' country, not the state (hardly encyclopedic)
  • 'Irish nation' covers all-era Ireland well, but some people see nation (when on its own) as being less than a country.
If we can get some ideas together, maybe we can vote. It's a complex one (and we've all - in good faith - reverted each other now I expect), so a poll is fair enough, I think. I'd rather leave it, but it looks like you and Sarah want to do this, yes? Looking at the above, I wonder if just "sovereign state" (2) might be the best? People unhelpfully pick at the meaning of 'state' on its own (like they do over the name Ireland (state)) - so perhaps we should clarify with 'sovereign'?--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No Irish editing

There are no Irish editors editing the Ireland(island) article. There is a Welshman, an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an American. That tells how popular this move is, and not very popular indeed. PurpleA (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no Canadian either. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nach cuma cá háit ar rugadh duine? -- Evertype·✆ 15:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
What's dat in English. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
'Isn't it irrelevant where a person was born?' -- Evertype·✆ 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nach cuma gurbh bhéadh cuntas ag úsáideoir freisin, ach tá an alt faoi ghlas airgid fós? Isn't it irrelevant that a user would have an account too, but the article is under a silver lock still --89.101.221.42 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nach féidir cuntas a fháil, a Stoca? Can you not get an account, Sock? -- Evertype·✆ 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rtibnck6r7,liu'ujvgd4th5jmnlok9pygdfasefsj. (Please remember that this is the English Wikipedia. Saying something that others can't understand could be considered rude.) ðarkuncoll 17:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Missed the point? -- Evertype·✆ 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You know, when I decide to work through the night, it's amazing to me how many Irish suddenly appear in the middle of the GMT 0 'morning'. No - they don't often edit, but they sure as hell know how to revert. Those particular Irish often seem to object the most. But then - why does it matter where we are from? Ireland (island) contains info on a British country, and I am British - hardly scrumping apples is it? Irish blood flows everywhere, as does all of ours. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Is féidir, ach ní fearr liom. Is é mo ceartas agus bunphrionsabal na ciclipéid. I can, but prefer not to. It is my right and a fundamental principle of the encyclopedia. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I have just gone through your editing pattern for last night, and I see you were doing a lot of reverting. Maybe you fell asleep at some stage and dreamed of those "miraculously appearing Irish editors", cause I can only see a few reverts. "Those particular Irish often seem to object the most.", just love your generic views on your next door neighbours. The bottom line is that you can rant and rave, but "those other particular types" cannot; you do get a little carried away at times. Don't forget about all those piping links that you have to change. Now is as good a time as any to get started. BTW, Northern Ireland is Irish, sure it's in Ireland;~) PurpleA (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The only 'reverts' I made last night were to someone who tried to revert ALL my work, and by pretending I didn't "discuss" (he was actually studiously ignoring my dialogue all night). Of course I had to get it back. And don't you dare whip me regarding work - I'll work as I see fit. I don't see you doing a lot at all. And why do you think I'm only talking about the one single night? There are a handful of such editors, and this isn't my conversation anyway - I'm just pointing out the hypocricy in your opening statement.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You didn't discuss. You just posted on talk page, and then you immediately went ahead and started tearing other editors work apart. You interpreted my statement in your usual hostile way. Well, I was only making an observation. The observation was quite candid and factual, sorry you didn't like it. PurpleA (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
All of that is untrue:
1) "tearing others work apart" (a stupid exaggeration - I only made the obvious uncontoversial section moves back to the state articles)
2) "You didn't discuss" (a simple lie - and the reverter has still not responded or aknowledged me, despite being politely asked to by an admin),
3) "usual hostile way" (a typically cheap character assassination).
The same old rhetorical lines. I don't care what people think of me - I'm going to help sort out this mess, and then I'll move on and leave you. I only ever point out mistakes, and I only ever respond rudely when it's in kind. You know full well that many Irish have backed this particular move - and many others have contibuted now, so your argument is just based on the first tentative day. Why do you think I stayed up all night? To stop people saying nobody wants to change it. You comments above have simply vindicated my decision to not let this change lie un-edited! I'm doing a lot of the donkey work here - because I know full well what you people are like: you attack every possible opening, and have long discarded fair play.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Others can judge. You called me a hypocrite because you didn't like me pointing out that Irish editors were unhappy, and weren't editing the said page. Is that is the way you respond to people who don't agree with you. I normally expect people to be direct, but not abusive, or even racist, which clearly some of your writing project. Quote, "Those particular Irish often seem to object the most." sheese! PurpleA (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Racist? Please. It's a well known fact that the overseas Irish are often more nationalistic/sentimental (whatever) than those who live there (who mostly are just happy being Irish). A derogative term for it (not mine) is 'Plastic Paddies'. It was just a clver quip, based on your 1-day 'no Irish editors' analysis - don't call me racist. I'm always happy for others to judge, as long as I get my say. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm an Irishman! I am from Northern Ireland, and strongly object to this continual attempt to change all references throughout Wikipedia of 'Republic of Ireland' to say simply 'Ireland'. 'Ireland' is foremost the name of the island in the English language, and will always be, no matter the political situation. I am not from the state occupying the southern part of the island, and detest the implicit PoV that is introduced that either implies 'you can only be Irish if you are from the southern state', or that 'the southern state has a territorial claim to the whole island' (which they supposedly dropped in response to the 1998 Belfast Agreement in a change to the Republic's constitution). Jonto (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Jonto, most of the editors who wanted the change were not in fact from Ireland at all. Most Irish editors see the issues involved, and would agree with you. PurpleA (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I haven't done a headcount, and I don't think it much matters, but many of the objectors to ROI are Irish. I'm not sure Jonto's destestation is really all that relevant. I dislke both extremes here--those who would remove all use of ROI (particularly when its removal isn't also accompanied by a willingness to add other disambiguating hatnotes or language) and those who think their personal dislike of the state's official/common name is sufficient reason for it to be avoided at Wiki. I think overuse of ROI implies wrongly that it is an official name, but I think an unwillingness to allow ROI use in some circumstances censors a perfectly acceptably real-world and practical way to disambiguate. It remains to be seen which way the ROI thing would go if ROI were removed (for more than a day!) as the state's page title. Its removal could signal an all out purge of the term or it could calm the objectors down in regards to more practical textual use of the term. I've no idea which is more likely. Nuclare (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The former would be more likely. Mooretwin (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Fie! Fie, Mooretwin! Fie upon your conspiracy theories! This blanket assumption of yours is part of the spirit which prevents resolution to this mess. Holy heck. -- Evertype·✆ 09:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not a "conspiracy theory": it's well founded. One only has to read the contributions of the anti-ROI clique to know their intentions. It's not as if they keep them secret. Mooretwin (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Motes and logs again Mooretwin. Your use of the word clique is ironic given your own behaviour and your general refusal to compromise in any way. Talking with you is like going back to the 70s and 80s. --Snowded TALK 11:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Please remain civil and restrict yourself to speaking the truth. It is untrue to say that I have refused generally to compromise in any way. The opposite is actually true. Mooretwin (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm being perfectly civil Mooretwin, you throw out general statements about others all the time and you come across as a confrontational editor who is not prepared to shift his/her ground. Exchanges with you do seem like exchanges from the 1970s. You may not like it, but its how you come across and I don't get the impression you are remotely concerned about it. --Snowded TALK 21:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not civil to publish lies about another editor. Mooretwin (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Erm, Mooretwin, I don't believe that Snowded was uncivil in describing your behaviour. You do seem quite generally to refuse to compromise in any meaningful way. In terms of negotiation, there comes a time when one asks, as I did "Can you support this even if it is not your first preference?" That got us Ireland, Ireland (island) and Ireland (state). I still can't fathom what's objectionable to these article titles. They're not my first preference, but I can live with them. It's not been hard to describe this compromise. What part of it could you not live with, and why? And then, what compromise would you offer? Be specific. -- Evertype·✆ 12:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I assume you would not now accept a deal that would move the ROI page to Ireland (state), but would leave the Ireland page alone? Because such proposals were offered by Mooretwin (with ROI text conditions) and by another of the editors you accused of filibustering. And I would accept such a proposal. Nuclare (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that the word Ireland is irretrievably ambiguous and should be the dab page. That leaves Ireland (island) and Ireland (state). What exactly is unacceptable about that? (Be specific please.) Remember, my own preference would be for Ireland to be the state. So I'm compromising by saying Ireland (state) is OK. The corresponding compromise "our side" would ask is for "your side" to agree to give up something you feel strongly about, and accept Ireland (island). That puts the two uses of the word Ireland on the same level. Trying to argue that one is more important than the other is as we have seen fruitless. I agree that there are legitimate uses of the description Republic of Ireland in content, though I would expect them to be used sparingly and appropriately, not peppering every paragraph. I'd even accept Londonderry on clear principles (the charter status of its name). -- Evertype·✆ 13:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I too agree with your preference, Evertype. Since in my eyes, the country is what most links on Wikipedia are actually looking for, it is a primary topic and should be located at Ireland. Moving the geographical island to Ireland (island) makes more sense, as it is not as much of a primary topic. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 15:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Everytype says, "What is unnacceptable about that?". Well if you look at various comments made by Matt Lewis after the recent botched move to Ireland/Ireland (state)/Ireland (Island) (you can read this comment for example, but there are others), you will see that he had actually intended by this solution, to keep the vast majority of references to Ireland on wikipedia pointing to the Ireland dab page permanently. This proposal was pushed in the name of following policy, specifically the Disambiguation policy and guidelines. Well, permanent linking to dismabiguation pages is against the Disambiguation policy and guidelines. MickMacNee (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to make this about Matt because he may not be here again to clarify, but I wasn't clear on what he was advocating. At first, he seemed to say that all history links should go to the state; then I thought it was suggested they should go to "History of Ireland"; and, then, you are right, there seemed to be the suggestion they would go just to the disambiguation page. But maybe he meant they would go the disambig page and, then, be sorted to the state. Not sure. More importantly, I'm not sure if others agreed with him on this sort of linking issue in general (that is, that the island really oughtn't be getting much of any links), no matter the specifics of the suggestion. Nuclare (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well the problem with Ireland(state) is that it isn't an encyclopedic term. It's like saying Britain instead of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Tedious detail perhaps, but this is an encyclopedia. Ireland as a country is the Republic of Ireland, therefore it is slightly misleading to use the label Ireland(state) as people may identify this as Ireland(island). Londonderry / Derry has nothing to do with this really.--ZincBelief (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It has a fair amount to do with it actually. Many of the anti-RoI crowd argue for "Ireland" because its the legal name and against "Londonderry" although its the legal name. I'm in favour of the status quo, but I'd prefer if every use of the words: "Irish", "British", "Ireland" and "Britain", didn't have to to qualified by "(Incl. Northern Ireland)" and "(excl. Northern Ireland)". My main objection to the pro-RoI crusade is that every article it touches becomes more about the naming dispute and less about the articles actual subject matter. See Olympic Council of Ireland for example. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one happy (kinda) with the present arrangement? Most of the articles I'm working on or interested in link to Ireland before partition, so a straight link to Ireland (as at present) is grand. And Ireland was around for about 10,000 years before partition. "What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet" Hohenloh + 16:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • "What's in a name?" A good question. 'British and Irish' editors have fought fiercely over the name Ireland, I'm pretty certain that the rest of WP wouldn't argue it so feverishly. Being in the anti-ROI camp, but against Ireland being a disambiguation page, middle solutions are difficult to find. My preference is the that the state be the [Ireland] page, but then a British-Irish war would erupt again. Offering proposals to ArbCom is probably the only sensible thing to do at this stage. What about adding "European Union" to all the EU states, as they are all under Lisbon now, almost. So we'd have France (European Union), United Kingdom (European Union), Ireland (European Union), Spain (European Union), etc, etc. Just one solution of many, others would be welcome at Arbcom. PurpleA (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Evertype asked: "What exactly is unacceptable about that?" First off, if I answer this, I would then like you to tell us what is unacceptable to you about all of the island being at Ireland. Secondly, I am not an edit warrior; I will accept consensus. And even when there was no consensus for moving this page (neither at the taskforce nor here) but the page was moved anyways, I said that I would work with it, so, in that sense, it is not 'unacceptable' to me. As for why I don't want Ireland (island): 1) I don't actually think 'island' is all that good a word for this page. The fact that the emergence of this Ireland (island) suggestion was accompanied by talk from a number of Ireland (island) supporters about 'landmass' and 'lump of rock' and other such dismissive terms about what this page represents says quite a bit. Just this last weekend I was asked by a relative who was watching a golf tournement on TV (the Golf World Cup where players compete as teams for their country) why Ireland was being represented by someone from Northern Ireland (Graeme McDowell). The answer to that question certainly isn't because Ireland is a "lump of rock" nor is it even because NI is part of an island named Ireland. In this specific case, the answer, I believe, is because the Irish golfing association is pre-partition and was never split and is, therefore, tied up in the 'country'ness of this *particular* island. 2) The disambig. page thing scares me. Look at what happened when it was moved there? People trying to remove the map; wanting to remove a link to NI; wanting to skim it down to a bare-bones, strict policy sort of thing. Even today Una Smith, who as far as I know has no POV issue with the Ireland issue itself, is again stating at the Arb request that the map should go. Maybe she is right about policy or maybe she is wrong, but it means the possibility of having to fight these issues. Bringing people directly into content here at least allows a lot of freedom to explain the nature of this particular island and to lay out the state/province/countries(whatever you want to call them) upon it, so people can make the most informed decision about what further info. to seek. 3) I think having Ireland be directly ALL of Ireland is the best way to introduce the concept of Ireland to readers. Why initially send them only to a part of it? Or to a potentially sparse disambig page that won't get at this 'country'ness of the island that I mentioned above? All of Ireland is the superset. It's the place from which you can link to the other Irelands (Republic of and Northern)--going in the other direction isn't going to be as easy (as partly evidenced by your not very successful attempt to have NI hatnoted at the state page) and it won't be as explained. It's a NPOV way to lay out the whole of Ireland and let the reader decide if they want to get 'jurisdictional.' Nuclare (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nuclare. What's "unacceptable" is that neither side is right or wrong and there will never be an end to it. I've said this elsewhere: I've just had a user leave a message on my Talk page. He wants to "win" this battle. So do folks on "the other" side, it seems to me. Basically the question is wholly rooted in the ambiguousness of the name Ireland. There are essentially two camps, as far as I can see.
  • A. There are those who want Ireland to be the article about the state; these typically object to Republic of Ireland being the name of the article about the state. Ireland (state) is a way of responding to both of these.
  • B. There are those who want Ireland to be the article about the island and nation; these leads to an "overuse" of Republic of Ireland (Republic of Ireland Act notwithstanding) which is tendentious in that many people object (and are not likely to stop objecting) to this overusage. Ireland (island) is a way of responding to both of these.
  • If the two responses above are given then the next response would be to use Ireland for the disambiguation page. Compare Georgia, Georgia (country) and Georgia (US state) (no analogy is perfect). I cite again the very sensible words of Una Smith: "An ambiguous title such as Ireland should be a disambiguation page, because it is Ireland that will accumulate incoming links needing disambiguation and the task of disambiguating them is made vastly more difficult if Ireland also has "correct" incoming links that refer to one topic by that name." (See this and this.)
Regarding the map, I don't think there should be a map on the disambiguation page whether the title of that page is Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation). Maybe there should be no image there at all. -- Evertype·✆ 19:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
It will never end if you and others continue to peddle the myth that there are only two beliefs here, diametrically opposed, one for the state, one for the island, and the only solution is to piss both of them off equally. That is not consensus. You seem to, like with Nuclare here, totally ignore the people who accept that there can be a dual use Ireland article, (which categorigally does not preclude the existence of supplemental geography/modern state articles), because the fact is, Ireland has two related, and not opposite, meanings. It is nothing like dabbing totally unrelated terms like Georgia.
As for your comments about Una Smith, you ignored my comment above, but I still wonder if she is aware that Matt Lewis's (and yours? who knows) intended dab page solution, actually intended for most Ireland links to permanently point to a dab page, which is against the dab page policy. MickMacNee (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you noticed that you are responding to me aggressively when I did not say anything aggressive? You accuse me of "peddling a myth" when I am simply describing what has been clear to anybody who has seen the discussion here of the past few months. Or four years.
What do you suggest, regarding a "dual use" Ireland article? Do you suggest merging everything in the current Republic of Ireland article there? We could do that. That would be solution A above. It would make a lot of people happy. But I believe it would make a lot of people (for instance many in Northern Ireland) very unhappy. (For the record, I would be fine with such a merge; I believe that the most common use of Ireland is inclusive of the Republic of Ireland. For most of Ireland's history, the word has meant the whole shebang. The partition is a split, likely temporary. (You don't really expect that border to be there in 2308, do you?) I don't believe the scenario I outlined above is outrageous. It endeavours to address the concerns of two vociferous parties. The status quo certainly isn't going to be stable in the long term. I believe that if we retain the status quo now it will only be a matter of time before a RM comes up again. (I never filed an RM. In fact I filed the RfA only because lots of people had talked about it and I earnestly want to see an end to the anger and the bickering and the aggressiveness here.
I do not agree that most articles should link to the dab page. Assume please that Ireland became the dab page. Yes, there would be a lot of work to do to get them to point to the appropriate articles, but it's not clear that all of them point to the right place anyway. A bot could not do the job. We as a community of editor would do it. It would take time. Una Smith said, "At present, Ireland is a mash-up of articles about the island, disambiguation, and misplaced text about the state. Has anyone examined the incoming links to Ireland? Are they also a mash-up, in need of disambiguation? That chore is much easier if the page that accumulates ambiguous links is purely a disambiguation page. That way, an editor can periodically visit "what links here" and see at a glance what articles need links fixed." So after the work, our articles would be in much better shape than they are now. So no, I don't intend that things point to the dab page by design. Currently, however, an Ireland link could mean almost anything. -- Evertype·✆ 21:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Your portrayal of 'camp A' is not that they want to merge ROI into the island article, it is that they want to evict the island content to Ireland (island) and move ROI into its place. Camp A is thus permanently opposed by those wanting to maintain the current 'status quo' of leaving Ireland as an island article and ROI as a state article. Hence that is why positions A and B can never be reconciled, and the dab solution is the one made to piss them both off equally by giving them each an article to play with. The dual use outlook of considering Ireland is neither A or B. It recognises that if Camp A wants the island to be forked then the modern state gets forked too, and vice versa for Camp B, out of basic fairness that Ireland is not one or the other, and can exist itself as an article either on its own, or as a dual parent article to modern state/island sub articles. Northern Ireland would be fairly represented in that situation. On the dab links issue, if you did not intend any links to be incoming the final dab page solution, it seems you would have been on a collision course with Matt's idea of what the solution was. MickMacNee (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Macedonia is a good example of what should be done. The Macedonia (region) covers three different countries. Included in those three, is a country named Republic of Macedonia (which actually has the word Republic in its name, unlike the false name of the Republic of Ireland article) and a region in Greece right next to them called Macedonia (Greece). A region is not much different than an island. Macedonia goes to a disambiguation page.--T*85 (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, stop. No. No. No. Please? No "false name". You really have to understand that you are neither right nor wrong about what "Ireland" means and neither is anybody else. "Truth" and "falsehood" have no place in this discussion. That way lies madness. Ireland is not a "region". It's an island which is presently administered in two different jurisdictions. "Ireland" is ambiguous because it can mean more than one thing. -- Evertype·✆ 22:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland = country, Ireland = island, this isn't rocket science. If two things share the same name then it calls for a disambiguation page as the main article. The Republic of Ireland is not the correct name of the country. The constitution says it, the government says it, my passport says it, my birth cert says it. Is this some type of joke? --T*85 (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No-one disputes that the "official name" is "Ireland", nor that is says so on your passport, etc. The problem is that the "official name" is ambiguous, as it is also the name of the island, which is bigger than the state, and includes Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
No! You've got it! Spot on! Yes, Ireland = the state with its Bunreacht; yes, Ireland = island. Yes, this calls for Ireland to be the disambuguation page, if there are to be two different articles, one referring to the island and one to the state. -- Evertype·✆ 23:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"What's "unacceptable" is that neither side is right or wrong". So, in other words, you are not going to answer my question. :-) I agree about right or wrong, but there can be better or worse. More helpful in explaning the *whole* concept of Ireland and less helpful. More inclusive and less inclusive, etc.

"There are essentially two camps, as far as I can see.". No. I disagee. I do not see any 'two' camps to this. 5 or 6 camps, perhaps.

"B. There are those who want Ireland to be the article about the island and nation; these leads to an "overuse" of Republic of Ireland." As I say, I am not in this camp. I would never argue that this article is about the nation or even a country. I also don't know how having Ireland here "leads to overuse of ROI." This article being at Ireland in no way necessitates that the state's article be called ROI. I support the state article being changed to Ireland (state), in that respect you and I are perfectly equal. Texually there is going to be a demand for ROI usage regardless of what the state's page is called. It's a question of defining overuse. Your definition would appear to be any use that isn't 'sparingly.'

"Regarding the map, I don't think there should be a map on the disambiguation page whether the title of that page is Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation)" I do. Sorry. Why don't you?

"It would make a lot of people happy. But I believe it would make a lot of people (for instance many in Northern Ireland) very unhappy." So, is the equivalent the same for you? If the ROI title issue didn't exist, does having all of the island at Ireland make you very unhappy? Nuclare (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

One of these days, it would be nice if someone could explain why all the interested parties can come together in 1998 and agree to stop using ROI given its sectarian history, but Wikipedians want to continue. --Snowded TALK 09:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
"Sectarian history"?? The Dáil is/was sectarian? Mooretwin (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Mooretwin, I long ago came to the conclusion that for you the Good Friday agreement hadn't happened. --Snowded TALK 09:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The GFA has no bearing on your ludicrous claims of a "sectarian history" to the term ROI. History didn't start in 1998. The name, however, began in 1948. Mooretwin (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
and its use post 1948 became sectarian in nature, which is why 1998 saw an agreement not to use it any more. It is hardly ludicrous to assert a position supported by the facts. --Snowded TALK 11:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Snowed, I agree that the ROI page name should be changed; I'm on YOUR side on this. Do you see? But you HAVE to stop this 'sectarian' claim. It simply isn't true. I was just reading a book by former Taoiseach Garret Fitzgerald in which he used ROI extensively in the section on NI. Bertie Ahern is quoted as using ROI. ROI is used by all sorts of Irish sources. It is NOT sectarian. Yes, there was a LEGAL scabble between the govts about the legal name of the state. But ROI is not sectarian. It simply isn't. Nuclare (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Nuclare, I don't think there should be a map on the disambiguation page because I think the satellite picture would be better there. It is a splendid and beautiful image and causes no squabbling. (Wasn't it once a Featured Picture?) -- Evertype·✆ 10:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
But the policy justifiction for having any image on there is helping readers decide between choices. A satellite image doesn't do that. A map labeled 'Island of Ireland' that also shows the state labeled Ireland with a clear border and NI *would.* I agree the satellite image is splendid, and, in fact, that's one (just one) of the reasons I like the idea of 'Ireland' coming directly here. That image was for a long time at the top of this page and to me it is the *perfect* way to introduce readers to the concept of Ireland--show all of Ireland first and, then, immediately thereafter introduce the jurisdictional issues. Nuclare (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal on Ireland naming-dispute

A compromise proposal on the Ireland naming dispute is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


Use of "million" in second paragraph

Since this article is protected, I'll mention it here. In second paragraph of the summary section, it contains, "4,239,848 million." I suggest that the word million be removed, or at least change the number to 4.24. IF this has already been discussed, then pardon me. :-)

Ulipop (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. Having the second million makes the claim so incredible it verges on the incomprehensible, though one can work out what was meant. It is, however, poor to include it. I've simply omitted the second million as that doesn't remove the accuracy, and allows a better solution to still be found.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't science a part of culture?

I had made the "Science" section a subsection of "Culture", but that change was reverted.

OMG, is still there somebody who believes not only that humanities and sciences had better be insulated from each other, but also that the term culture can only apply to the former, after C. P. Snow pointed out how silly that view is? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, see http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/culture?view=uk. How do scientific discoveries fail to be human intellectual achievements? I'm reverting the change. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Right so the revert I did to a change was reverted itself so I am here discussing the merits of the edit. I understand there are huge discussions going on about this but what I am proposing is two small changes.

1. The infobox currently after an edit last week says:

Countries:
United KingdomUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Republic of IrelandRepublic of Ireland

I propose that it just says Ireland as this current way of phrasing suggests that Republic of Ireland is the name of the country. As its under the countries heading there is no ambiguity and as an encyclopedia should really say the correct name, otherwise it misleads people into believing wrong information. This has no implications of the main body of the text as obviously in an article like this you need to differenciate.

2. The other issue where I think the page is bad in that its misleads people is the political geography section where it says:

The island of Ireland is occupied by two political entities:

That again is very misleading as this section is there to explicitly explain to the reader the nature and name of the political entities on the island. 'Sometimes called Ireland' is pure pov. I propose something a bit more based in fact and that it says instead:

  • Ireland, a sovereign country that is described as the Republic of Ireland, covers five-sixths of the island....etc. or similar.

Again as the nature of the subsection is there to identify the political situation to the user I don't think its in anyway confusing saying there's a country called Ireland on the island that occupies 5/6 of it and its described as x etc. On the other hand I think that the current wording would suggest to a reader that Republic of Ireland is the name of the political entity which its not and we don't want readers to be misinformed after reading a Wikipedia article. Do people agree with the proposal to make these two small changes?Rownon (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you could discuss things like this till the cows come home (most folks do). While I don't disagree with what you day, I wouldn't be in favour of your making those changes (however small) at the moment, as some momentous decisions from somewhere or other are due shortly and IMHO it might be in everyone's interest to await these developments before editing. Hohenloh + 20:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Wikipéire, you must have been away for a bit. It never ceases to amaze me that editors can simultaneously argue that Ireland should be a disambiguation page because it's ambiguous and that it's ok to refer the Irish state as Ireland as no ambiguity occurs. The "Republic of Ireland" page makes clear what the official name is. I can't see why we should labour the point. Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Erm, I have no time for the sock there, but I'd like to say something. I think Ireland should be a disambiguation page in the context of the Wikipedia because worldwide there is really no way of knowing what people are looking for when they type "Ireland" in the Wikipedia. Most likely it's the State. Or most likely it's the geology. Who knows? We don't and we can't. HOWEVER, I think that you've cast the "reference" problem far too black-and-white. In many and most contexts when discussing things that have to do with the 26-county republic that occupies 83% of the island, it is perfectly normal to use the word Ireland. I am a citizen of Ireland (check my passport; I am not a subject of Her Glorious Britannic Majesty, though I like her well enough). Dublin Airport is in Ireland (ambiguous! It's in Ireland and it's in Ireland). Belfast Airport is in Ireland (not ambiguous; can only mean the island). Of course we have to pipe things to the right place when we use the word Ireland. The suggestions and to my mind the only credible options are Ireland (island) and Ireland (state). If you think that Republic of Ireland solves this problem then you have simply Not Been Paying Attention. There is sustained opposition to using Republic of Ireland for every instantiation of reference to the 26-county state, and if you simply won't take that valid objection on board then you are no candidate for consensus-builder. -- Evertype·✆ 22:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I am aware there are objections but I am simply left baffled over why the use of the "Republic of Ireland" causes offence and no repetition of the same old arguments is likely to disabuse me of this. I simply know of no particular body of opinion - outside Wikipedia - that finds offence in it's use. I have on the other hand heard of a Galwegian who is sent to prison for a day or two every five years because he refuses to fill out a census form entitled "Census of Ireland" because the census only covers the Republic. The reality is that most Irish people have never read the Constitution and don't need to told where they're from or what it's called. Neither do I.
Btw the Republic consists of 29 counties and 5 cities. The only people who think otherwise are the GAA and their county championships have 32 teams. Go figure! Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a simple fact that the state is called "Ireland" (or Éire in Irish). Republic of Ireland is a description, and as such, it can provide useful disambiguation. However, it is not suitable in a "proper" context, e.g. when introducing the state, or the name of an article about the state. In all international matters for example, the state is "Ireland", not "Republic of Ireland".
100% of the time then!? This isn't a discussion about diplomatic protocol. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
However, Wikipedia's dubious and fluctuating usage is small fry compared to the BBC, who have a deliberate editorial policy of persisting in referring to the state as the "Irish Republic". zoney ♣ talk 13:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
No, sometimes they call it "Southern Ireland" (last heard the day before yesterday on the radio)Hohenloh + 15:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The Brits are evil. We get it already. The real reason is that the beeb just follow good standards of journalism and writing. Whenever we delete the words "Republic of" from an article we end up adding a paragraph to explain what we actually mean by "Ireland". The Manual of Style recommends descriptive not prescriptive names and against "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" naming conventions. "Ireland (state)" violates both of these rules. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Manual of Style offers very little help in sorting out an individual situation where some contributors are quite rightly arguing for proper usage of terms concerning Ireland, while others simply wish to have everything standardised and just the way they want it without consideration of facts.
An unreasonable tone to one's comments do not help the situation either. zoney ♣ talk 18:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead edits

I wrote the historical paragraphs for the lead to reflect the article content - additionally it covers other aspects such as political make-up and ethnicity that are contained in the article. Aspects of culture and sport should also be reflected in the lead and perhaps some historical parts trimmed down — I found it difficult as the history has many twists and turns. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scolaire in removing this. My objection is that it's in the wrong place, and unnecessarily clutters up the intro. There's already a good chunk of history later on, not to mention the History of Ireland article. Hohenloh + 14:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
There should be some history here, but a single shorter paragraph would probably be better. Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
For those working on the lede, it would be good to be familiar with WP:LEDE which specifically states that the lede: "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." So it should cover most elements touched in the main text, but not in any great detail. For the length of article the lede should be three or four paragraphs. Right now there is too much detail of certain aspects and no mention of others, so it certainly does not follow the LEDE guidelines. The details should be moved into their appropriate sections. ww2censor (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Without the paragraphs that Sillyfolkboy added there is still a reference to the mythical goddess Ériu, and one to the famine, so the charge of "recentism" in SFB's edit summary does not hold up. Since History of Ireland has an article of its own, and takes up only a small place in this article, the paragraphs added - more than the total previous length of the lead - is not justified. Per Blue-Haired Lawyer, if the whole of Irish history could be summarised in less than 100 words (I wish you luck!) it would be worth adding back. In the meantime, I am removing the current text again. Scolaire (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Content of this page

ArbCom has issued a final decision (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Final decision) with four remedies. Per Remedy #1, may I suggest a poll on the following: which of these options should occupy this page? --Una Smith (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. An article about the island, its geology, geography, culture(s), and history; similar to Ireland
  2. An article about the current state, sometimes described as Republic of Ireland
  3. A disambiguation page, similar to Ireland (disambiguation)
  4. A combined article: Ireland should be an article that describes both the island and the two states on it.
  5. Undecided

Poll

Island

  1. With a hatnote with three entries: directly to the current article on the Republic of Ireland, directly to the current article on Northern Ireland, and to the dab page, Ireland (disambiguation) for the rest of the usages. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. This is the only one in which the three reflect accurately the names, is the current status quo and is the most logical. Tony May (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Add hatnote to avoid any possible confusion. It seems silly having this same vote all over again. Remind me, what exactly have ArbCom done? It took them X weeks just to tell us the options we already knew existed? --Cameron* 00:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. As the most accurate undisputed use of the name this seems the most sensible (I don't think anyone is claiming that the island itself is not called Ireland, whereas all other options are subject to dispute). It seems to me that whatever the state in the southern part of the island may or may not be called, to make this page solely about that state would be to implicitly suggest that Northern Ireland was somehow not part of "Ireland" the island. With regard to option four, there is no question that an article about Ireland the island must discuss both political entities on the island, so that option is effectively the same as this one.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Seems the best way to introduce the concept of "Ireland." It doesn't depend on the sparseness of a disambiguation page and it is the superset of Ireland....well, that's the 2 second version of my reasoning, anyways. Nuclare (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. I always heard the gov't referred to as the Republic of Ireland so the landmass (to me) shoudl be this. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

State

  1. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 18:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. This is my preferred target. From Gaelic Ireland to the Lordship of Ireland, to the Kingdom of Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the Irish Free State to Ireland, the word Ireland has meant and must mean primarily the greater part of the population and governance of the island. In 2009, "Ireland" means the State with its capital in Dublin. Worldwide that is what it means. Since the Good Friday Agreement that is what it means even in the UK, at least to its own government. The fact that a small part of Ireland did not achieve independence splitting the State in 1922 is irrelevant; the fact that this small part of Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does not make it right for editors partial to that small part to stonewall as they have done so persistently for something as simple as article titles in the Wikipedia. Previously I advocated Ireland to be a disambiguation page as a way forward. That genuine compromise was met with fairly bitter resistance by those editors from (mostly it seems) Northern Ireland who just can't stand the fact that the name of the State is Ireland. I don't understand their position. I don't believe that any of their endless machinations and arguments have really been in good faith, and I'm withdrawing my support for that proposed compromise accordingly. So that's my preference: Ireland = the State because that is the primary use of the term worldwide; Ireland (island) should go for the geography and for whatever else couldn't possibly go into the main article; Ireland (disambiguation) pretty much as it is now. (I do agree that a limited use of "Republic of Ireland" and "Irish State" within articles as a disambiguator has some functionality and should not be opposed religiously as some have done. It would also be fine with me for the silly but genuinely official name Londonderry to be used if that would help to balance feelings about the use of the official name of the Irish State.) -- Evertype·✆ 19:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. On the grounds that this is the most common meaning of the term. My second preference would be the dab page. Sarah777 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. 1st Choice - The modern country of Ireland takes precedence to the island of Ireland.--T*85 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

  1. Una Smith (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. With a simple disambiguation to, primarily, Ireland (island) (or variants) and Ireland (sovereign state) (or variants). I believe this to be the most neutral option, since I have not been convinced that either entity is sufficiently more notable than the other, or that one has dominance over the other in common usage. Option 1 and 2 are acceptable, I would strongly protest option 4 as a political timebomb. Rockpocket 20:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. This is my preference. Although I'm also puzzled. Is it not clear to most editors at this point that neither the island nor the state takes precedence given the previous discussions. --HighKing (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. I don't see a reasonable alternative as a compromise. Though tempted, I won't add my ifs ands or buts. RashersTierney (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. 2nd Choice - this is a compromise which I accept since it does not chose which (country or island) takes precedence and lets the reader decide what they want.--T*85 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. The ongoing debate makes it clear to me that neither the island nor the state is the primary topic, therefore this should be a disambiguation page so that the reader can choose which they're looking for rather than have editors' opinions shoved down their throat. waggers (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Combined article

  1. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC). I added the option for Ireland being a combined article. If this happened, then optionally, either Ireland (island) (or variants) and Ireland (sovereign state) (or variants), can exist as in-detail expansion 'daughter' articles of Ireland, or Ireland can exist as the 'parent' article of all the child articles Geography of..., Politics of..., Government of..., History of..., Transport of... etc etc which can then be sensibly named/intro'd to adequately reflect whether they cover all-Ireland, or the sovereign state, or the island on its own. Whatever anybody says (or the arbcom imposed panel forces through a straw poll), neither of the supposed two meanings of Ireland (state/island) will ever be able to win the ownership battle for the Ireland article (cue the endless re-hashing of constitutional arguments), and all attempts at making Ireland (disambiguation) actually resemble a disambiguation page per the policy, fail, with it inevitably being morphed into an article masquerading as a disambiguation page, providing just another article (and talk page) venue for POV editing (which should never occur at db pages), or having explanatory footnotes/references/maps/diagrams plastered all over it (which should never occur at db pages). A combined, sourced and neutral article is the only way that the dual meaning of Ireland can be adequatley explained to the reader, and comparisons to other such 'confusing' names such as Georgia are not even relevant in that respect. And any resulting content disputes from either 'side' will have a single central venue, the Ireland talk page, to settle their differences. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC). I have struck part of my proposal as it wrongly suggested I was seeking a merge of the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland articles into Ireland. I would rather see the creation of the Ireland (island) article to sit alongside those, to contain detailed 'all-Ireland' data such as demographics, geology, certain sport data etc. Ireland should only contain short summary sections for History/ROI/NI/Geography/Culture/Infrastructure. Most of the current article is too detailed, with some sections needing complete pruning. There are huge sections of contemporary data that belong in either ROI or NI or Island (island). MickMacNee (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. I think there is merit in the idea of what would effectively be an expanded disambiguation page. It wouldn't need to have any ambitions to reach GA or FA and should be bounded in size and content. As this is just a straw poll, I throw into the ring the idea that such a page might be based on the leads of the relevant articles. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Undecided

Polls are evil

  1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. --Domer48'fenian' 20:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. --Una Smith (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OBJECT to premature poll

Comments

I propose no solution, nor any action whatsoever, other than information gathering. The content of the page named Ireland seems to be at the heart of the dispute, so for the moment let's just see where people stand on this question. Please? Then we can consider how to proceed. --Una Smith (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the poll itself a proposal for action (to go with the outcome of the poll)? ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No, and here is why. As often happens, subsequent discussion may result in people changing their minds. They can record that by deleting their prior vote and making a new one. I envision this poll as resulting in a count taken at some point, followed by a decision re what to do next, possibly followed by taking a new count. This way, it won't be necessary to start a poll from scratch. Consider if there is no simple majority (last I saw, the count was 1:1:1:0); what action would be appropriate then? That is for the community to decide. --Una Smith (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me that given that arbcom directed that the community devise a process, this poll is ill advised and not likely to be of much use prior to devising the process and agreeing on it. ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Lar, what process do you propose? --Una Smith (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose that there be a discussion on what process to use and consensus for the process be sought FIRST, before there is a poll. This poll itself is a process, with a suggested outcome, whether you admit it or not. I'd refer you to the highways naming arbcom case and process, which is now some time in the past... the history of Wikipedia:USRD should be interesting. In that situation, under arbcom mandate, 6 admins were empaneled to force the community to come to consensus on a process and then force it to stick to that process. It so happens I was one of those 6 admins but that's not necessarily relevant. ++Lar: t/c 06:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, the content of the page named Ireland is not at the heart of the dispute - the name of the page currently named Republic of Ireland is at the heart of the dispute! This is why starting with a poll is a Bad Thing. You need to start by asking what the issues actually are. Scolaire (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Scolaire, that may be the heart of the issue for you, but some people do not care what the page name of that article is, provided it is not Ireland. And this is Talk:Ireland, not Talk:Republic of Ireland. --Una Smith (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification required

What are we polling here? Whether the page called "Ireland" should refer to 1, 2 or 3 above? Sarah777 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This poll requests people to give their personal opinion about what the content of the Ireland page should be. It's not binding, but if everyone is honest at least we (or the ArbCom's appointees) would know where everyone stands. -- Evertype·✆ 08:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
We already know that anyway. ArbCom asked us to come up with a process for deciding on article naming pertaining to Ireland, not Yet Another Poll which will result in 'X number want [Ireland] pointing at the state, Y number want [Ireland] to point at the island, Z number want it to point to a disambig page'... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
So come up with a process. --Una Smith (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should do precisely that. Preferably one that can be re-used the inevitable next time we have a Gdanzig-type dispute. To the batmobile!!! >Radiant< 21:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom ruling - clarification of what its all about

As I read it, the arbcom ruling was not that we should agree the name changes, but that we should agree the mechanisms for agreeing change and developing consensus.

The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view (my bold) on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used.

We should not be voting on changes until we agree the mechanisms. Fmph (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely - the vote is premature. We are meant (and have little time to do it) to agree a mechanism to decide the names. A poll such as that above is one possible mechanism, can we please can this now and start an open discussion on what are the issues, and how do we think they can be resolved without anyone starting to take positions around proposals. We have been there too many times in the past. Also this page should have been notified to those parties to the AI notification and on that ruling. --Snowded TALK 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a vote to change anything; it is an opinion poll. There is a difference. Please notify anyone you think should be notified of any discussion. --Una Smith (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I waited 3 days for anything to happen; nothing did. --Una Smith (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In what way does this opinion poll differ from the earlier ones that led to the Arbcom intervention? Sarah777 (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It really does not vary at all - it's still about choosing sides. ww2censor (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The difference is that the clock is ticking before the ability to determine a reasonable compromise is taken out of our hands. Inevitably we are faced with polling of some kind. RashersTierney (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed the clock is ticking. As I see it, this poll just asks everybody what he or she wants. We will surely not come to consensus and the ArbCom's Remedy 2 will come into force. This poll will allow them to see where everyone stands. -- Evertype·✆ 08:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom seemed to be suggesting that we should not come with fixed opinions or ideas. This opinion poll, and the prevailing attitude here, seems to be saying that nothing has changed. If ArbCom had wanted us to have an opinion poll on the name and content of the Ireland article, I think they would have suggested that. They didn't!
This poll will only represent the opinions of those that partake. What ArbCom wanted us to do is to agree if Opinion Polls were the way forward, etc., or to suggest alternatives. We're not doing that.
It is very sad. Fmph (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Process

A straw man for process:

  1. Agree on a short statement of the issue and the main alternatives (with no value judgements)
  2. Create a table for the assembly of evidence relating to those alternatives (short statements with references no long arguments and exchanges. (Ddstrech did this well on the is wales a country question and it can be found at countries of the united kingdom/
  3. Determine which options should be excluded based on evidence
  4. For valid options assemble evidence and worked options/examples OR agree polls on specific well defined issues that build to a final decision.

--Snowded TALK 22:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Point 2 makes no sense to me. Evidence of what? And how do you propose to get it? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think the link was meant to be for Countries of the United Kingdom for a start, but I'm also confused. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Point 1 has essentially been done in the options for the poll. There is no "evidence" that will resolve this. We all know what the arguments are and how they are supported, we are simply in disagreement on how to weigh and balance them. Therefore nothing will be excluded, because there is evidence in support of all the options. The only way this is going to be resolved is by good faith compromise by those that have entrenched views. Rockpocket 02:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In a sense, this poll may help to identify what the main alternatives are. We may think we know them already, but maybe not. I thought of options 1-3, but not of 4. I don't know that I understand 4, yet. I also don't quite get the point of option 2: were none of the prior states known as Ireland? --Una Smith (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Perhaps something could be put together that begs to ask the question, What approach is the most objectionable?. That might throw up some different statistics/interpretations? Just a thought. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, that's an idea! How about put the disambiguation page at Ireland and have someone involved in Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (and not involved here, so not me) clean up the disambiguation page. Then, give the disambiguation page full protection so it remains a disambiguation page? --Una Smith (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Apologies for the poor link and thanks to Jza for the correction. Some points:

  • Firstly I for one do not agree that the poll options above represent all the options, or that it is correct to have one poll on multiple options We have been there before and it doesn't work
  • There is a clear need for compromise and we did get close to this with some options (MooreTwin's original) and that provides options.
  • My number 3, which eliminates the more controversial options seems to have resonance with some of the statements above

--Snowded TALK 07:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, don't you think we're headed for ArbCom's Remedy 2 in any case? I don't see what embarking on your 4-point "process" would realistically achieve. In the short term, Una's poll at least lets everyone say what they think the content of the Ireland page should be. -- Evertype·✆ 08:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps if the number of available options was expanded and editors voted on each on a declining scale. That at least would give indication of least acceptable options without beginning interminable separate polls. For example another option is 'Ireland' as dab AND the article on the southern state named Ireland (state), which I think would have greater support than the simple dab option above. Many solutions other than the ones above have been suggested, some long overlooked. There is little point at this stage in everyone just reiterating ONLY their first option. RashersTierney (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
We may end up in Remedy two, in the meantime the options offering the poll above are limited and fail to address either the issues of the process of resolution. --Snowded TALK 17:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that we can vote for two different solutions? My choice is to have Ireland as the country, but having Ireland as a disambiguation page is also acceptable. Can I just label one my first choice and the other my second choice, this might help bring about a compromise if we were able to do this. --T*85 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead. One issue I had with the previous polls I saw was that the terms were pre-set and we were supposed to say yes or no. That never worked. My hope for this poll is that we can distill the strongest argument for each option, and compare them. I would then try to rank them by persuasiveness of argument, rather than by popularity, but again that is what I personally would do, not what anyone else must do. --Una Smith (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative process

Here's my suggestion for developing an agreed process to define/measure consensus for Ireland-related page moves.

  1. We create a new section on this talk page entitled Talk:Ireland#Alternative process list or something similar
  2. Editors would be invited to add signed, bulleted, and named, one-line descriptions of their preferred/suggested model for the process
  3. The editor would link this to a user-space hosted page which would expand in more detail on their proposal
  4. After a suitable period in time, a poll should be opened (and the "Alternative process list" closed) to guage which process the community preferred to adopt.
  5. An admin would close the poll as per normal and the preferred process would be deemed to be community adopted.

Would that work? Fmph (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, with just a couple of amendments. Firstly, this is the talk page for the Ireland article and that article alone; there are other articles that are involved in this dispute and that's why a centralised point of discussion was set up. I believe the discussion should take place there. Secondly, if an admin closes the poll "as normal", a "no consensus" outcome is very likely. "No consensus" is NOT consensus for the status quo, and shouldn't be taken as such, so if that's the outcome of the above process we would need a remedy for establishing consensus in a different way. waggers (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Um... some of us do want the status quo. You're saying any other option can "win" except the status quo? No. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative process list

Compromise through rank preference

  • Compromise through rank preference. We have a poll of the 3 or 4 major alternatives and require respondents to rank all the options in preference of most to least favoured, giving rationales based on their interpretation of our relevant policies and guidelines. We preselect a small panel of two or three completely uninvolved experienced editors to interpret the poll and come up with the alternative that is the best compromise taking into account both the order of preferences and the justification for that order choice. Before we start, everyone agrees to accept the panel's decision in good faith, without bitching about bias, and we get on with something more productive for a couple of years before revisiting this again. Rockpocket 20:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand the idea, but I think we need more structure. There are two questions really (i) Is ROI a valid term to use for the state of Ireland (ii) Should the state or the island have the name Ireland or should there be a disambiguation page page. Now if it is agreed that the state should have the name Ireland, then the ROI issue goes away. However if the disambiguation page, or the island=Ireland options are taken then the question of ROI and alternatives come into play. The ROI issue is (I think) a matter of citation while (ii) is an issue of policy. My own view is that I would accept any of the three options for Ireland (the state the island or a disambiguation page) but think that the evidence is clearly against continued use of ROI. Others have different positions, but there are two questions and it may be best to resolve them in sequence. --Snowded TALK 20:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the title of the article about the state (if it isn't to be Ireland) could factored into the alternatives. ROI is certainly a valid option for an alternative title, but whether its the most appropriate alternative title comes down to opinion, and how one interprets the web of policies that advises us. The two issues you mention are so intertwined, that I very much doubt you can resolve one independent of the other. Rockpocket 21:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion and our policy of Verifiability can not be ignored as part of any compromise. ROI is not a valid term to use for the name of the state. The name of the state is Ireland. Nothing at all has yet been presented to suggest otherwise. What I suggest is that the ROI article be about the descriptive term of the state, its history, use and abuse. This article could form the basis for the article, which would be both informative and place the term in context. The Ireland article should simply be the same as all the other country Articles. --Domer48'fenian' 21:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your problem there is that the name of the island is Ireland, and has been for centuries longer than the state. Mooretwin (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
We are having the debate again guys rather than agreeing the process. Rockpocket, there is a clear position here that ROI is not a valid name for the state (which is not necessarily linked to the position that the state should have the name Ireland. --Snowded TALK 22:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point, I am (attempting to) discuss the process. I said ROI is certainly a valid option for an alternative title. If someone wants to suggest that as a possible title (and I would be amazed if someone didn't, since it is the status quo option), then they should not be restricted from doing it just because Domer or Snowded says so. Likewise, there is a clear position here that ROI is not a valid name. That too is a valid option (assuming there is an alternative title suggested, instead). The whole point is to allow people to express both what their order of preference is from a range of options, and why that is based on their understanding of policy. I'm not making a case for either position, I'm making the case that both are possible options.
With all due respect, Domer, "discussion" isn't going to get us anywhere when it consists of "ROI is the best title", "No, its not", "Policy says so", "no, it doesn't". We can "discuss" in that manner for the next five years if you want, but we are going to get anywhere. If one thing is now clear it is that compromise cannot be reached through discussion alone (for example, exactly how does one reach a compromise when you start a discussion from a position that fails to even acknowledge that the alternative is a valid option? Seriously, where does that discussion go?). So instead, I say lets reach compromise through a logical analysis of all major positions based on a poll of justified preferences. Rockpocket 02:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the name of the state is Ireland. But this dispute is about the name of a page on Wikipedia. Many Wikipedia articles have page names that describe rather than name their topic, and many pages that do name their topic are disambiguation pages. The dispute over what should occupy the page named "Ireland" boils down to this: Is the island or the state the primary topic, or is there no primary topic? If there is a primary topic, that article should occupy the page named "Ireland". If there is no primary topic, then the disambiguation page should occupy the page. One thing we could do, that I think would be new, is try to show which of these is the case. I have argued elsewhere that to qualify as a primary topic, the topic should be 10x more common (by whatever metric) than all the other topics combined. That 10x factor avoids recurrent disputes over small differences. --Una Smith (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
For many editors, the primary issue of dispute is what the name of the article relating to the southern state should be. Proposing Ireland as a Dab, or any other 'solution', without simultaniously addressing that question is only temporarily avoiding the main bone of contention. RashersTierney (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Its clear from the quick poll above that opinion is completly split on this issue so a ranking method like suggested might be useful. I think the simplest way to get a clear picture of how people feel would ask people to state the main choice (listed above) they are most strongly against rather than which they would prefer. If one is strongly opposed then eliminate it and look in more detail at the remaining choices, or if 2 of the 3 have far more strong opposes then the choice which will meet least oposition and cause the least problems will be clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Compromise through rank preference 2. Ok. So how about we have two inter-related ranked preference polls. Regarding the Ireland article issue. we have a poll of the 3 or 4 major alternatives and require respondents to rank all the options in preference of most to least favoured, giving rationales based on their interpretation of our relevant policies and guidelines. Whatever the outcome of this poll, we would either require another title for the article about the state, or another title for the article about the island or both (if it was decided Ireland is to be a disambiguation page). Therefore anyone who offered an opinion on the first poll would also be required to offer a ranked preference on this issue also. We preselect a small panel of two or three completely uninvolved experienced editors to interpret the poll and come up with the alternative that is the best compromise taking into account both the order of preferences and the justification for that order choice. The second poll is then interpreted on basis of the result of the first, to determine the new title(s) of the article(s) that require them. Rockpocket 07:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Special Rfc proposal

Here is my proposal for the process/framework as called for in Remedy 1, which must be agreed on within 14 days from 4 January 2009, otherwise Remedy 2 will be enacted:

  1. Arbcom appoints a panel of nominated admins to watch over this entire process. This is to ensure we have "uninvolved" admin/s to call on at different phases of the process. If at any point an issue is raised to the nominated admins, ignoring it is not an option - issues must be definitively acted on or dismissed as frivelous to keep the process focused and on topic.
  2. The community draws up a statement page presenting the issues in a neutral manner. On a sub-page, users can optionally present their own evidence and sources much like in an arbcom case, but the statement page remains a neutral 'here are the issues, here are the relevant policies, here are previous discussions, here are some on wiki precedents etc' type statement. The statement page should avoid at all costs being presented as offering up polling options, because presenting the issue as a poll is divisive and will polarise discussion (although obviously, a statement like "some users believe the Ireland article should be about the modern sovereign state" presents an easy target for a straight yes/no response. Drawing up this page must last a minimum of 1 week and a maximum of 2. Once agreed on, the statement page should be protected - any subsequent evidence or issues must not be added on the main page, but can be referred to on its talk page in the next phase. This will make it clear to newcomers that the statement page has not changed since the discussion started - normal talk page rules apply whereby the preserving of the timeline of discussion on the statement talk page is paramount, and any refactoring is to be meticulously noted. The nominated admins are responsible for monitoring this statement page building exercise, and have authority to topic ban anyone who climbs the reichstag while the wording/format is agreed, for the rest of the entire process.
  3. For the next phase, the community (or if it can't, arbcom) appoints a panel of experienced users to act as the consensus judges, who must remain uninvolved in the process until required. This is deliberately not restricted to only admins, it can be made up of any user believed to have a decent grasp of policy and a good track record of summarising long discussions.
  4. The statement page is presented to the community as an Rfc but a special kind of controlled RFC focussing on a group formulated statement page. The Rfc location is to be advertised on the centralised discussion list. The statement page is to have clear instructions at the top of the page pointing out the main points of this framework, and the presence of teh nominated admins
  5. Hopefully, wide and varied opinions will be attracted to discuss the statement page on its talk page. Multi-option polling is absolutely banned. Anybody who wishes to guage support for a specific opinion they hold must create their own talk page section, state it, and then allow others to decide if they simply support or oppose it, or wish to otherwise comment or query the originator before commenting. While this discussion takes place, the nominated admins, empowered by the arbcom Remedy 1, after 1 warning only, should topic ban from the discussion page anyone who:
    1. makes the same points ad nauseum
    2. attempts to own the page
    3. attempts to derail specific threads
    4. discuss issues not relevant to the statement page
    5. questions this agreed framework or process
    6. all the other usual offences
  6. After no less than one month, but no later than 6 weeks, the discussion must be concluded. The statement talk page is locked, and the consensus judges are asked to review all comments, and state clearly what consensus, if any, has been reached by the community on the issues raised by the statement page. A clear summary statement will be required to be posted, not later than one week after closure of the discussion.
  7. Escape clause The consensus judges are fully allowed to declare the discussion result was no consensus if they genuinely believe it. If this happens, then the whole thing is kicked back to arbcom to enact Remedy 2, or even do the unthinkable and rule on content in the face of an intractable issue.

Obviously, this proposal attempts to foster a productive yet focussed discussion, with a defined end point and end product, but as a trade off, certain divisive types of polling is banned. If people don't like that, and want to oppose this framework because they see a binding straw poll on the horizon as the likely conclusion of Remedy 2, simply consider the fact that judging by most previous polls, there is a very real possibility that that will end up with a 49:51 decisions being enforced for an arbitrary length of time, with nothing to fend any future questioning of the situation other than OMFG 51% of people supported the idea of doing it this way so shut up!!!!11. I certainly won't be volunteering that explanation to any and all newcomers on the talk pages, because its crap. I would rather point them to a rational and well considered summary resulting from a controlled discussion which was encouraged and supported by the highest venue of dispute resolution, which is hopefuly what will be produced by the consensus judges at the end of this special Rfc.

MickMacNee (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I simply don't see why this will result in anything other than we have already seen: ~40% of editors advocating one extreme, ~40% advocating the other and the other ~20% inbetween. What then? What we really need is a mechanism where those with entrenched positions are required to move towards the middle. Rockpocket 06:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that perception comes from the repetition of endless polls involving the same number (maximum 20?) of interested parties. I am hoping for different avenues and conclusions appearing from opinions sought from the wider community, hence the need to get the wording of the statement page correct first and then widely advertise it on cent., rather than simply telling people that there is a huge ongoing disaster at this obscure sub-page, please comment if you have a clue what's going on and can wade throught the endless repetition, which is rather what the IDTF became. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think Mick has a good idea here and I would accept it with the addition of a stage which allows a progressive set of decisions (How should be name the main article, then (if required) what should be the name of the article about the state and finally What is the correct intext reference to the state. --Snowded TALK 07:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think all the possible permutations and consequences can be presented on the same statement page, and any nuances of 'if we do this then do this' type conslusions can be teased out by the judges at the end. I don't think staged Rfc's would be worthwhile if that's what you were suggesting (not sure it was though). MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with Mick's proposal. In particular, I think the escape clause is an important addition; too often "no consensus" is erroneously taken as "consensus for the status quo", and I don't think we can let that happen here. waggers (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The presence of Remedy2 has pretty much recognised that something must be done. So a genuine no consensus result of this process would not result in keeping the status quo. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Except, again, some of us do want the status quo and that needs to be an option. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The situation remaining the same after Remedy 2 is not the same as the situation remaing the same because nothing gained consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

An Alternative Proposed Process which might be usefully combined with MickMacNee's good suggestions

Arbcom asked us to spend the time specifying the process which, if followed or implemented, would allow a solution to the problem which sparked off the request to it in the first place. So far, rather than concentrating on developing and specifying a process, most of the debate (but not all of it) has either discussed the issues again, or attempted to actually arrive at a solution. I want to address the request made by ArbComm directly. My solution is to use standard techniques in practical Problem solving, such as can be seen in George Polya's book How to Solve It, and Douglas Walton's book "Practical Reasoning", and it makes use of "divide and rule" techniques (though the wikiedpia section on that in "problem solving" is too much directed at one field) as well as "means-end" techniques.

(I think this technique can be fitted in with MickMacNee's suggestions as well, and I think he has given a slightly different kind of framework within which this can be fitted. I developed this separately and only now have seen that he was working on something himself.)

  1. Step One: Specify what the problem is. (This is something to do with the content of the article named Ireland, with related issues to do with the names of articles that deal with the state of Ireland and the island of Ireland if certain decisions about the content of Ireland are decided upon.
  2. Step Two: List all the possible solutions that have been proposed to solve the problem.
  3. Step Three: Muster all arguments and claims in support of each argument that have a bearing on the solution to the problem. So, if one claim is that Ireland as the state has primacy, then list that claim.
  4. Step Four: In a table, indicate whether each argument and/or claim identified in Step Three would support, would undermine, or would be neutral about each of the solutions identified in Step Two. Do not try to identify, until the next stage, the kind of evidence that would allow us to see whether the claims and arguments are valid or not.
  5. Step Five: Identify what kind of evidence would count as "good evidence" or "strong evidence" in favour of each of the claims identified and classified in Steps Three and Four. List them.
  6. Step Six: Try to find the specific evidence identified in Step Five and provide it in the table by means of suitable footnotes or other means.
  7. Step Seven: Do a final round of discussion (not voting) about the quality of the evidence found in Step Six. This represents an overall "quality control" of the evidence.
  8. Step Eight: Under the more direct guidance of the independant administrators assigned to this task by ArbCom, consider the possible ways in which the different verified claims could be combined together as objectively as possible to arrive at an overall decision about which of the possible solutions identified in Step Two has the greatest support in the literature and in the argument. Identify these aggregation strategies and list them so all can see them. (There are a number of standard strategies within the expert literature about this sometimes classified under the scheme "Multiattribute decision making".)
  9. Step Nine: Discuss which of the aggregation strategies identified in Step Eight seems to be the best one to use in the light of wikipedia's policies of undue weight, not being run by votes, and so on. If necessary, list the relevant wikipedia policies and evaluate each strategy on the relevant policies to come to an overall idea of this. This might require an opinion poll. The output of this stage is the aggregation method to be used.
  10. Step Ten: Implement the aggregation strategy. The output of this is the solution to the problem.

It seems a lot of work, but much of it has been done, but in an uncoordinated way so far. We just need to try to implement it as objectively as possible so that the means of arriving at the decision are as open to complete public scrutiny as possible.

The above technique has been used implicitly in many different areas of application, some of which may seem quite similar to the particular issues here, and some not so obviously similar: I have experience of guiding researchers within the fields of psychology and psychiatry using a very similar process, and it helped considerably in clarifying the issues and helping the participants reach an agreed-upon solution to problems that otherwise would be seen to be very difficult. It may have problems itself, but I would argue that it has advantages over what has gone before in this particular issue here on wikipedia, and it does directly address the issues Arbcom asked us to consider. I think the process I have outlined might be usefully combined with MickMacNee's useful alternative suggestion of a process.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, note that I have downplayed the role of opinions and opinion polls as much as possible here: we should try to be as objective as possible in basing our decisions on public scrutiny of as hard a set of evidence as possible, minimizing the extent to which the process makes use of decisions that rest too much on opinion polls, where the means by which individual editors arrive at their opinions is hidden and has undue weight. I have adopted this approach, since it appears to conform most closely to the aims and philosophy of wikipedia as I understand them.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's an excellent framework. The only problem I can see is that there are are lot of different points we'd have to obtain consensus on (the "goodness" of each piece of evidence presented, etc.) but I'm far more confident that we could achieve consensus on such things than trying to tackle the whole issue in one fell swoop, so I'm all for it. waggers (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Both this, and the proposal above, are good mechanisms in an ideal world. For them to have any chance of success, they require a significant number of people to get involved beyond the usual suspects. They also require, as noted above, a fair number of steps that we would need agreement, or consensus on. I honestly don't see a whole lot of additional people investing the time achieve this. So I feel we are going to end up mired in endless discussions about even such things as what options are on the table (note already on this page we have people refusing to even acknowledge that options different to their preference are valid). I realize I sound very pessimistic, but I'm trying to be realistic. I'm certainly willing to get involved and give it a try, but I think its way too complicated to have any chance of progressing to a positive solution. Rockpocket 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"a significant number of people to get involved beyond the usual suspects"! Rather depends on where the people come from I'd suggest. The "usual suspects" have explored all the options and it is now decision time - do we retain exceptionalist POV or do we follow Wiki norms and standards? It seems to me Rock that each time you get off the fence you jump right back onto it. Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A special Rfc advertised on the central discussion list is absolutely certain to gain many more opinions than any discussion has previously. And my proposal has only one step where consensus is required from the community, and only two discussion stages overall. It isn't exactly convoluted. MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My take on how this proposal fits with mine: Steps 1,2,3 are analagous to drawing up the statement page. Steps 4 will take too long to agree between the community on a neutral presentation, so I would not have it as part of the statement page discussion, but leave it to the RFC discussion phase. Steps 5 to 8, if not done as individual evidence submission to be presented alongside the statement page, will be done in the Rfc discussion phase. This is the point at which subjective claims such as required by step 5 should be put out there for examination. Steps 8 to 10 I would just simplify and, and implement as the consensus judges model of reviewing the Rfc discussion. MickMacNee (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, everyone, and for other people's feedback: I think MickMacNee and I agree that our two proposals can dovetail together. The reason why I've been explicit in having perhaps more steps (especially in the latter stages) than might be thought necessary is that I do have considerable real life experience in what is known as "scaling" and multiattribute decision making. I know that unless one takes particular care in specifying carefully what one is doing, one can get muddled results that leave the whole matter a bit of a mystery. Thus, for this particular situation, I think clarity is of particular importance to keep everyone interested in the issue fully informed about the bases for decisions and so on. The entire process might take some time, but we aren't working to time-limits here at all.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent framework DD and Mike. I notice that below, there are sections that are starting to solve the problem within the framework above. Perhaps it would be better to *not* start the problem-solving process until the framework is agreed. If I understand the Arbcom ruling right, they've asked for us to agree the process (framework) - getting that agreed now would also avoid a future argument where someone points out that the framework was never agreed!. --HighKing (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just dropping by to see if I can be helpful. A quick observation: there seem to be three related activities going on in response to the Arbcom ruling.

1) An attempt to directly address the issue by coming up with a framework for discussion and resolution.
2) Some initial work on using the framework.
3) A "last ditch" attempt to find a solution rather than a framework.

If (3) is successful then (1) and (2) are redundant. I don't know much about the detail and history, but I'm happy to support it. If this does carry, then it potentially saves a lot of work.

If (3) is unsuccessful then (1) sounds like a good idea to me. I am not familiar with some of the technical terms used by DDStretch but they can presumably be explained en route. There seems to be a lot of common ground between MickMacNee and DDStretch - it might be helpful if they could put their heads together and (for the avoidance of doubt) come up with an amended proposal they can jointly propose. My only comment is that Step 9 of the second proposal may need a little thought. It would be dispiriting to go through a lot of work and then discover that it just resulted in the same old opinion poll deadlock. I note there is no opposition to the general idea, but also that there is very little support at present. Perhaps this will be forthcoming if it becomes clear that (3) isn't working/answering the question etc..

It is also possible that (3) will be unsuccessful and that (1) will not be deemed to have gathered sufficient support by the deadline either. In which case, HighKing's comments above notwithstanding, it may be useful to at least do some more work on Option 1, which would at least be useful to someone coming in without the history. It seems to me to be incomplete and I might try to add something useful, whilst wishing (3) all the best. Ben MacDui 15:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comment from HighKing and Ben MacDui. In response to HighKing's concerns about apparently working through the framework, my take on doing what appears to be this is just to (a) illustrate what is practically requiered, and (b) to prove it as a method that could be used seriously in this instance. For instance, looking at it again, I see there may be a need to tweak bits of it to weight arguments by how much they add to a solution or take away from it. That would need discussion, but the benefit of using a "divide and rule" approach is that large intractable problems get split up into smaller pieces that are easier to solve. Ben Macdui's comments about step 9 could also be clarified a bit by "proving" or "testing" it out a bit. So, my view is that what I and others have been doing should definitely not be seen asan attempt to solve the problem: merely to test out the technique to see whether it has been specified and calibrated correctoly for when or if it is used seriously at ArbCom. That's why it would be good to get more input critically evaluating it as a technique: that way, we can work to incrementally improving it so that if it is the chosen technique, we have some confidence that it has been "tested" sufficiently. (It's just like "initial trials" that happen prior to a "real run" of some process or machine, and one that, for example, showed that the design was initially flawed when the Hubble telescope was built, leading to a lengthy repar mission being needed later on.)

As regards combining MickMacNee's process with mine, I think we should definitely take the best of each and put them together if we are able. I don't actually think it would take too much effort to do that.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. It would probably help to specify a project page name for the process. Ben MacDui 20:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Step One: Specify what the problem is

Step One: Specify what the problem is. (This is something to do with the content of the article named Ireland, with related issues to do with the names of articles that deal with the state of Ireland and the island of Ireland if certain decisions about the content of Ireland are decided upon.

Here the dispute concerns which must come first: decide the best page name of the article now at Republic of Ireland, or decide the best content of the page name Ireland.

  • On the one hand, if not "Republic of Ireland" then the best page name for that article would be "Ireland". Do we all agree about that? Note that no matter what we decide, deciding this first does not decide the best content of the page named "Ireland".
  • On the other hand, deciding first on the best content of the page named Ireland, may to some extent settle the question of the best obtainable page name of the ROI article, by putting the page name "Ireland" out of reach.

That is why I think the core issue is the content of the page named Ireland. --Una Smith (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be my conclusion as well, having gone a bit through my process on my own (it doesn't require a lot of people to implement it, in contradiction to the point raised by Rockpocket. But it does require people to abide by the assumption of good faith advice in their dealings with the other participants, and also, it helps if all can "step away" from their own biases a little and join in trying their best to see the best and the worst aspects to all the possible solutions and decisions that are on the table at each step. In other words: it just requires the normal adherence to wikipedia principles that we are all supposed to be doing in the first place.)  DDStretch  (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It requires a lot of people to implement successfully it if those who were steadfastly entrenched remain so. If they don't, then we should be fine (but then again, if they were willing to "step away" from their own biases a little and join in trying their best to see the best and the worst aspects to all the possible solutions, then we wouldn't be in this position in the first place, would we?) Nevertheless, this is the only suggestion that has any significant support at the moment and something is better than nothing. I have a suggestion: Rather than couch the second question as "what should be under the title Republic of Ireland", we should ask "what should the content currently at that page be titled". Why? Because in the (not unlikely) situation that we decide the content should not titled "ROI" or "Ireland", we will still have arguments about what the title should be. Rockpocket 03:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
However, Scolaire thinks the problem is the content of Republic of Ireland, and so it is reasonable to throw that into the ring as well I've also (in the next subsection) attempted to list the possible solutions for this problem that I could identify from what had already been mentioned above and in other places.  DDStretch  (talk)
Is that correct, or does Scolaire think the problem is the page name of the article now at Republic of Ireland? --Una Smith (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah! Now you mention it, I'm not too sure. I'll take a look and ask him so we can be clear, tomorrow.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not him, but having been in agreement with him on most of these issues, I think it is fair to say that, yes, it is the name of the state page that he has contended (and I agree) has been the heart of the disputes. It's not to say that everyone agrees on the content issues, but it's around the page name ROI (and the use of ROI that has followed from that page title) that the edit warring, multiple move requests and bad blood have swirled. Nuclare (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There are two arguments with different levels of passion on the name of the article currently at ROI. (i) is that the name of the state is Ireland, and that is, since the GFA, now agreed by all parties. (ii) that even if it is agreed that the island would be best titled Ireland, that ROI is an entirely inappropriate name for the state having been the subject of a now resolved dispute. --Snowded TALK 07:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. So, given what everyone has said, what do you think that means for what I've currently added as the list of possible solutions?  DDStretch  (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It matters because "the page name of the ROI article" and "the content of the page named Ireland" are two distinct although somewhat related problems. The table below in Step 2 states the inverse of the ROI problem, by the way. --Una Smith (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Can you suggest a better form to the Step 2 table, then? We are only going to get to an improved description and solution if we all work together, and that nmeans we should be open to being discovered to have made a mistake, and then being happy for any to be fixed. Feel free to correct any of mine.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it changes the possible solutions, but on the way of getting to a solution, perhaps. I don't think dealing with one page at a time is going to work. It most likely has to be dealt with all together. Nuclare (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Can you suggest a way of proceding with all the pages considered together in the form of the tables, below? (you could draw up an alternative teable to allow us to compare them if you felt able to)? Please feel free to add to this.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a difficulty with the above is that it assumes a certain amount of knowledge of both "Ireland" and the history of the Wikipedia pages concerned. Its focus is also on a single main issue and does not cover the related ones. How about this?

The present difficulties arise from two main problems:

  • That "Ireland" is used in the English language to describe both a geographical entity - the island of Ireland - and a political entity - the nation state of Ireland, often called "the Republic of Ireland" in the UK, and which now occupies a little over 80% of the island's area.
  • The troubled history of Ireland involving periodic occupations of parts of the island by cultures based on the island of Great Britain and elsewhere followed by periods of resurgent Irish nationalism and autonomy. At the present time the sovereign state of the republic of Ireland has been in existence (with various names) since 1922 and is comprised of 26 of the 32 traditional counties of the island. The other six counties are in Northern Ireland and are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Although relations between both the citizens and governments of the UK and the republic of Ireland are generally cordial, many lives have been lost in the modern era as a result of these real-world political issues. Strong feelings about the subject amongst Wikipedia editors are therefore not uncommon.

Specifically, this creates the following challenges:

a) Is the primary topic for the Ireland article the island, the state or neither?
b) Regardless of the primary topic, in what circumstances is it appropriate/inappropriate to refer to the state as "Ireland" in the text of articles?
c) Regardless of the primary topic, when is it appropriate/inappropriate to refer to the state as the "Republic of Ireland" in the text of articles?

To be followed by - brief summary of the nature of polarised views on the above. Ben MacDui 20:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Step Two: List all the possible solutions that have been proposed to solve the problem

Let's just continue a little, just to show people how my scheme would operate. Remember that this is just my ideas at the moment (and anyone else who edits it), and that if we were doing this seriously, it may contain more information and more references to who proposed what, etc.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


Solution table for problem(s)
Problem Possible Proposed Solutions
The content of the page called Ireland Page contains "The island of Ireland"
Page contains "The state of Ireland"
Page contains a simple (short) disambiguation page for Ireland
Page contains content that combines both state and island information for Ireland in summary style, while having more detailed child articles for: 1. whole Island topics, 2. the Sovereign State of Ireland, and 3. Northern Ireland. (the "MickMacNee solution")
Page is a redirection to the page containing "The state of Ireland" (such as Republic of Ireland as it is at this point)
Page is a redirection to the page containing "The island of Ireland"
The content of the page called Republic of Ireland Page contains "The state of Ireland"
Page contains a redirection to the page which contains "The state of Ireland"
Page contains information about the descriptive term "Republic of Ireland" with suitable hatnotes
Page contains no content (i.e., it is deleted)

The above is extremely useful, but it needs to come with a second table, congruent with the above, that lists the options proposed for the different page names (state/island/dab/redirect etc.). Not hard to do, but I imagine there is something that could be borrowed from the archives somewhere. Ben MacDui 20:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. as requested, I have had a go at making a nu improved table MkII:
Solution table for problem(s) Mk II
Problem 1 Possible Proposed solution
The content of the page called Ireland (A) Page contains "The island of Ireland"
(B) Page contains "The state of Ireland"
(C) Page contains a simple (short) disambiguation page for Ireland
(D) Page contains content that combines both state and island information for Ireland in summary style, while having more detailed child articles (the "MickMacNee solution")
Problem 2.1 Possible Proposed solution
The page that contains "The state of Ireland"
(void on the adoption of problem 1 B)		 On the adoption of 1A, C or D: Ireland (state) contains "The state of Ireland"
On the adoption of 1A, C or D: Ireland (country) contains "The state of Ireland"
On the adoption of 1A, C or D: Republic of Ireland contains "The state of Ireland"
On the adoption of 1A, C or D: Your favoured variation here contains "The state of Ireland"
Problem 2.2 Possible Proposed solution
The page that contains "The island of Ireland"
(void on the adoption of problem 1 A)		 On the adoption of 1B, C or D: Ireland (country) contains "The island of Ireland"
On the adoption of 1B, C or D: Ireland (island) contains "The island of Ireland"
On the adoption of 1B, C or D: Your favoured variation here contains "The island of Ireland"

I believe this addresses the two most contentious related problems — namely (1) what content is at Ireland, and (2.1) what should the article on the state be called — in a logical and sequential way. As you can see Problem 2.1 could be completely avoided should problem 1 be resolved with agreement on option B. In that instance, we instead should concern ourselves with Problem 2.2. (To be honest, this probably isn't seriously contentious but I think we should include it anyway). Of course, the opposite is true also — that Problem 2.2 could be avoided given the agreement on Problem 1 A. On the instance that problem 1 C or D is agreed on, both Problem 2s would be required.

This doesn't address all the issues. For example, it ignores the question of how we should refer to the state/island inline. However, because piping can be utilized if needed, that really is an completely different discussion. I think we should decouple the two, since this is complicated enough as it is. It also doesn't resolve what would be found at Republic of Ireland if it did not contain the state of Ireland. Again, I that can be debated independent of this (though I think Domer's suggestion of a short article about the name itself is a good one).

The nice thing with this structure is that it could be used as a tool to reach agreement by a number of different mechanisms. I still favor a ranked poll of individual preferences for each of the problems. The two extremes would cancel each other out, and we would find some middle ground. I believe that would resolve it by enforcing compromise in a manner acceptable to most people, if only begrudgingly. It would also leave the least amount of blood on the floor. However, if we are going to thrash this out by discussion alone, then it can be used as a starting point for that too. Rockpocket 02:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Juat as well there are only a few days to go as we are now in need of a separate talk page for this set of proposals! The above all makes sense to me, but I think a table that looks at the issues from the starting point of the articles rather than the problems would also be helpful. What follows is only a beginning and it needs both some explanation and (probably) some additions that I am not aware of. Although in this version it is not so easy to read as the above it's a sort of 'ready reckoner' for someone arriving and trying to figure out what all this verbiage is about. It might also help when/if any kind of ranked poll is used, but that seems to be to be some way off if this process continues. The "Notes" section could be expanded on a little if the unfinished business in Step 1 gets completed. It is presumably all so obvious to those who have been tearing their hair out for a protracted period, but anyone arriving anew at Step 1 above might well look at what follows and wonder why anybody cares one way or the other. Ben MacDui 11:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Table of proposed solutions by article name
Proposal Ireland ROI Ireland (state) Ireland (island) Ireland (dab) Notes
1 island state blank blank dab Current situation
2 state 3 options blank island dab
3 dab 3 options state island blank
4 summary style 3 options state island dab
5 redirect - state 3 options state island dab
6 redirect - island 3 options state island dab

Notes:

In every instance except (1) ROI could be deleted, a redirect to the state article or a short summary style article.
A variant is that some editors have expressed a preference for "Ireland (country)" rather than "Ireland (state)".
Very good table above, this lays out all the options clearly and easily for people to understand. As suggested by someone before about ranking all the options in a vote, that table would make such a process very easy if it was the agreed method. There are some people that would like the title to be Ireland (country) rather than Ireland (state), perhaps that could be included as a note underneath as well just so it doesnt prevent people from supporting a certain proposal BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Done as an example.Ben MacDui 19:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a comment here about a recurring theme that I am seeing: that of what I consider is a premature move towards a ranking scheme followed by a vote: wikipedia does not like votes, and a premature move towards a vote brushes aside the issue of being able to critically and publically scrutinize the reasons why particular solutions might be adopted: the evidence if you will. That is why my proposed scheme, of which the above is only stap two, goes on to suggest how a structured collection and public laying-out of the arguments and evidence are carried out prior to any evaluation (ranking, and aggregation, etc) is done, and certainly before any fall back onto people's opinions in such an opaque way as merely calling for an opinion poll. Please, people, if Arbcom do their job right, they will expect some clear and careful process that lays great store to the systematic gethering and displaying of evidence in the form of arguments, facts, and critical discussion of them in order to publically discuss and come to a consensus view of the evidence's weight, and only then to reach a decision as a result of this public display and discussion. The previous attempts failed partly (not entirely), because, I consider, not enough was done on this important part of the process used.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Also agreed. Ben MacDui 19:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but this has all been said and done before, ad nausem. I can recount all the arguments and evidence for and against each preference in my sleep. If there is support to go through it all again, then fine. Thats what we'll do. I'm not seeing that at the moment, though. In addition, a ranked poll with justification is not the same as a vote. We want people to explain why their prefer something, why something is their second choice and why something is the least favored option. When this is complete we can see the range of opinions and the range of justifications. Rockpocket 20:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
1) If it's easy to recount the arguments that should speed the process up.
2) I agree that support for this process is currently light, but if option (3) does not look like meeting the deadline that may change this coming weekend.
3) Even if it does not, having even a semi-complete "Steps 1 & 2" may assist those nominated under Remedy 2.
4) I am not agin "ranked polls" but spelling out some of the important issues first, in an organised way, would surely help those who do not have the benefit of your experience. Ben MacDui 21:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Can't argue with any of that. I'll engage with any mechanism that moves this towards a resolution. I just hope we can get enough people behind one to generate critical mass. That doesn't look likely at the moment. Rockpocket 23:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, you were right. It seems remarkable, but there you go. Hopefully some of the above might prove useful. Ben MacDui 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ben MacDui: what makes it especially odd is that, despite there being two similar, yet focussed proposals, targetted (though I say it myself) exactly at what ArbCom asked to happen, they have been ignored by a surprisingly large number of editors, some of which were highly active in the disputes that preceded this, and who have merely continued with the same issues that led to the ArbCom case being opened as if ArbCom had never happened, and in apparent ignorance of these two proposals! No wonder there is little or no progress on any of the underlying issues here.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the solution not almost achieved?

Haven't we almost reached a consensus on this here? Mooretwin (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe we have. Why in God's name are we starting all this polling again instead of working on what we already had? Scolaire (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The failure of the IDTF page in demonstrating a consensus existed on the issue that could be defended when challenged, or even acting as as a high profile, focused, controlled, or even readable discussion venue for showing it, is why it eventually went to arbcom anyway, so why return there? It should be marked historical and archived. Besides that, arbcom specifically called for a new discussion venue, so here it is. As for why a new poll was started, I honestly still don't have a clue. But it was there, so I voted. MickMacNee (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Er, how is this a new discussion venue? waggers (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I can't see any decision anywhere! Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless we are referring to:

Do you agree to support, even if it is not your first preference', this compromise?

1. Move Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland
2. Move Ireland to Ireland (island)
3. Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state)
Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Appeal to the Arbcom: please pick genuinely npov (but not simply ignorant) arbitrators who will put in the time needed to inform themselves properly. It looks certain it will fall to the 3 arbitrators chosen to decide this issue. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If you don't comment on any of the proposals above in an attempt to avoid it, then you can't object to whoever is chosen for Remedy 2. MickMacNee (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
When you ask for comment on the above proposal do you refer to the table? (If so the 'solutions' don't read like solutions - they read like footnotes). Sarah777 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment on the proposals for how to satisfy Remedy 1, which requires coming an agreement on a process. If nobody does, three admins will be deciding it for us, and like I said to Redking, no comment on the above to do that means no subsequent right to complain who the three picked are when Remedy 2 is kicked in as a result. MickMacNee (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Or unless we are referring to:

Do you agree to support, even if it is not your first preference', this compromise?

1. Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland
2. Move Ireland to Ireland (island)
3. Keep Ireland (disambiguation) at Ireland (disambiguation)
This is now my recommendation as the State, as heir to all the previous states apart from a small part of it which remains part of another State, is clearly primary. -- Evertype·✆ 09:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It clearly isn't clearly. Nuclare (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Evertype. It is the only solution that works well, and it uses the proper naming etc, as it should. PurpleA (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also what Britannica and Encarta use. Even on Britannica they have a footnote on the name that states; "As provided by the constitution; the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act provides precedent for this longer formulation of the official name but, per official sources, “has not changed the usage Ireland as the name of the state in the English language." On Encarta they use Ireland & Ireland (island).--24.60.152.80 (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is one of the two options that has alot of opposition and for good reason. It is giving the state priority over the island (which it shares with another state) this is different to the method currently used for both China and Taiwan as well as the country / state of Georgia. People are also rightfully strongly opposed to keeping it at Republic of Ireland which is not its offical title. The sooner the people on this article accept that these two options are going to be opposed by many people the sooner progress can be made. Ireland should either be a disam page or its going to be about the island of Ireland. If we could get rid of the two problematic options (State being on Ireland or Republic of Ireland) then a good debate can be had over if it should be a disam page or about the island. As i said before, people should be asked to vote for the option they STRONGLY oppose, then eliminate the two clear problems. Otherwise this process is just going to go on and on for ever. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"people should be asked to vote for the option they STRONGLY oppose, then eliminate the two clear problems. Otherwise this process is just going to go on and on for ever" I agree --T*85 (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. This is essentially the same process as asking people to rank their preferences (as I suggested above). Both mechanisms tend to result in the extreme positions being disregarded and the middle ground that is no-one's favorite, but most people can live with, being selected. In other words these would generate the compromise that seems to be beyond any discussion we have had previously. Rockpocket 00:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to start another poll while the poll above is still ongoing? Also which should be used? a ranking vote or a simply vote for the one that you least agree with?--T*85 (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. At the moment we have small groups of people each with different preferences for how to resolve this. Unless enough people get behind one mechanism by around 18 January, we end up looking at Remedy II. We have until that time for people to agree on a suitable mechanism, but we don't actually have to enact it by then. There is nothing to be gained in going ahead with a new poll of any sort unless there are significant levels of support for this as a mechanism. Rockpocket 02:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The consensus proposal

The proposal that achieved unprecedented consensus was:

  1. Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state)
  2. “Republic of Ireland” to remain as the primary disambiguator for “Ireland (state)” in the text of articles where disambiguation is desirable, i.e. articles about or relating to all of Ireland, to Northern Ireland, to the UK and to the British Isles.
  3. “Ireland” to be acceptable usage for Ireland (state) in the text of articles not requiring disambiguation, i.e. articles relating solely to the state, articles relating to the state in wider international contexts, e.g. EU or UN.
  4. The Ireland article to be rewritten to focus on all-Ireland geography, history, culture, etc.

Mooretwin (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the most reasonable proposal, i can understand why that got the majority support so im unsure why this is still a problem if consensus was made. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
That is a rather generous way of describing it. It was, more or less, the numerically favored position, but to accurately describe it as an "unprecedented consensus" would require a degree of forum shopping. Rockpocket 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That seems grand, but any attempt to push this politically motivated "British Isles" term into Irish articles will fail. 86.42.71.111 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I would support this proposal. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
What is there to support? We are being asked to agree on a "mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view...without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement." Mooretwin, Sarah and Evertype are all offering a reasonable solution, but how do we determine that it has consensus or even majority support (other than from prior discussion?) The different solutions are rather well known by now, how we agree on one is the challenge! Rockpocket 02:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we are being asked to agree on a mechanism and Rockpocket is absolutely right to remind us of that. If we waste our time trying to reach a solution but don't then on Jan 18 a procedure will be pushed upon us (NB: that is bad). On the other, if we do reach a genuine consensus about what the solution should be then there is no need to worry about agreeing on a mechanism because we decided one simultaneously (NB: that is good). We are taking a gamble with the current approach.
Bear in mind however that, as far as I understand the ruling, what we decide now stands for 2 years - no quibbles. --89.101.221.81 (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thumbs up. Reasonable, fair, practical and reflects common use. --89.101.221.81 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I opposed this before but I could support it now. Could we change it from Ireland (state) to Ireland (country)? In a number of countries like America, Australia, Germany, etc.... state has another meaning. It is also the format that is used for the country of Georgia. I personally have the Americanized version of state in my head even though I lived in Ireland, so I think country is a more universally clear description. Secondly, I have noticed that articles like British-Irish relations or Indo-Irish relations, that the info boxes look stupid when only two countries can have foreign relations and the Irish flag is above. I would hope that if this solution was enacted that people don't get too carried away with unnecessary things like this. My other concern was how are you going to go about enacting this solution if it is decided, what happens if another argument begins when the article on the island starts to get edited--T*85 (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Country would be ambiguous in this context as implying the entire territory of the island. State is ironically, more 'legally' precise and more likely to achieve consensus. RashersTierney (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Country does not imply that it covers the whole island (Borneo,Hispaniola), it simply has the same meaning as a "state" but state has alternative meanings based on where you live, whereas country does not. --T*85 (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember this is the "page name", not the bolded article title on the page, nor the face text of the links to the page. Few readers will notice, and still fewer will care about, the page name. I expect links to be in the form of [[Ireland (whatever)|Ireland]] whenever context allows. --Una Smith (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed the suggestion made the other day about ranking each of the options would show the ones people are strongly opposed to and i hope thats the method that will be seclected to resolve this problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this "proposal" being discussed? Regardless of anon IP 89.x.x.x's PoV, Arbcom have explicitly stated we're to come up with a mechanism for discussion and agreement, on a WP project page, not just another debate about what the name of one of the effected articles should be. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I made a similar point earlier. It would be best to agree the process first, then start to solve the problem. It's OK to strawman the problem solving process to ensure that it will hang together, but I don't think that's what's happening here... --HighKing (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The process is the task force, and the task force has come up with a compromise proposal. Mooretwin (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

O rly?

  • Who appointed the task force?
  • Where is this mysterious task force hanging out?
  • Where is the process being debated by it, and where are the invites and notifications for those who may wish to take part? I see nothing in all the usual places.
  • And so on...

This all seems very handy - and very much not in either the spirit or letter of what Arbcom actually said or further clarified. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The task force is here. Loads of editors have contributed. Feel free to join in. Mooretwin (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be a terrible shame if its work was to be set to the side, as the proposal outlined above has come far closer than any other to winning widespread support. Mooretwin (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
1) It is just one proposal - there are undoubtedly many others;
2) It has won (or may not have won, I haven't checked) "widespread support" only from those aware of the existence of the page, which is currently hanging off WP:IMOS;
3) The existence of that page was certainly not well advertised;
4) Debate on that page stopped just over a month ago. The Arbcom case and its rulings have taken place since;
5) The proposal should therefore only be discussed in terms of the Arbcom Remedy once its finalised.
But it seems that noone is discussing the mechanism for deciding the issue as requested, and we'll end up with Remedy 2, as BHG says below. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Whoa! Slow down there, Bastun. Take a read of who said what and when what before throwing words around. Might I suggest that whatever mechanism is agreed that the letter P, O and V would be removed from our vocabulary while we take part in it. (the IP formerly known as 89.101.221.81) --89.19.67.204 (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Batsun on this. All I see are lots of editors trying to get a proposal in order to achieve a result regarding the names. That's very different that agreeing on the process .. i.e. as per the proposal up above. We should stop at deciding the steps, not start work on individual steps. If we can agree that the process can achieve a result, then we can start work on the steps within the process. This really isn't that complicated folks ... makes me wonder why we're making it more difficult that it should be. --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There has been a process - the Task Force. Why undo a lot of hard work that has already been done and a lot of goodwill that has been achieved? Mooretwin (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Please read the Arbcom ruling. They've asked us to decide on a process. The assumption being that it's a clear slate and we've to come up with a process that we all agree will solve this impasse. --HighKing (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, I'm I proposing that we agree that the task force should be the process, thus saving a lot of work, shortcutting a lot of angst, and increasing the likelihood of agreement. Mooretwin (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I understand that bit, but the task force doesn't appear to be able to agree or come up with a binding solution. I'm very happy to give it another try, just that we have been here before. Look what happened the last time the task force tried to implement something... --HighKing (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The task force achieved unprecedented support for the compromise in principle, but it got bogged down in working out the detail and people got bored. It still represents the best hope of agreement, if we can pick up where it left off. Mooretwin (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree - but what's the difference between the processes described by other editors, and the process that occurred during the task force that received support? If you detect real differences (and I'm not sure there's anything significant) why not agree that this time, the process will result in a binding decision? --HighKing (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Again - because that "process" wasn't widely advertised, doesn't actually have many participants, stopped debate on 10th December, and was superseded by an Arbcom decision. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 08:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact, not counting anon IP's, there were 25 editors active on that page between October and early December '08. For certain values of "active" - some were one-line contributions or maybe a couple of comments. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds pretty good to me. How many have we got on here? Mooretwin (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible directions from which to approach this issue

I was involved in many of the previous discussions of this issue, and have been on a prolonged wikibreak for over 6 months, but saw this discussion underway and thought I'd offer a comment.

First, it's great that arbcom's ruling looks likely to bring some sort of resolution to this long-running dispute. I have grave doubts about whether any solution will achieve the sort of stability that comes from consensus, because so many people are so entrenched that any result is likely to leave a significant number of people very dissatisfied. Nonetheless, even a temporary peace is worth having, even if we end up with all the articles renamed to a random set of hieroglyphics. {insert weary sigh/evil grin/indication of boredom/whatever}

Secondly, it seems to me that this will probably end up being resolved by following arbcom's remedy two (three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure), because the issues are too fraught for the participants to agree on a mechanism.

Thirdly, it seems to me that one of crucial decisions to made in reaching an outcome is to decide exactly what question is to be settled. That's a tougher one than it may sound, and tougher than looking at the options may suggest. It seems to me that there are two radically different ways of approaching the issue:

a) What is the most appropriate English-language name, given existing Wikipedia naming conventions, for an article on the 26-county state called "Ireland" in the English language, which has a legal description (not a name) of "The Republic of Ireland"?

b) Given that the term "Ireland" has three major uses (the island, the various all-island states and jurisdictions which have existed, and the 86-year-old modern 26-county state), which if any should predominate?

To a large extent, the outcome of any decision depends on which question is given priority. That choice has bedevilled discussions so far, because those most concerned with the first question (naming the modern state) get pointed in one direction, while those most concerned with the second question (primary use of the term "Ireland") get pointed in very different directions.

It seems to me that this difference of approach underlies much of the divisiveness of the discussions so far. There have, perhaps, been some editors who have structured their arguments to suit their political agendas; but I think if we are ever going to reach a stable consensus on this issue it's essential to also acknowledge that thoroughly well-informed editors acting in complete good-faith with full understanding of all wikipedia policies can legitimately end up with different answers depending on which question they feel is more important. It has saddened me to see that even at this late stage, some editors appear to be still focusing on only one of the two questions, whereas a stable consensus can only come from addressing both.

I don't have any brilliant idea of how to address those two questions, but I suggest that one approach could be to start by addressing both of the questions separately, and then take an explicit third step of trying to reconcile any conflict between the outcome of the first two.

I don't feel at all inclined to get involved in another prolonged battle over the naming decision, and this may be my last contribution on the subject. So I'll take this opportunity to suggest while there is ready acknowledgement that someone with strong views on either side the unionist/nationalist divide in Ireland may see this issue through that lens, there is also a historiographical perspective. The modern European idea of the nation-state, which came to prominence in the 19th-century, has tended to assume that a state involves a congruence of geography, culture, governance and ethnicity, but that nationalist construction is not universally accepted and is in many ways a creature of the modern era. So one of the questions underlying this decision is to what extent contemporary political norms should predominate? How much weight do we give to existence of a modern nation state against earlier concepts of Ireland? And is there any way of making that choice without taking a POV about nationalism?

Sorry if I have appeared to complicate things further, but I don't think this decision will be simple. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. You and Rockpocket think on all four wheels. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Process (survey)

Re the question of what process to use to decide between whatever choices we end up with, it seems to me there are two likely approaches:

  1. Vote (majority rule)
  2. Put it to WP:RM and let the admins there decide which has the stronger merits, if any (consensus); this approach requires a fallback approach, in case they decide it is a "no consensus" situation

Which do people here prefer? Pardon me, but it seems a survey on this point might be helpful. --Una Smith (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Vote

WP:RM

  1. Una Smith (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Red Hurley (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC) The admins have enough to work with now, and these talk page attempts have failed so far. Save your brains; wake me if there's a vote.Red Hurley (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Other (please specify)

  1. Oppose both options at this stage, because the question of how to assess the decision (voting v consensus) is putting the cart before the horse. The first question to address is what issues need to be decided upon, in what order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I (and others) have attempted to do that here. It might be a good place to start if we could all (or most) agree on that... ? Rockpocket 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. Una - "no consensus" is a perfectly valid result and in fact is the preferred option of many editors as it will result in the pages staying where they currently are. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 08:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. oppose both options this is premature and there can be no "one size fits all" method on an issue as complex as this.
  • - Oppose both of the methods suggested. I still support the suggestion made several days ago about each person ranking the options in order of choice. This would then highlight the strongly opposed options so we can remove them from the debate and then actually look at the serious choices, otherwise we just go round and round in circles. Again keeping Ireland (the country) on the Republic of Ireland slot is clearly unacceptable, just as moving Ireland (the country) to Ireland is unacceptable. The sooner these two bad options are removed from this debate the sooner consensus will be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose both of the methods. Support using the Task Force as the method and inviting those who haven't contributed to do so. Mooretwin (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • - Support the clear consensus and Wiki policy. The RoI tag on the page about Ireland cannot stand. Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
And yet it does, and will continue to do so until people can let the past go and work towards a compromise. Its now been two weeks and for all the mechanisms suggested, none have generated much support. Instead we have the same old people from the same old sides demanding their preference must be implemented and other suggestions are "invalid" or "unacceptable". Its now perfectly clear that there isn't a snowball's chance that this can be resolved by willing compromise. I suggest we now go straight to ArbCom's remedy 2 ("If the discussion convened under the terms of Remedy #1 does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure.") and be done with it. Rockpocket 01:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative process method

Ascertain what subject readers are looking for when "Ireland" is typed into the search box. Whether it be the island or the state, then Wikipedia should go with that. This too follows Wikipedian policy as encouraged, and seems the more logical approach. Then the other main use would get the brackets for disambiguation purposes for state, or island. PurpleA (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How exactly do you propose to ascertain the intent of so many readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
One way would be to make Ireland a dab page and track the choices. Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
How would we do that, exactly? Rockpocket 01:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

I've drafted something in my user space which some people might feel is a help. Comments there please. Its a bit busy here. Fmph (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland article names: Request for Remedy 2

The case was closed on 2009-01-04. Attempts to achieve consensus regarding Remedy 1 began shortly thereafter. It is now 2009-01-18, and no consensus has been achieved. Will the ArbCom now proceed with Remedy 2, please? -- Evertype·✆ 10:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I would suggest however that the ArbCom commitee recognise that there are two issues in disupte here:
  1. Is Republic of Ireland suitable as a title of the article on the state?
  2. Is there a primary article? If so, which is it: the state or the island?
While these two issues are inter-ralated (in the sense that people have argued to use Republic of Ireland as a disambiguator), rather than conflating the two, whatever procedure the committee arrive at could they please keep these two issues separate? --89.101.221.3 (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It would make much more sense to consider them the other way around. There is a 1/3 probability that (1) becomes moot after (2) is considered. Work out (2) then, if needed, (1). Rockpocket 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
No, they are distinct. Conflating them as been the *a* problem. E.g. even if it is decided that the state article should stay at "Republic of Ireland" that does not forbid the article at "Ireland" becoming a dab page or a redirect to "Republic of Ireland". Granted, this is highly unlikely since if consensus was to say that the article on the state should NOT be at "Ireland" then is is hardly likely to say that the state article SHOULD be the primary "Ireland" article (in my view at least), but it might.
There are two issues. Keep them apart. Conflating issues in any dispute leads to problems (and masks possible solutions). --89.101.221.3 (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom is discussing this issue and will communicate to you the outcome of the discussions very soon. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How long is "very soon"? Today is seven days later. (Don't rush. Just counting.) -- Evertype·✆ 09:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. The names of the three administrators will be announced to you later today. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I am one of the people who have been invited by ArbCom. If I understand the arbitrators correctly, they want to keep Ireland editors involved in setting the terms of the progress. To begin, I would like us to agree on a venue first. I see three options:
  1. We could simply continue on this page, possibly after archiving old discussions. But I agree with waggers that "this is the talk page for the Ireland article and that article alone".
  2. As waggers suggested, we could move to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force (after archiving the discussion there).
  3. But I must admit, I'm very partial for a third option. As a founding member of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, I am very interested in the success of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, which was indirectly (via WP:IPCOLL) inspired by us. Yes, the Collaboration project is currently idle, but all it needs to get going is a good problem to solve. This is exactly the kind of problem such projects are made to solve. And which problem could be a more worthy start than this?! If we can turn this into a success for the Collaboration project, and establish a dedicated membership, it will reap benefits for a long time in similar dispute situations.
What do you guys think? — Sebastian 06:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Does one detect consensus? ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 13:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone! Let's go to the Collaboration Project! I think we can decide this question without prejudice by majority rule. (I contacted the only editor who opposed #3, but they has not been around for a reply.) I will post any further messages regarding this question in that project. — Sebastian 20:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin moderators

The admin assistance has started. So far we have two commitments: User:SebastianHelm and User:Edokter. We'll keep looking for a third helper. — Rlevse •Talk • 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Formal proposal

To put the above in another way, what I'm saying is that the we !vote on the following two questions in the usual way:
1 What should the title of the article on the state be:
  • "Ireland" (or "Ireland (state)" in the event of option 1 below)
  • "Republic of Ireland"
  • "Republic of Ireland" only in the event of option 3 below
2 Is there a primary article?
An outside admin should be proposed by the ArbCom committee to decide the outcome. This admin should be agreed by a consensus of editors here. The outcome should be binding for 2 years as per the arb com decision. --89.101.221.3 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I would be happier if you were not an IP with only five edits. -- Evertype·✆ 15:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
"Comment on content, not on the contributor." That will leave us all happier. --89.101.221.3 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem with IPs unless used to participate in polls and surveys of course. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank goodness we don't have either of those on WP. --89.101.221.3 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
We probably don't have them but people using IPs in addition to their registered accounts in the same discussion is forbidden for the simpliest reason of not being able to measure consensus (creating the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists). In heated debates such as this one, other participants should then have a high level of assuming good faith. The whole point is about trust and I believe —as I note it— that participants here trust you won't game the system and that is great. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I do agree. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
This idea - more or less - has already been proposed else where on the page. I'm not sure what the value of of restating it here. Rockpocket 19:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
My main point is that the need to keep the two issues apart. There are two issue here: 1. the title of the article on the state; 2. is there a primary article?). These issues have not been kept apart to date. IMHO, this has led to a quagmire wherein we argued over two issues simultaneously as if they were one. As a result, the potential for consensus was reduced. --89.101.221.3 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are three mechanisms, two of which treat the two questions in a sequential manner. How does yours differ, exactly? Rockpocket 20:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The tables there list possible outcomes; but the two issues are not separated, they are conflated into one (through a permutation of outcomes). There is no separation of the two issues so they can be discussed separately. (Also, the two issues are not "The content of the page called Ireland" and "The content of the page called Republic of Ireland", they are as I have stated them above. Identify the problem, then identify the solution.) --89.101.221.3 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Completely separating the two issues is pointless, because there are potential outcomes that are incompatible with each other. Last time we tried that we ended up with different outcomes from different discussions, which only resulted in greater confusion. Considered in blissful isolation, (1) the title of the article on the state should be Ireland, of course. Easy. Its only in the context of another article with the same ideal title (2) that this becomes an issue. So what exactly do we gain by discussing (1) separately? Nothing. Your proposal acknowledges this with the caveats, "in the event of option 1 below". In that sense it is little different to this proposed previously. Rockpocket 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
"... what exactly do we gain by discussing (1) separately?" Clarity. What do we get from discussion (1) an (2) at the same time? A quagmire. --78.152.249.89 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Republic of Ireland Act 1948". Article 2. Government of Ireland. 1948. Retrieved 2008-10-23.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ireland/Archive_11&oldid=1142440185"