Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Disambiguation task force/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion and archiving on mainpage

[edit]

I've followed the standard that discuses and archives on the mainpage. '/subpages' can be created there for presenting proposals and the like. This way the talk page can be used for the inevitable sundry. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

[edit]

Can anyone point me to where consensus was agreed for a move of Ireland dab issues to this task force? Crispness (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to see that too... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what WikiProject is this a task for of? I don't see any consensus for it anywhere in general discussion, just Matt Lewis trying to influence things he could not achieve elsewhere. ww2censor (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have no evidence of a biased motive in the taskforce I have actually produced - it is simply your subjective opinion, and can be argued in itself as a bias against having a taskforce that is clearly needed. I simply didn't feel happy about weighing down the ROI page with this any more, and we can deal with all the Ireland disambiguation issues here in one place.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO you got it spot on with the "bias against having a taskforce that is clearly needed". I second that. Sarah777 (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"You have no evidence of a biased motive in the taskforce I have actually produced " Actually, we pretty much do. Where you say in the deletion debate you couldn't get your change through on the RoI page and didn't want to try again on that page. Says it all, really. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was that his "dancing at the crossroads" moment? Sarah777 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I couldn't get a change through at all! I said I couldn't personally justify "tying up" the ROI talk page any longer - hence us needing the taksforce. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TASKFORCE

[edit]

This so-called task force totally fails most criteria and guidelines of WP:TASKFORCE.

  • It is not "a non-independent subgroup of a larger WikiProject".
  • It does not "rely on the parent project to provide as much of the procedural and technical infrastructure as possible".
  • It does not "focus primarily on direct article-writing activity".
  • It has not been "set up on a subpage of the parent project page".

It is just an attempt at Forum shopping to try to overturn the status quo where the promoters are not getting the result they want. ww2censor (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you have copied and pasted this in at least three places, after saying what you have about "forum shopping"! Why not let people read it all and make up their own minds? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am even more surprised that you, Matt, cannot let go and have to post essentially the same to even more places than I was notifying people about the obvious forum shopping you are doing. BTW, interspersing your comments/responses, as seems to be your habit in many discussions, makes following discussions rather difficult and disjointed. I suggest you make you comments/responses in one entry rather than breaking up other people's posts. Keep to the issue please. ww2censor (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where have I not kept to the issue? That was a strange thing to say! If you make multiple points in a list format as you have done, I have no choice but answer after each point. Nothing is harder to read at all! But I have diminished its 'multiple hit' effect, I'll grant you that: but it was simply a misrepresentation - the taskforce is fine by the way the guidelines are commonly interpreted on Wikipedia, and I have successfully opened a taskforce before.
Why can't we work together on improving Wikipedia? Regarding the 'Non-forking proposal' presented within the taskforce (an issue on top of the taskforce itself) - I proposed it as I am stuck in various places on Wikipedia because of other people's disagreements surrounding the current Ireland naming situation, so the appeals for the "status quo" to remain are simply no good for me, I'm afraid. I'm not hanging around unable to move because a few people combining of a few article demand it! And the various Ireland sub-articles are in a mess. This proposal has not been made before, and the atmosphere for making it on Republic of Ireland talk (where the recent discussions have taken place) has simply been hostile to more discussion, again from the "status quo" side of the argument. The first thing you must understand regarding myself is that my intentions are to create an operable Wikipedia (and ultimately help make a good Wikipedia).--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"so the appeals for the "status quo" to remain are simply no good for me, I'm afraid." Matt - what does this mean, exactly? That you'll keep doing what you want to do, in spite of a consensus in favour of the status quo? Can I remind you that the Ireland naming issue has come up again and again. Never once has there been more than 50% in favour of renaming - let alone a proper consensus for a change. The current consensus is to preserve the status quo. Why not do the work you want to do (whatever that might be) while working within the consensus? And, by the way - if things were to change in the future - why do you suppose there wouldn't be another, equally vocal group looking for another change? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I proposed it as I am stuck in various places on Wikipedia because of other people's disagreements surrounding the current Ireland naming situation, so the appeals for the "status quo" to remain are simply no good for me, I'm afraid." Please properly follow what I write - WP:BITASK cannot move forward with this confusion/disruption/deadlock over the term Ireland. I'm only here because I can't literally cannot more elsewhere because of this issue! It's an appalling situation. Have you seen those cross-usage tables I've made? I could add another 50 smaller sub articles - they are all as equally muddled. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit worried at this idea that BITASK has some authority or priority over the Ireland articles. BITASK was set up to deal with the British Isles issue, an issue that does not interest me personally, or presumably many others who have an interest in Ireland. Within BITASK, editors can use "Ireland" in whatever way they please, and the naming of the BI article(s) or the use of BI in other articles can be discussed (whether or not it can ever be resolved) regardless of how the Ireland articles are named. Perhaps indeed it "cannot move forward with this confusion/disruption/deadlock over the term Ireland", but that is a separate matter altogether from the article names, which, to put it bluntly, are none of BITASK's business. Scolaire (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wrongly say there is an, "idea that BITASK has some authority or priority over the Ireland articles". Nobody at WP:BITASK has talked of being a singular "authority", but you simply must understand that how the word "Ireland" is presented within an article is relevant to every single article that needs to reference it! You simply must accept that. I actually supported the 'status quo' of ROI/Ireland until I saw what a complete mess it has made to the all the ROI and NI sub-articles. I can see a community that is consistently spurned, and my sense of right cannot accept that. What other country has TWO political articles like this on Wikipedia? One of them is subsuming an entire country (Northern Ireland) to the point where it cannot be allowed its own voice at all? It is ugliness in the extreme. It is everything I hate, infact.
The two definitions of the word "Ireland" are completely confusing over prehaps a hundred Ireland-related articles! We need to start being honest with Wikipedia's readers, and have one consistent internationally recognised interpretation, that every article on Wikiepdia that needs to, can conform with. No other first-world country is as badly represented as Northern Ireland is on Wikipedia - and the 'Ireland' (as a country) articles themselves seem to be pretty much nearer to C-class over-all due to the aggressively-enforced ambiguities, which have done nothing but put people off editing them - and even made it impossible to do so in many cases. And for what? I daren't even say.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>Matt, The 2 definitions are not completely confusing. That's only your opinion. Most readers can manage to figure it. Jimbo is not getting stacks of email every week from confused wikipedia users who are entirely flummoxed by the encyclopaedia's treatment of the Ireland issue. It's just NOT happening. The confusion, if it exists, is in the POV of a large number of editors who cannot get their heads around the current state of play. Let us be clear about one thing. Northern Ireland is not a country, first world or not. At present, according to Wikipedia, it is the only province in the UK. And if I remember correctly, you were one of those involved in producing that definition. So let's not characterise a Hiberno-POV as something bad, whereas the British-POV as something good. It's all POV. And if you want to characterise editors actions as aggresive and putting people off editing, you may need to have a look a little closer to home. Crispness (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say "most readers can figure it out"? At least you here admit that it atually all requires fuguring out! As I'm sure you know - many "people" simply will not be able to "figure it out". I believe the point of the controlled confusion is to make the "Ireland" so often linked to in countless biography articles, look like the whole of the island (as it deals politically with the whole of the island), and ROI look like a mere construction.
Are we getting to the nub of this with Northern Ireland being "only province in the UK"? According to Wikipedia, Northern Ireland is a country - I have always recognised that, as it was clearly a created country after the split break up of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the UK government describes it as one (see also UKCOUNTRYREFS). Do you only see it as merely an 'unworthy province' that often doesn't even deserve its own article outside of the island one? --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, I think it should have its own article though to be accurate, "Failed Entity" is a much more accurate description than "country". It's only a "country" in the sense that it is somewhat rustic. Sarah777 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2008(UTC)
I had a genuine epiphany on Wikipedia regarding Northern Ireland a week or so ago. For the first time in 20 years of adult life I have realised why the wild-eyed Ian Paisley screamed the words "No!" quite like he did. The British in Northern Ireland are simply a significant and valid culture of people - however unfairly Catholics were at times treated in jobs etc. It was a total schism, and the unionists where fighting for their identity as much as the Catholic Irish were (even more so when you look at the wider Ireland). And the IRA had endless funds, which always enters my mind (unfortunately) when Americans enter the subject.
I will ALWAYS stand up for the cultural minority when they are genuinely oppressed - and when I looked around the Irish sub-articles and saw how Northern Ireland is being wiped off the map, I started to feel extremely righteous about this. I would never have believed in the eighties or the ninetees that I would so fiercely wish to defend the unionists in Northern Ireland, and NI itself as a worthwhile country and valid culture - but I am 100% behind their freedom to exist, to live, to breathe. They have been there for hundreds of years now, and a generation or two is all it takes for a culture to settle. They have been there for countless generations now. I was close to someone once who went on the Orange marches every year as a kid (taken over from Enlgand by her Northern Irish Dad). All she ever said about it was “it is a just a road, and it is just a march” - from her point of view it was just a statement of her Dad's culture. There are two sides to every story. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know how you feel Matt. It is only "failed" in that it is an economic basket case subsisting on transfers from "the mainland" for 60% of it's "wealth". Even as they pour scorn on Ireland's success as being due to "EU money" - which at its peak represented less than 5% of Irish GDP! But I'm pretty charitable and I'd certainly think they are every bit as much a country as South Ossetia . Can't say fairer than that? Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice speech, Matt. I'd still love to hear your explanation for why your proposal at the "ROI" board--in fundamentals the same as the one here--was so rejected by the Wiki Northern Ireland unionist editors who voted, if your suggestion is so much *the* way toward seeing justice done to NI on Wiki and, if, as you claim, the current set-up is so much antithetical to doing NI justice. They seem rather fond of the status quo (at least in terms of the basic set-up). I believe 4 such editors opposed your proposal. And can you be more specific of NI being 'wiped off the map' in sub-articles, so I can better understand what you are talking about. A couple of examples, please? Nuclare (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop asking me to repeat questions that have recently been answered. You keep doing this, which is why I haven't responded to you lately. Look at the usage tables for the NI discrepancies - I expect you haven’t got to them yet. NI is consistently vanishing inside "Ireland" articles that are ROI-only. Sometimes NI is a footnote within "Ireland" articles which are supposed to be for both countries. The unfairness aside - there is simply no consistency with these different approaches. And as for my "speech", your sarcastic tone says everything. Can you really tell me who is a NI unionist on Wikipedia? You are more confident than I am about it, that's for sure. There are clearly several angles being taken over this anyway, some of them 'mixed position'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My sarcastic tone says nothing but that speech-making, of which you seem fond, doesn't belong on these boards and isn't helpful in dealing with the disagreements over these naming issues. Unionists can have the most valid culture on the face of the earth and it wouldn't tell us whether the island or state (or neither) should be titled "Ireland" at Wiki. As for telling who is a NI unionist? I make no claim to knowing every NI unionist on the boards. I wouldn't generally name editors in this way, but since you keep trying to make such a huge deal out of this -doing NI justice- issue--in fact, you seem to be trying to make that *THE* issue here, here, as I understand it, are those who participated in the recent round of ROI discussions that I understand to be either directly NI unionists (in the sense of actually identifying themselves as such) or NI people with a general 'unionist' background/orientation. (Not every one of these specfically voted on your proposal, but they all either voted against your proposal or articulated opinions supportive of ROI as the state title and untroubled by "Ireland" as the island page: 1) Traditional Unionist 2) Thunderer 3) Mooretwin 4) Setanta77 5) Canterbury Tale. Nuclare (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"South Ossetia", Sarah, you have sent to bed with a smile on my face, wonderful wit .... --Snowded TALK 23:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me where the "wit" is here? And who are the "they" pouring scorn on the Irish economy? Sounds like you are making cultures into negative entities again. We have to be bigger (and cleverer) than that. Everywhere in the UK outside of the south of England is subsidised. Ulster was prosperous but fell back during the Troubles, especially with inward investment. I wouldn't make light of the peace they have found in Northern Ireland, or of the Georgian situation either - not unless you have experienced war yourself. The breakdown of the USSR is something singular to itself. And where are the 60% Georgians in South Ossetia? - they are nearly 70% Ossetian and around 25% Georgian! So both South Ossetia and NI share the same right to be seen as a constituent country of the state that the majority supports (ie UK and Russia). Or am I missing some fantastically witty irony? I need it explaining if I am.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Matt, I was using Snowded-speak. Need I say any more? Sarah777 (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you want to explain what you mean. But don't bother. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Taskforce

[edit]

I've left a couple of notes concerning the NPOV of the Ireland & Republic of Ireland sides of the discussion. Feel free to tweaked them or (if ya wish) delete them. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland/Disambiguation_task_force/Archive_1&oldid=1137379195"