Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Please Stop

Can we take a break from arguing, please?

If Evertype has overstepped the mark by starting the poll running in appropriately, then Masem will, no doubt, come along and say so. However, it looked to me as though consensus was emerging for the poll, including from Masem. Perhaps it was imprudent to start it in quite such a hurry, but what's done is done. Domer48, you've now raised the concern that the poll was started inappropriately, you do not need to keep repeating this. I can't imagine it will be many hours until Masem surfaces here — until then, lets take a break for further argument over it. There's nothing to be gained save acrimony from an argument over it.

As to notifying involved parties to the ArbCom case, well Masem did say (in his 13:30 21 June post, above): As for individual users, the only two sets I would use are those that have been named in the ArbCom case and those that are members of this project; attempts to bring in anyone else specifically may seem to be canvasing. All such individuals have now been notified, and, unless I'm mistaken, Evertype has not notified anyone beyond that list. I'm sure he is grateful to you, Domer48, for reminding him about the list of project members.

Finally, I'm sure we don't need reminding that Masem is the only (active) moderator here. We all know that Evertype isn't, nor is Domer48, nor is Tfz, and nor am I for that matter. Obviously Evertype cannot impose a ban on anyone for disrupting the proceedings. However the ArbCom have very clearly ruled that Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process. This very clearly gives Masem authority to ban anyone for up to month if they act disruptively. Clearly I can't speak for Masem, but I find it hard to believe that confirmed sock-puppetry would be seen as anything other than disruption of a degree worthy of (at least) a significant topic ban. It doesn't seem inappropriate to remind people that Masem has been explicitly given the power to do this.

So let's calm down, please. Perhaps things haven't been handled in the most diplomatic or prudent manner, but continued arguing about it certainly isn't helping either.

—ras52 (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Way to go, Ras! Fmph (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Way to go, Ras!" Masem responded to this issue almost an hour before Ras's post. They said there was no agreement on the notice, no agreement on the options, no agreement to put it before the whole community, and no sanctions can be placed on editors who take part in this poll. So way to go Ras, you got it wrong on all counts, likewise the cheerleading section. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I have a diff for that please? Fmph (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeh no problem, [1], [2]. See when I'm asked to provide diff's I always do! --Domer48_'fenian' 12:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a poll taking place on this matter but do agree it should of been an internal matter. There was no need to flood wikipedia with messages of this mini poll. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Domer, but those diffs do not show what you said. I'd say you got it wrong. Fmph (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But they do show what I said, there was no agreement on any of it. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree with that assertion. There's a big difference between "no agreement" and "Masem didn't say 'Go'", which is what I think those diffs show. Obviously it's a matter of interpretation, which most things are. Fmph (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, to clear up the matter of interpretation, please show us were the agreement was reached on:

the notice
the options
putting it before the whole community
the sanctions
the comments under each option

Diff's for them should clear up matter of interpretation. thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 14:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. If you expect that there should be explicit diffs for each of those, then you living in cloud cuckoo land. However I'll just refer you back to the diff you gave me where Masem quite clearly states " There was some agreement for it, ...". Thats my point. You say there was no agreement, yet the diff you use says there was some. The diff you gave does not show what you are asserting it shows. Fmph (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So there is no Diff's for each of those, so no matter of interpretation thanks. Masem quite clearly states On the Poll and the options:"There was some agreement for it, but I wasn't expecting it to be started as fast as it was... there just needed to be a bit more discussion about it to make sure that's the way to resolve what "(xxx)" choices were to appear" "I suggested (not said) that we end it by the 1st... it wasn't a demand to start the poll right away as I think we were still trying to make sure it made sense." On putting it before the community: "it was only meant to be limited to this project" " the vote wasn't meant to be a community-wide aspect at this point" "(it doesn't have to be me that posts it, but let's make sure everyone agrees abou this). and what that announcement will contain." On the sanctions: "one can't stipulate penalities or the like for socking" "it was meant to be informal and thus issuing warnings about banning and the like was probably out of place." My comments stand, thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 14:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. "So there is no Diff's for each of those, so no matter of interpretation thanks." - Have you got a diff for where I said that. No? It's just your interpretation? That's fine then. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. Fmph (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Still no Diff's? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. Don't worry if you can't find them. I really didn't expect you to. Fmph (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Another inane responce, this is becoming the norm. Don't worry though, your inability to support you opinion is shared by a number of editors. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. I haven't tried and failed like you. Fmph (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Inane.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish you would indent like everyone else on WP. I disagree. I'd call it accurate. Fmph (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please show us were the agreement was reached on:

the notice
the options
putting it before the whole community
the sanctions
the comments under each option

And find out what is ment by indent. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there an end to this soap-opera, folks? It's getting nauseating. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Just as soon as you show us where ...

Masem responded to this issue almost an hour before Ras's post saying:

there was no agreement on the notice, and
there was no agreement on the options, and
there was no agreement to put it before the whole community, and that
no sanctions can be placed on editors who take part in this poll

And don't use the previous diffs you tried to slip in, cause they don't show that. Fmph (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

An absurd responce to a reasonable question. I've said quite clearly there was no agreement, now show us were this agreement was reached. Glad you copped on about the indent! Another inane and absurd responce, will more than confirm for me and everyone else that no such agreement was reached, and illustrates the type of disruptive editing which has been allowed to continue throughout this whole talk page. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks. That clarifies matters a lot. Just to confirm then, you are not saying that Masem said there was no agreement, is that correct? Just that you said it? That's fine then. I'll withdraw my request for diffs. Thanks. Fmph (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN THE FRACKING DIFFS, DOMER. THEY WERE GIVEN TO YOU ABOVE, BY DR KIERNAN. -- Evertype·✆ 08:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here they are again, Domer!

[3][4][5][6][7]

You put out the this poll over the head of Masem, with nothing more than the agreement of an unrepresentative group of editors and the diff's above will not change that. You have failed to provide diff's were the poll options were agreed, were the comments under the options were agreed, with no agreement to put it to the whole community, including a warning on sanctions which could not be enforced. Now I've acted in a reasonable and calm manner, despite your POV pushing agenda. You reaction to my reasonable questions, including inane replys, your bold texting, condensending attitude, posting diff's which don't address the questions all over the place and personal attacks is the clear sign of an editor unable to support their conduct or opinions has to resort to this type of actions. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Or in other words, we agree to disagree. Fmph (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The diffs Domer keeps asking for

Here they are:

[8][9][10][11][12]

Poll is a very good

Ive been away for a day so ive missed what has been happening, but i will say the poll is a very good idea and a great practice run for the main poll which will be happening at some stage in the future. It seems to be going rather well and shows overwhelming support for Ireland (state) being the option in the future poll and not Ireland (country) or Ireland (republic) etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Again I suggest that we not obsess about the way the ballot is going. It has six more days, and it would be a bad idea for anyone to be publishing a running tally of what is winning and what is not. Tally for yourself/yourselves if you wish, but please let's avoid listing specifically what has support and what has not, OK? -- Evertype·✆ 09:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt take someone with a calculator to look at the figures to see its clear the overwhelming support is for Ireland (state) being the option in the main vote. The vote isnt going to radically change in the next few days. I see no harm in a running commentary. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Talking about the ongoing tally could look like a form of canvassing. There's a reason exit polls aren't allowed to be published before the election is over. I'm asking you and everyone, please, do not make tallies and publish them. -- Evertype·✆ 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Flawed as the poll is, my vote went in. That's no endorsement to the preposterous way the poll was initiated. Tfz 12:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Im rather disappointed, i come here saying ur poll was a good idea evertype and that its a great practice for the main poll whilst others are attacking u for setting up the poll in the way you did and yet u moan at me for simply stating an obvious fact. Again there are no rules here about not mentioning the ongoing polling results , theres no rules against talking about it on that poll page either as far as im aware. I dont see how talking about it here can be seen as Canvassing when u have already advertised the poll above and we are all involved in this process. So again.. Its quite clear from the poll so far the majority support is for Ireland (state) to be included in the main vote, ofcourse there may be a second choice aswell, but state has overwhelming support so far. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the poll was a good idea, and I am happy that you do, too. I have said, courteously, that I would like you, and me, and everyone, to refrain from doing a running commentary on what is winning and what is not, for the duration of the poll. The rationale is the same as that of the broadcasters who do not allow exit polls to be published on air until the polls close. I'm looking at the poll. I might even be totting up now and again out of interest. But I'm keeping that to myself because I think it's better practice than to keep shtum. -- Evertype·✆ 14:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand why you dont want to prejudge the final results, but i cant see the harm in mentioning theres one way ahead of all others right now. The fact the poll shows one option is clearly ahead backs up the fact the poll was a good idea. Anyway we can wait and see what happens, although sarahs question below about how many get included is an important one ive not seen answered BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad you see my point. -- Evertype·✆ 14:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Updating the main project page

The main IECOLL project page is now seriously out of date. I have updated the timetable to reflect the latest polling activity, but the section on "Agreed procedures and methodologies" needs to be removed. ~~I could do a simple delete, but I think this material should be archived, and I'm not sure how to do that. Can someone do this please?~~

I also plan to add Evetype's subsidiary poll notice to the main page, unless anyone objects. Hallucegenia (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Hallucegenia (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A question

How many of the options in the STV poll are going on to the main poll? (That's how many, not which ones:) Sarah777 (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If theres clear support for a second option that should be included, But if like at the moment we have one way ahead and several lagging behind it should just be the first included in the vote in my opinion. Maybe we could have a poll on that too? ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No way Jose. With BritishWatcher announcing the result I'm rather concerned that Ireland (country) gets through. If places like NI and Wales are "countries" I'd find it difficult to accept that Ireland isn't. To put it mildly. Sarah777 (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unpredictable as the only other location informed of the poll 'outside of Ireland' was the United Kingdom, and BI, same thing. A real insult to Irish sovereignty, in anyone's book. Tfz 14:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, give over the melodrama. Are you really telling me none of these are on your watchlist: Talk:Ireland - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll; Talk:Ireland (disambiguation) - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll; Talk:Irish Free State - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll; Talk:Northern Ireland - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll; Talk:Republic of Ireland - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll; WP:IWNB - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside of Ireland is understood. Some come cheap, but others put value on themselves. Tfz 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, isn't that gnomic of you. "Some come cheap, but others put value on themselves." Does this sentence have content? By the way, you might wish to learn that "Sovereignty", except in myth, is not a person, and cannot be "insulted". -- Evertype·✆ 15:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Relentless tosh, you don't give a ****, do you? Tfz 15:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

About what? -- Evertype·✆ 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

e/c Was the IrlProj page not informed? RoI talkpage? Ireland talkpage? Sarah777 (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah - my question answered before I asked it! I always said you were a fine fellow Bastun. Sarah777 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(~~double~~triple e/c) Sarah, I assume Masem will be adding up and announcing the results. Earlier he said he proposed the top three (or four in the event of a tie, which is really quite unlikely with STV) winners will get onto the poll. —ras52 (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - now I can restore my STV vote to something more sensible. Sarah777 (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm i cant see the announcment on the Irish wikipedians noticeboard, someone needs to check all of those places because it says they were told but it doesnt look like its on there. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's in the News section: [13] Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh thanks, it should probably of been added to the talk page too though BritishWatcher (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Evertype·✆ 19:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

@Sarah: Um... thanks? :-) In fairness to BW, "calling" the result - especially when everyone can see all the ballots - isn't much different from what RTÉ and all the radio stations do with their exit polls at every election. And one thing's for sure - visible "ballot papers" and the counts are the main reason why electronic voting should never be allowed here. It's the world's greatest bloodsport! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it great fun - I wouldn't trust them anywhere near an unobservable electronic system. As for efficiency - the costs of bailing out Anglo would pay for the paper counts till the year 10,000 - by a conservative estimate. Sarah777 (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Earlier Masem suggested three or four options, which means 9 or 12 additional choices in the main poll. I think that is too many, and I suggest two or three options, which means 6 or 9 additional choices in the poll. I take it both options are on the table. -- Evertype·✆ 15:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In all likelihood, only one "(xxx)" needs to be put forward for the main ballot. If "Ireland (a)" tops the poll now then, in all likelihood, it will top the poll of "(xxx)" options in the "BIG" ballot too (regardless of whether it "wins" the full ballot or not). There is a chance that there could be a swing between the votes (e.g. this one favouring "Ireland (a)" and the "BIG" one favouring "Ireland (b)"), but the bigger the gap between 1st and 2nd place in this poll the less likely that will be. Including anything that wasn't a genuine contender for 1st place in this ballot would wasteful. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I have not looked at the poll results so I don't know if this is the case, but if (a) clearly is the winner without applying the STV process, then it makes to only have (a) on there. If (a) only wins after a few rounds over an option (b) with the numbers being split no better than, say, 60/40, I'd recommend both options. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me to do it that way, Masem (and I haven't checked it today, so I don't know if my option is leading or not :-) ). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that since we started the poll expecting two, perhaps three options in the big poll we should stick to that unless the numbers are so overwhelming that it shows that won't be a runner. I don't like changing the rules mid-ballot. I think that detracts from our credibility. -- Evertype·✆ 18:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What do we class as overwhelming, because from where im sitting the front runner has an overwhelming lead. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends (and no, I've not looked nor will look until the 1st) on the overall vote distribution. I would consider that if one option - without resolving STV, got 66% of the votes, while no other option got above 5%, that's overwhelming. But if it was the case that one option got 66% of the votes and a second option - without STV resolution, got the other 33%, that's not overwhelming. But I'm hesitant to call out exact numbers where I believe the line is drawn instead seeing exactly how the poll works. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, although the main poll willl benefit the most from a single outcome rather than having several choices needing to be placed in the poll. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem, you have tough standards. So if you were competing in a quiz of 100 questions, you got 33 questions right and your competitor got 66 questions right, you wouldn't feel "overwhelmingly" beaten? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've lost count on how many polls I'm participating in on this Collaboration. Anybody have a clue? GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a poll to find out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

New Userbox

This user is a member of WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

I have created this new userbox. Add {{User WPIECOLL}} to your userpage to add it to your userboxes. Doing so will automatically add you to Category:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration members. FF3000 · talk 21:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Statements

Sorry for another post on this, but there seems to be very little comment and agreement above about if there will be statements or not for the vote options. Need more views on this matter thanks otherwise its going to push the date for the poll starting back a few days when we finally get round to debating this. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there is very little likelihood of gaining consensus on what should go in each of the statements. As an alternative, perhaps editors could write their own statements in userspace and add a link to each one of them from the statements section. There may be a long list, but it would allow uninvolved voters access to something to read. Fmph (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth at least trying to see if we can get consensus. Above, it was suggested we use the 'Postition argument summaries', and it was further suggested we leave out the summaries. So each option in the final poll would essentially one or two lines saying why it should be used and one or two why it shouldn't be used. We could further refine that so that only "positive" statements (with their counterarguments, of course) were included. So "Cakes are best because they're full of sugar"/"It's been proven that too much sugar is bad for you." rather than "Noone should eat cakes because they're full of sugar, they should eat cereal instead"/"Some people are allergic to cereals." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If the members want this, I could write up such statements (I'm neutral to any choice) with any necessary unbiased refinements as seen fit. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be great if u have the time Masem thanks, most of the points have already been made on the link provided by Bastun, just a case of weeding out the nonsense. Pros / Cons with no summary so people can make up their own minds. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a list of pros and cons written up by Masem would be ideal. Scolaire (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, fed up: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Domer48. DrKiernan (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

lol ur wasting ur time. Although i think u should of included that he keeps removing comments from pages he claims ownership over despite not being a mod. Damn dictatorship. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, way OTT kiernan, you never edit these pages anyway. Tfz 14:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Tfz, why did you take it upon yourself to delete a word from BritishWatcher's statement? -- Evertype·✆ 14:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DrKieran, well done. -- Evertype·✆ 14:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Everytype, why have you removed other editors text, here [14]. Tfz 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not text. It's bait. -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I must say, I have to agree with DrKiernan, I'm fed up with the disruption, incivility and POV pushing on this talk page, and I think DrKiernan is right, it's the best thing to do. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

On this talk page???? Sarah777 (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sad, different opinions aren't welcome. Tfz 16:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Different opinons is what's made this Collaboration necessary. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see some worthy admins still inhabit this website. A sign of hope, no doubt. Tfz 00:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Those worthy admins said everyone should just ignore Domer. Very good advice yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's everyone's prerogative to ignore anyone they wish, I assume most here are adults. For example, I totally ignore Bastun. Now, don't ask me why, that'd be another thread. Tfz 22:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Tfz, your accusation here that I am canvassing is unfounded. I posted to Kittybrewster's page because he made a mistake here, and I was explaining his mistake to him. Your hatred of me is misplaced, as should be obvious as Kittybrewster is unlikely to vote for my favoured option of "Ireland (country)". DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur (having looked). DrKiernan was not canvassing. -- Evertype·✆ 09:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BritishWatcher. Despite my zero input so far i would say that ignoring is the best thing you can do for now. If persistence is kept up then you can try again, with the moral high ground.Willski72 (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What a wonderful collaboration page. Tfz 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In truth its to be expected. Some people will not compromise, on both sides of the divide. Its the age old problem....Willski72 (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is outrageous. I don't even like DrKiernan's preferred vote (as it's completely different from mine, heh)—but I think that he has a right to make his vote and be counted. He did not canvass. He explained the parameters of the poll to someone. I did the same thing and no one accused me of "canvassing". The accusations were in bad faith. -- Evertype·✆ 12:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (SarekOfVulcan, please do not delete my comment again. -- Evertype·✆ 18:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

I don't think it was intentional. Sarek was undoing DrKiernan's removal of his own posts and your comment just sustained collateral damage. ~~BTW, I agree with you 100% but I think it would be better without the bold.~~ Scolaire (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. My sincere apologies, sir: I thought I had properly reviewed my edit to make sure I was only restoring DrKiernan's comments, but I obviously didn't do it properly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I popped in here expecting this collabration to be a few steps on from when last I was here. This thread for example has no real purpose other than to cause disruption and deflect away from proper discussion. I propose that any future arguments of this type be deleted or moved somewhere else for the simple reason that this page is for editors to collaborate. Jack forbes (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Descriptions of the main poll options

Whether or not provide we statements for and against each option, I think we should also provide a fuller description of each option. The current version at User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/sandbox defines each option in terms of the existing pages, which will be confusing for editors who are not familiar with the ins and outs of the status quo. I think it would be useful to add a table to each option to illustrate what the initial text of each article would become. For instance ~~voiting~~ main poll Option D could appear something like this:

D: The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).

Name of Page	Initial Text
Ireland	Ireland is an independent state in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign state occupies about five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned on 3 May 1921.
Ireland (island)	Ireland is the third-largest island in Europe, and the twentieth-largest island in the world.
Ireland (disambiguation)	Ireland commonly refers to: ...

This approach also has the advantage in that it illustrates what Options E (Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article) and F (A general "all-Ireland" topic) might actually say in practice.

I have cobbled together a draft of what the description might look like for each main poll option at User_talk:Hallucegenia/sandbox. The intial text for the Option E and Option F articles are taken from Tasmania and China respectively. Would this approach be helpful in the main poll? Hallucegenia (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at this the more I like it. With an STV vote - even for those familiar with STV - there is always a fear that you have voted for the wrong thing, or in the wrong order. This table shows exactly what you will be voting for when you vote for each option. Scolaire (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That method with a table and the start of the intro is very clear and we should use then, although i still feel its very important the arguments for and against must be presented along with that table BritishWatcher (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Much less confusing, bravo!Willski72 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, I think that arguments should not be on the poll page itself. Would we ever be able to agree on the pro- and con-arguments? It could take weeks. Having said that, apart from some small bits of formatting I think that Hallucegenia's draft makes good sense. Should I merge the two? I could do that on my own sandbox or in Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's. -- Evertype·✆ 09:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you should do it at Rannṗáirtí's (ar bhosca ghainimh Rannṗáirtí?). Per BRD, if anybody has a problem with it, it can be discussed there. As regards pros and cons, Masem might still come back with a list - see above. We should leave that open for the moment. Scolaire (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, I saw this after I saw Hallucegenia's comment below, and what's done is done. It will be great if Masem comes back with a list... but I still think that arguments should be on a separate page, not on the ballot page itself. Currently I find many or most of the pro/con arguments to be POV (even for options that I happen to prefer myself). -- Evertype·✆ 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Arguments by definition are statements of POV (= points of view). NPOV does not mean absence of POV, it means a balanced statement of differing POVs. The whole purpose of the poll is to ascertain what users think is the best option i.e. which POV they agree with. A statement of pro and con POVs can only help voters to make up their minds, surely! Scolaire (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Gets my (virtually valueless) vote!Willski72 (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that we're starting to draft out different versions of the main polling page, then can I suggest that sandboxes are probably not the best place? We need to keep track of changes and other contributors need to see what is going on. I hesitate to suggest it, but are we now in a postion to start building the actual polling page? We could build the voting page at, say: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll (Draft), and copy it across to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll when the vote goes live. When the results of the "Ireland (xxx)" poll are known, when we have decided which order the alternatives should be presented, and when we have decided if and where Pro's and Con's should be located, we can add them as we go. Does anyone here dare create the first draft? Hallucegenia (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on this now. -- Evertype·✆ 08:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have finished this draft. I took care to make sure that things lined up, that spellings were correct and consistent—no "(State)" alongside "(state)" for instance—and that the choices in the informative boxes corresponded to the change option listed. When the Poll on Ireland (xxx) ends and when the decision as to what "(xxx)" options are going to be listed on the poll, I will be happy to add them into the template. I think it will be best if I use the same method for randomizing the entries in this poll as I did for the current one. Is this agreeable? -- Evertype·✆ 09:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What should the name of the poll be? We have Poll on Ireland (xxx), where the choice is just about what Ireland (xxx) will mean. The header I took from Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's page said Poll on Ireland/Republic of Ireland. We can't use that in a URL because of the syntax of "/". How about Poll on Ireland article names? -- Evertype·✆

'Poll on Ireland article names' is clear and concise. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Anyone else? -- Evertype·✆ 11:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Let'er commence. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Then: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names (Draft) can be moved (or copied) to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names when the vote goes live. -- Evertype·✆ 14:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertising final poll

The poll has been running for a week now and with just 10 hours to go has attracted the sum total of 50 votes. Now, while this is enough to decide on what two (or three) options qualify for the final poll, for such a "controversial" topic that was advertised here, on all the relevant project pages, on the Ireland articles, and with a note to every participant of this project and at the Arbcom case - it's a less than whelming response. Masem, you said above that you weren't in favour of using a Watchlist hatnote to advertise the final poll. I would ask you to reconsider this (assuming there's consensus), as the last thing we want is for the final poll to take place and then to have the "losing" side claim that a low poll means that there is a lack of community consensus for whatever decision is reached. I really think it's vital that as many as possible participate. Thoughts? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think 50 !votes is pretty spectacular! How many contributors were you hoping for to consider the poll to be not low? Have we ever had 50 previously on an "Ireland" issue? --HighKing (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me a Watchlist hatnote? -- Evertype·✆ 11:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Evertype: pick one of the versions here. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, and that would turn up where? In anyone's Watchlist who is watching one of these pages? -- Evertype·✆ 12:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It would appear at the top of very nearly everyone's Watchlist. (AIUI it is possible to opt out of the messages. My guess is that not many editors have.) Mr Stephen (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Many editors will not vote simply because they don't understand the issues and complexities, so 50 'quality' votes is infinitely better than a larger random vote. It's for these reasons, and a few others, that I objected to the poll. Anyway the poll is likely to proceed irrespective. Tfz 11:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mind reading, Tfz? -- Evertype·✆ 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

51 votes and counting. Will there really be a claim that a "low poll" is a lack of community consensus? I have never come across this before. What constitutes a low poll anyway? Jack forbes (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. For one thing, the poll wasn't advertised as widely as the next will be. -- Evertype·✆ 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, numbers-wise - looking at two previous polls, advertised only on Talk:Republic of Ireland (and presumably IMOS and the Irish wikiproject): February '06 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Ireland/Archive4#Poll:_Ireland_article_titles - 45 'support' votes for 8 different options. Lots more Opposes not counted. March '07 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Ireland/Archive_6#Title_change_straw_poll - 40 votes. For an Arbcom-sanctioned 'this is the first part of the final solution (for two years anyway)', widely-advertised poll - I would have expected a much bigger turnout. Tfz - I don't see what your objection to advertising is, or why you assume votes would be "random". Small turnouts produce extreme results. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know it seems reasonable, some will of looked at the poll and not bothered to vote because they dont support any option like that one, i wasnt going to bother voting but thought it was a good chance to practice for the real one. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Bastun canvassing for a large turnout of non-Irish editors knowing that he is likely to lose if this is restricted to those who are actually interested in the topic? And extreme results? Really? Which of the slate of options we are voting on would you regard as "extreme"? Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As for "low poll"; I'd say a turnout oif 50% of the IrlProj editors would make the poll "high" enough. Sarah777 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as this is about "consensus" (allegedly) and not "majority rule" we could give ordinary editors with no history of editing Ireland-related articles one vote; Irish editors who contribute to Irish articles regularly 5 votes and regular editors of Irish articles who live in the Ireland (country) 10 votes. That seems both fair and consistent with WP:COMMONNAME to me. A "solution" forced through by a majority of non-Irish votes against a clear preference of Irish editors will have no consensus and lack legitimacy. Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's too complicated. I'm confused enough, jumpers I've gotta record my support/oppose choices again. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, take your insinuations and shove them. I'm canvassing for a large turnout because I want this to be a final consensus arrived at by the community, rather than by a handful of editors who haven't yet been driven away by bad-faith accusations. Do you want a low turnout so you can rally a few friends - apparently willing to give their addresses - on to your "side". I deliberately didn't mention the actual votes on those earlier polls, but seeing as we're now throwing mud... the first one had twelve people supporting various (six) moves and thirty-three actively in favour of the status quo. The second link shows thirty-one actively in favour of the status quo and nine supporting "another set up". The interesting thing is a large proportion of the supports for the status quo seem to have come from Irish editors. Certainly more Irish editors appear to favour the status quo than want to change it. So drop the rhetoric. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bastun; WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL etcetera. I'm not sure where you get the "Irish editors" tally. Are you including British folk living on the island but outside the country that the "RoI" article refers to? "final consensus arrived at by the community" is a myth - this is a vote. It is important that it isn't decided by political bias and that WP:COMMONNAME is accepted "by the community" and that Ireland is called by it's proper name - certainly no title that suggests the name of the country is "Republic of Ireland" can ever get consensus. Sarah777 (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We are seeking a "compromise" here; the status quo isn't a compromise. Sarah777 (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, no. We are seeking a consensus. All the move requests over the years were considered to be unfair because they required a two-thirds majority to overturn the status quo. Now we finally have a procedure by which it will be changed with a simple majority using proportional representation, if that is the consensus. If the consensus is in favour of the status quo, then the status quo remains. Either way, we all keep our lips buttoned for two years from the day the consensus is enacted. Our concern must be to ensure that the result is a fair reflection of the views of all - Irish, British, American, Australian, African and Asian - not to stack the votes in favour of any one option. Scolaire (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Sarah, you don't get to decide what is and isn't acceptable - the community does. My definition of Irish is as per the Irish constitution, I don't know or care what yours is. But as Scolaire points out, nationality is irrelevant in this anyway. Any editor (with an account older than June 1st) can vote. That's one, unweighted vote. Your apology for breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL above is noted and accepted, though you should have thrown WP:AGF in there too. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh Bastun, Bastun, Bastun. You cause me to despair betimes. as Scolaire points out, nationality is irrelevant. Eh, no. Incorrect. Daft, even. I have been trying to explain to folk that, de facto, WP:NPOV or "community consensus" is a myth; a euphemism, for Anglo-Saxon POV. I'm not sure whether yoy don't understand that or whether you pretend not to because you share British (in this case) pov. But any solution imposed against the majority of editors who live in the country of Ireland is not "consensus". It is the imposition of political POV, pure and simple. I'll join the dots for you in greater detail if needs be. Sarah777 (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Draft of main poll

We now have a draft of a possible version of the main poll at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll (Draft). To help structure the discussion about this draft, I have taken the liberty of setting out below the main areas that we will need to discuss. If I've missed anything out, then please just add them to this list.

Unless anyone prefers another approach, I will create a discussion topic thread later today for each of these topics. Hallucegenia (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Location and name of main polling page
Overall shape and layout of the polling page
Main poll alternatives
Pro's and Con's

Get 'er done. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've now done this. Most of the comments already in this paragraph seemed to go best into the Pro's and Con's section, so I put them there. Hope that's OK with the various authors; please undo if I've got it wrong.... Hallucegenia (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The draft is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names (Draft) but the other is a redirect. -- Evertype·✆ 17:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Location and name of main polling page

Q. Where should be main poll page be located? Suggestions include:

Hallucegenia (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. -- Evertype·✆ 16:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I missed that this question had already been decided here [[15]]. Hallucegenia (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Overall shape and layout of the polling page

Q. Are we happy with the overall shape and layout of the polling page as drafted? Hallucegenia (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Britishwatcher said "The poll is looking good, i like the shape / layout etc." Hallucegenia (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Main poll alternatives

Q. What order should the alternatives in the main poll be presented? A suggestion is:

Apply a random sequence once we have a final list (Evertype)

Q. What is the final list of alternatives to be presented in the main poll?

(Presumably we need to wait for the results of the subsidiary poll before addressing this question.)

Hallucegenia (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pro's and Con's

Q. Should we have Pro's and Con's?

Q. Where should Pro's and Con's appear? Alternatives might include:

On the main polling page, embedded in each alternative
On the main polling page, in a section at the end
Listed on a separate page

Q. What format and layout should Pro's and Con's take?

Q. How should we produce the Pro's and Con's? Suggestions include:

Masem should write them.

Hallucegenia (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The poll is looking good, i like the shape / layout etc. Just need agreement on the pros and cons for each of the options as far as i can see. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that having pros and cons on the ballot itself could be considered a kind of canvassing. I would be supportive of a link to a separate page outlining pros and cons, but have yet to see an argument for putting it on the same page. Also I'd like to see Masem's draft before agreeing to anything.... -- Evertype·✆ 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the arguments for and against the options should be on the same page because people who may not be aware of the "controversy" may just come along and vote for 'obviously it should be option x', possibly without even realising that there are issues around the naming of Ireland articles. I'll avoid the stereotypes ;-) But I'm sure you know what I mean. Including the pros and cons on the main page means that there's an increased chance the voter will think about their choice(s) rationally. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with putting them on the main page. But i would suggest that they are put underneath the actual poll with a clear distinction between them so that people do not become confused.Willski72 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be no pros and cons, period, the wording of any listing would be problematic in the extreme. Let the poll speak for itself, and possibly link to all previous discussions, for a laugh. MickMacNee (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To me this is a strong vote not to have pros and cons on the main page, at the very least. -- Evertype·✆ 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I should have noted above that the issue of Pro and Con statements was debated (somewhat inconclusively) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Statements. Sorry for the omission. Hallucegenia (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion was also ongoing at #Descriptions of the main poll options. Scolaire (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My view is this: everybody who's discussing this is intending to vote. I'm guesing that all, or nearly all, know how you're going to vote. But how do you know? Is it because you've been reading the arguments for the last three weeks or three years? I imagine so. Would your vote be more valuable if you hadn't read it? Hardly! So why do some of you not want uninvolved users to read the arguments - on the poll page - before voting? This isn't like sticking a pin in the Grand National field to decide who to back. We're looking for informed opinion here. So let's put the arguments on the top of the page, and let our voters know what it is they're voting for. Scolaire (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. My main concern is that a preponderance of UK !voters that haven't been following this discussion will result in a Status Quo. Don't forget, under current UK legislation, the name of the state is Republic of Ireland, and a lot of UK editors will be used to hearing this on the BBC, etc, because that's OK there. Just not everywhere else... --HighKing (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns are not my concerns. What I want to see is a fair and durable result based on consensus. If that result is Republic of Ireland then so be it. I have no interest in rigging this vote - quite the reverse. Scolaire (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, this poll is going to be a vote, not a !vote. Scolaire (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've used Hallucegenia's "embed" option here. Scolaire (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Awful! It is already difficult enough for people to work out their preferences using STV, and then with the added box showing the implications of the change. To add in a list of arguments inside the ballot is a very bad idea. The very top italic paragraph can point to a page where there are arguments. People could even open it up in a separate tab or window. But please let the ballot itself be simple. -- Evertype·✆ 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The ballot itself is not simple! Probably the great majority of voters have never had experience of STV before. Even those of us who are used to it are accustomed to writing our numbers against a candidate name, party name and photograph, not messing about with curly brackets. More info on the top will make it easier, not more difficult, for all of us. You say: "It is already difficult enough for people to work out their preferences using STV...". but how are people to work out their preferences if not by weighing up the options, the implications and the arguments? Scolaire (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding in these controversial (and as yet unwritten) statements will surely not make the ballot any easier. We've just had a practice round with a format that worked. It's not wise to do what you propose. What I mean that it's difficult enough to work out their preferences means "it's hard enough to make sure that A is A and B is B -- without adding in lines of contentious text making each of the paragraphs even longer. As it is we're likely to be adding a whole set of options under "(xxx)". I object to having this material put onto the ballot itself. I do not object to making it available to voters via a prominent wikilink at the top of the ballot, but just like in a REAL election, the arguments need to be in a separate place from the ballot. On this point you won't find me compromising. Ill help to improve the pros/cons, as neutrally as possible. I'll be as accommodating as anything. But I will oppose strenuously putting the arguments on the actual ballot itself, because I believe it's fundamentally wrong to do that. -- Evertype·✆ 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Evertype. They should be on another page and linked to if necessary.MITH 20:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You have every right to oppose it, strenously or otherwise. But please remember that, however much work you have put into this lately, you have no authority and you cannot dictate how things will be done. You can only suggest like the rest of us. I have stated my case and I am going to let it rest at that. I suggest you do the same. Scolaire (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about dictating. Hyperbole! But I don't believe there will be consensus to mix arguments into the ballot. I suppose the next thing to do is try to wrestle with some sort of neutral description of pros and cons. I hope Masem has been able to work on that. -- Evertype·✆ 21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my considerable ignorance but is the ballot classed as the whole voting page or just a part of the whole voting page?Willski72 (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll is closed

I closed the poll at 21:01. -- Evertype·✆

I have done a tally and put the results here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

My tally looks identical for IRV. Well done. Fmph (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Ireland (xxx) Poll results and implications for the final poll

So we have three options.

As Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid has said, the runaway winner is F, Ireland (state). We could just go with that. On the other hand, we did enter into this assuming that we would take two options, possibly three.
In the run-off for two candidates, we saw F, Ireland (state), get elected on the first count and it took till the fifth count before A, Ireland (country) was elected.
In the run-off for three candidates, we saw F, Ireland (state), get elected on the first count; A, Ireland (country) was elected on the second count, and it took till the sixth count to elect C, Ireland (Republic of).

Personally I'd be happiest with F only as this makes the ballot easier for voters. Failing that we should go with F and A. I don't believe the support for C was strong enough to warrant putting all three on the ballot. -- Evertype·✆ 08:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

My 2¢ is to go with just F since it get three times as many votes as A or C. I know some editors will be very eager for A to be included, and I would be interested in knowing if there would be a swing from "state" to "country" when we advertise the main ballot to *everyone* - but aside from that I don't see any merit in including A or C. So, "F" or "F and A", but would argue for just "F". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Evertype and Rannpháirtí. F had an overall majority of first preferences i.e. more than all the others put together. Realistically, all options containing A and/or C will be eliminated early on in the big poll, and not all of them will transfer. Including them will make the poll more complex, with zero gain for anybody. Scolaire (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also agree - including Ireland (country) and Ireland (Republic of) seems pointless. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

With all the tables and pros / cons that are going to have to be included, it makes sense just to include Ireland (state) it is the clear winner. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So what would we actually be polling if only one option is included? Mooretwin (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We would be polling the six options currently listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names (Draft), as opposed to the nine options that would be required if "Ireland (country)" were included as well as "Ireland (state)", or the twelve that would be necessary if "Ireland (Republic of)" were also included. Scolaire (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And how will this poll resolve the issue of how to refer to the 26 counties in the hundreds of WP articles in which it is currently referenced? How will it resolve the issue of how to name articles like Economy of the Republic of Ireland? It seems to me that any vote to change the status quo will exacerbate rather than solve these problems. I've been saying this all along, only to be ignored, and the fact that the suggestion of a comprehensive compromise gained significant support on the Task Force has been completely disregarded. Mooretwin (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer your comment first, most of those who supported the compromise on the Task Force withdrew their support very soon afterwards when the arbitration began. That's part of life and we just have to move on. To answer your question, this poll will not resolve the issue of how to refer to the 26 counties in articles; that will have to be dealt with separately. How we deal with it will to some extent depend on the result of the poll. Remember that the status quo is one of the options. Scolaire (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone withdrawing their support soon after arbitration began. And no - this poll will not resolve the issue. Worse, there will be no incentive for the "winners" of this poll to compromise on the other issue, having already got one result in the bag they can use the result to "win" on the other issue. It is very disappointing and unfortunate that a comprehensive approach (in order to encourage compromise) has not been facilitated, and that changes are to be pushed through piecemeal by voting. Mooretwin (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

For my part I hope for Good Faith on the part of whoever are perceived to be the "winners". In any case, the question now is which of the (xxx) options go on the poll. So far I hear strong support for F only, weak support for F and A as acceptable, and no support for F and A and C. However, people keep wanting to talk about OTHER things than focus on the question now. -- Evertype·✆ 13:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin, when I said "withdrew their support" I didn't mean that they made a formal declaration of withdrawal of support. The fact is that arbitration began, almost everybody retreated to their previous entrenched positions and discussion on the Task Force page stopped. That is a withdrawal of support in my book. Anyway, that is water under the bridge now. The poll is going to happen. Hopefully it is going to produce a clear-cut result. At that point discussion of article names will end, and discussion of article contents can be resumed. Scolaire (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a poll on how many options we should include? Fmph (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please. That's not helpful. Do you have a preference? Please express it now. One option: Go with F Ireland (state) only in the poll because it got the overwhelming majority of support. One option: go with F Ireland (state) and A Ireland (country). It does seem that there is no real rationale for going with three, given its weak support in the poll. (Anyway Ireland (Republic of) is very close to Republic of Ireland which is already in the poll.) -- Evertype·✆ 13:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Do you really think that my expression of a preference will in some way lessen any objection that is made no matter what solution is chosen? It won't. I didn't vote. I don't want any of the options in that ballot, so it makes no difference. It's a decision for MAsem and the uninvolved Mods (if they are still around). Whatever they choose someone will object. Fmph (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I hear a bit of yelling from people who seem to be worried about their POV. I have a preferred scenario for the disposition of the Ireland article names, but I have accepted the consensus to hold a poll in order to decide what configuration will be used for the next two years. So I for my part am trying to be neutral; not defending my POV nor even talking about what my preference is at this point. You say you didn't want "any of the options on the ballot"—what does that mean? That you didn't want there to be an "Ireland (xxx)" on the ballot? Well, can't help you there, because there was consensus that there would be one (or two or three) and the poll we held was to decide what the (xxx) should be in the Main Poll. We know there will be (state) now; whether there will be anything else hasn't been determined, though so far it seems as though only (state) will go through. To change the subject a bit, if you look through the past couple of years of edits you will find me and Scoláire often disagreeing with one another rather bitterly. Yet now we are working together. I am sure we can't make everyone happy, but I am confident that working within the project as we are, we are nearing the end of this long road. -- Evertype·✆ 16:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with there being 1, 2 or 3 Ireland (xxx) options in the main poll. I won't vote for any of them. And there will still be objections. Fmph (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with just one. Out of "(state)" "(country)", "(nation)" and (independent xxx), we have a clear favourite. As you say the two "Republic of" options are two similar - which is why I changed to "(republic)" as sufficiently different. I don't think we need both, especially as that would involve a mucj more complicated ballot.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to throw my perspective in this, it's clear that the majority want "(state)" and only "(nation)" and "(country)" were next and tied, so we'd either have to go with 1 option or with three. For sake of making this as simple as possible (as noted the STV could be confusing to some) I'd would suggest that one option is best since it was a clear winner without having to process any further on the vote. Mind you, the STV poll should encourage discussion on the poll's talk page and mention that nation and country were the next possible choices in discussing the merits of "Ireland (state)". --MASEM (t) 18:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, no. "Country" and "nation" were very far from being tied. In fact, "nation" was eliminated after the second count with zero votes, by which time "country" was already elected. "Republic of" came third and a long way behind "country"; see here. I agree with your conclusion. It's only the facts that are a little bit shaky :-) Scolaire (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking Masem's view now into account, and seeing really no one advocating for more than one option, I suggest we close this issue with the decision "1 option (F, Ireland (state) only". If that's fine, at noon tomorrow I will do the randomization on the options using the same procedure I used for the other poll. -- Evertype·✆ 18:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another way of looking at it: The poll arose, if I remember correctly, because it was felt that there were people who would not vote for Ireland (state) but who might vote for Ireland (something else). It was suggested that some people would vote for Republic of Ireland unless there was an alternative Ireland (xxxx) offered. Well, looking at the poll results, Ireland (country) (A) got ten first preference votes, of whom six gave their second preference to Ireland (state) (F), one to Ireland (Republic of) (C), and the remainder to neither or to none at all. Assuming the people who voted reflected the wider electorate, I think it's clear that nobody loses by only having the one option: Ireland (state). Scolaire (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Pros and Cons

For my sins I have written a set of what I believe to be neutral points regarding the pro and con arguments. PLEASE DO NOT FLAME ME. This is a thankless task. Please see the Poll_on_Ireland_article_names_(Draft). For what it is worth, everybody, I think that the Poll on Ireland (xxx) went well, and I am willing to do the same work (including notifying the communities) to finalize the Big Poll, if you are willing to have me do it. (I don't see much point in saddling Masem with the task as he is here to moderate, not to draft and process documents.). With regard to the pro/con arguments I have given, when you review them, please do so with some things in mind.

The goal is not to prove anything, merely to state what is believed by some factions.
The goal is not to be encyclopaedic or utterly exhaustive. It is to summarize.
My intent has not been to piss anybody off. I have genuinely tried to be neutral. If you have suggested edits to any of the bullet points, please make them. And make them nicely.

Thanks to those who have expressed their happiness with the way the Ireland (xxx) poll went.-- Evertype·✆ 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First impressions: the arguments are fair and they are well written, but for me they are a little too general as a guide to ranking the options below them. Ideally, I would have specific pro and con arguments for each of the options A to F (or A to I or A to L as applicable). Failing that I would at least divide the arguments into "names for the island article" and "names for the political entity article" sections. Scolaire (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Too general? Look, people are going to have to do some homework (just as they do in a real election). I don't see how giving specific pro and con arguments for each specific configuration will do anything but double or triple the size of the page. I see what you mean, maybe "positive implications of scenario A, negative implications of scenario A" and so on down to F (or I or L), but honestly I think it would be impossible to get all of those written in a neutral fashion acceptable to everyone. (A general argument is farrrrr easier to make neutral.) It seems to me that dividing the arguments into "names for the island" and "names for the political entity" will just duplicate things, won't it? -- Evertype·✆ 12:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks ok, although i dont like this bit for the Ireland option. "Some people believe that this term is ambiguous"... ARBCOM accepted its ambiguous, the only one who strongly refuses to accept this is the person admins told us to ignore a few days ago. Ireland is ambiguous, this is not in dispute. I agree it should be neutral pros/cons, but lets not go too far. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't helpful to say "I don't like this" unless you offer a suggestion as to what would make you more comfortable.

I attempted to respond to your point by changing that item to: The word Ireland is arguably ambiguous and can refer to more than one entity with none of them having verifiable primacy. I don't want to refer to an ArbCom ruling on an argument that most voters won't know about. I have changed from "some people believe". -- Evertype·✆ 13:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a fact. Ireland is ambiguous The consensus on this talk page is thats the case, Arbcoms ruling stated it was the case, there is no justification for saying, "Some people believe that this term is ambiguous" It should either say, "Ireland is ambiguous" or at the very least say, "Most see Ireland as ambiguous" BritishWatcher (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The problem is that even though you think it is an obvious fact (and I happen to agree) there are people who have worked very hard to "prove" that either the island or the state is the primary topic. -- Evertype·✆ 13:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I can accept and understand people thinking the state or the island is the primary topic there for belongs at the article, its just the crazy idea that Ireland isnt ambiguous that bothers me. I didnt like the "some".. bit in the sentence because thats whats used for all the other arguments made so it made it look like that point was equally disputed, when its not been. Anyway the change in wording is better for me, i dont know what others think. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that change seems more reasonable than the original wording.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, I would prefer arguments to be presented as statements of fact rather than "some people believe". Also, I think you overestimate the difficulty of getting arguments that are acceptable to everybody. First of all, the arguments are not meant to be neutral, they are meant to be opposing. Second, people who are in favour of any given option all agree on the arguments in favour, and those who oppose it all agree on the arguments against. Those who are in favour should not bother themselves with the arguments against, and vice-versa. At this stage of the game, it's unlikely that any off-the-wall arguments will be put forward. Making them concise is the major thing. I'm working on something myself now. Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

But this ISN'T intended to be a battleground—there are HUNDREDS of pages of actual argument going back some years, and no way to capture that for the voters now. In my view, there are no "facts" to state that aren't contentious to someone. Are you working on the something in your own sandbox? Please do not make changes to the draft poll until we have consensus. -- Evertype·✆ 13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to believe that the opposite of "neutral" is "aggressive"; it's not. The supporters and opponents of each option support and oppose it for good and valid reasons, which can be stated as fact without joining battle. A neutral person can present arguments for and against, or an involved person like you or me can present arguments in a neutral (i.e. balanced) way, but an individual argument cannot be neutral. Otherwise it's not an argument. I am working on something. I will decide later how to present it. I will not spoil your draft, don't worry. You asked other people not to flame you. Please don't you flame me for entering into dialogue with you. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not flaming you. I sure wish people weren't all playing their cards so close to their chest though. ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 13:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

@Scolaire: "At this stage of the game, it's unlikely that any off-the-wall arguments will be put forward." You'd be surprised. Check the most recent additions to the Position argument summaries sections above and then check the original text of the insertions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bastun, if you haven't the cojones to say something to someone's face (or the e-equivalent), it's probably better if you say nothing at all. If you found my argument a little off-the-wall, you could have let me know rather than inserting snide remarks into discussions that I might never see. Although I fail to see what was off-the-wall about the argument I put forward. --HighKing (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure it was somebody else's argument that Bastun was referring to. Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Except Bastun used the plural - recent additions, and he also editted the argument I added on, hence the comment of check the original text of the insertions. --HighKing (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see now. Looks like it was the "so what" he was referring to. I personally wouldn't be inclined to include that in a balanced summary of arguments. Scolaire (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, mo liathróidí are just fine, thanks. My objection to the original phraseology on your contribution was both the "So what", but also that the 'against' argument seemed disingenuous - it implied British imposition of the term RoI on Ireland - when the reality is that it was coined by us ourselves. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still out of order on your part to call my contribution off-the-wall if it was merely the phrasing, or if you disagreed with the argument. And you're not my English teacher, so you don't get to critize that aspect. And BTW, there's nothing implied about the British imposition. If the 1949 Ireland Act had named this country "Southern Ireland", then we'd be having this discussion about the COMMONNAME being Southern Ireland. The 1948 description is a red herring, attempting to provide legitimacy to the British imposition as you call it. --HighKing (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oddly I can't find the section you are talking about, though I did see some recent additions that were, well, off-the-wall. What I'm hearing (at least, so far) is that the two people who have offered an opinion have said that in general "the arguments are fair" and "Looks OK". Scoláire prefers a more argumentative presentation. But ... so far... I see that what's there is something that people could live with. Believe me I'd rather start the new poll than wrangle on about this text. Or we can take all arguments RIGHT OUT of the ballot and put them somewhere else where they don't have to be careful or sane. ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 13:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't prefer a more "argumentative" presentation. I simply prefer to leave out "some people believe", and address the actual options - the text itself is just fine! Please give me time to show you what I am talking about. You might actually like it! Scolaire (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is what Bastun is referring to. And yes, I guess I should have said, "we should be able to keep any off-the-wall arguments out of the final draft." :-) Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I see this point as more "on-the-ball" than "off-the-wall". Sarah777 (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

See the draft poll, where I have changed "Some people believe" to "It can be argued" which is (at least) better. -- Evertype·✆ 13:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be no arguments on the poll page. This debate is only going to become a farce. For example, in the 'pro' argument for ROI, someone could justifiably simply add, '(Some people believe/An argument is/Fact:) ROI is an acceptable COMMON NAME of the state if Ireland cannot be used', but then that will just trigger the addition of an opposing con argument probably citing NPOV, or WP:DAB. Then there will be the inevitable call for sources, and accusations of bad faith. This is the same, whether they are statements of fact, or statements of arguments. Where does it end? Pretty soon, the pro-and con list will simply resemble this godforsaken page, but just in very tiny tiny writing. End it now, and save the time. Maybe use that time to collate a list of Further Reading links to all the previous pages, where all the arguments have been rehashed a million times. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC) We also have knocking about some statments pages, which are eseentially pro and con lists, without the endless bickering attached. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Are the general summaries which I gave offensive to you, or untrue? I think that most of them are unproblematic. -- Evertype·✆ 13:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

MusicInTheHouse proposed to change

It can be argued that this term is condescending and disrespectful of (for instance) the Constitution of Ireland. It can be demonstrated that the intent of the Republic of Ireland Act was specifically to give a description, not a name. to
It can be argued that as well as not being an official nor the most common name, some people believe that the term ignores the Constitution of Ireland where Ireland is declared as the only name of the State. It is also maintained that the Republic of Ireland Act specifically gives a description and is not meant to be a name.

It's verbose. It contains stuff I wouldn't like to see, like "the term ignores" (terms are not agents); it begs the question of "most common name" which was mentioned above. -- Evertype·✆ 13:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting the slight feeling you feel you own that page. How about "ignores" is changed to "does not comply with"? Even though that probably breaks your rule of being too verbose. The current wording of its "condescending and disrespectful " is waffle.MITH 13:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am, yes, exercising responsibility for that page because the formatting is not trivial and this is not the place for a free-for-all. You can boldly edit an article about the plot of The Lord of the Rings; this is a poll near the end of an excruciatingly difficult negotiation process where such boldness isn't actually going to help us. Please let me continue. Thanks! -- Evertype·✆ 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well in that case I am now completely against this being included in the poll and will strive to make sure it is not included. One person who is not a moderator controlling the page and putting down everyone else's edits is farcical.

Please assume good faith. This is not farcical. We are attempting to achieve a successful and sensitive poll. Discussion and editing of the individual items should happen here, not by "bold edits" as you have done. Perhaps I should bring them here. But there's no call for blanket-condemning this process, or me within it, as you have done. I do not have to be a moderator to exercise editorship over a page that we are developing collectively. Nor do you have to withhold respect for my efforts simply because I am NOT a moderator. We have just had a successful poll. Now we need to move on, without needless dispute, toward the final one. -- Evertype·✆ 14:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of the arguments. They are more problematic than they are helpful and some of them are ridiculous (like the "condescending" one). Mooretwin (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, originally I had put emotive words like "condescending and disrespectful" in because I felt that this was the root of the argument against Republic of Ireland. My version is more concise in that "being official" is encapsulated in the Constutution. An article title isn't subject to "compliance" with an article in a constitution, though. Declared as the only name of the State is false, because TWO names are specified there (langage-specific or not). The changes you made to the second sentence don't seem to improve it or alter it much, though it raises questions as to what was "meant". -- Evertype·✆ 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin, the condescension text has been changed. -- Evertype·✆ 14:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have now put up my draft at User:Scolaire/Poll on Ireland article names (draft)‎. The text is the same as Evertype's for the most part, with a couple of little additions of my own, but (a) the arguments are presented as statements of fact, with the removal of "It can be argued that"; and (b) it is divided into "political entity" and "island" arguments, with a minimum of duplication. I am now painting concentric circles on my chest and am available for people to take pot-shots at. Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a ballot over what colour the concentric circles should be? Skinsmoke (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Green, white, gold, red, white, and blue, of course. -- Evertype·✆ 14:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed Scoláire's contribution and find that, with the exception of the "condescension" clause taken from my original list, his formulations are improvements on mine. I have further redacted these (formatting mostly), and have replaced the previous text at the Poll_on_Ireland_article_names_(Draft). Maith an fear! -- Evertype·✆

Good man, you too, Evertype! Who says consensus can't be achieved by discussion? ;-) Scolaire (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Pints all round! Seriously though, at this stage I don't see what will keep the poll from going out quite soon. We've heard no strong insistence on more than F going out (quite the opposite); we've heard no serious quibble with the text of the Pros/Cons ("this statement is wrong because....")—and you will remember last night I was vociferously opposing any Pro/Con text in the ballot at all. Yet now, I am quite comfortable with what is there. What time zone is Masem in? -- Evertype·✆ 15:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that a link to the Position argument summaries (or perhaps create a cleaner page) should be included on the ballot so that editors that wish to read further or get a deeper understanding may do so. --HighKing (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of those are of pretty poor quality. I'm not really interested in trying to edit them (though a cleaner page would be indicated. If we linked to them… we'd surely need a disclaimer. Do you really think they add to the matter? -- Evertype·✆ 15:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they (or something like them that attempts to encapsulate all aspects of the argument, good or bad, off-the-wall, tongue-in-cheek, humorous or humorless) should be made available to voters - otherwise all they'll see is the summaries (if that's agreed to put on the poll page) and the summaries don't even come close to capturing what, for some editors, might be the primary motive for requesting a change. For example, I believe that RoI shouldn't be used as it is the correct name under UK legislation and therefore is common in British media, etc, but isn't internationally correct and using it here somehow gives RoI added status and weight as a name, leading to confusion. Even using it as a disambig is a problem to be honest. Equally, other editors will have their own arguments that might seem small to some people, but be important to others. So yeah, how can we make it easy for voters to access the full list of arguments? --HighKing (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, have a look at this statement in my sandbox and see if it comes close to what you are saying here. Scolaire (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire. It comes closer. Do you think it OOT to mention that (related to this) it is commonly used in British media and that this helps to explain the amount of material that uses the the term? --HighKing (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, "it is commonly used in British media" (or "it is the correct name under UK legislation") is a statement in favour of the term. If I was an outsider, I would consider it very unconvincing as an argument against. That's my 2½d anyway. Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have taken that text and added (not replaced) it to the relevant section in the draft. -- Evertype·✆ 17:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, HighKing, I would say that there is no way for voters to access the full list of arguments, because there has never been a full list drawn up. The arguments have been recycled countless hundreds of times over several years, and some of the better ones have got lost among the repitition of the sillier ones. The list that you are pointing to is no less selective than the list we are trying to draft - it is very far from encapsulating all aspects of the argument. My problem with that list is that most of the so-called "summaries" are not summaries in any sense, but an endorsement of one of the sides. I would be bold and remove them, but I know somebody else would quickly revert. So, I favoured it when there was no alternative, but now there is an alternative, so why not work on it? Scolaire (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Everytpe and Scolaire, please do not declare that there is consensus on the wording of the pros and cons, when some of us just an hour ago were under the seemingly wrong impression that we were still discussing whether there was a consensus to even have them at all. I for one haven't even particularly looked at them yet. Am I on a clock here? Should I start simply adding my ideas for what are the basic For/Against arguments now or what?. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take time now to read them. Please read them all through, then read each one individually. Remember that they are not there to fight battles; most of the Wikipedia community will not be drawn into nor understand the deep-seated feelings that many people in this project have about them. It's impossible to convey that. All that can be done is to summarize the basic issue. No, you do not need to "add" your ideas for what are the basic arguments. What will help us is if you can review what is there and indicate if each of them (individually) is appropriate and neiher false nor misleading. There could be dozens of additional arguments; it's not the task to pad the list with dozens more arguments. -- Evertype·✆ 15:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mick, I didn't mean to "declare" that there was a community consensus for the wording, only that Evertype and I were able to resolve our differences by discussion. Note the smiley! We should all continue to discuss until we have a consensus on whether to have arguments, and how to phrase them. Please feel free to edit my sandbox‎ if you want to add or edit arguments. Scolaire (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And sorry for mis-spelling your name in my edit summary. Purely a typo. Scolaire (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

From a quick read of that Sandbox, there are a couple I would like to change - e.g., I'd like something more "all-Ireland"y in place of the Lough Neagh argument... is that best done there or here? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Here please. And please explain why you want to make the change. Personally I think that Lough Neagh is a key argument (at least for some) but a second example might be added. Do you mean something like "Gaelic games are played throughout Ireland"? -- Evertype·✆ 17:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You can edit my sandbox‎, rather than the Wikiproject one, and link to it here. As far as I'm concerned, the more editing the better. Scolaire (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the discussion in plain text here. -- Evertype·✆ 17:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We can do both, I guess. Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I edited the draft in the Wikipedia namespace before seeing that you also had one, Scolaire. The changes I made there were:

a minor update to how the balloting template works
to place an note in the arguments summary area that "Ireland (country)" had been discounted in favour of "Ireland (state)" in a preliminary round of voting
to specify - for the sake of all our heads - that the method to be used will be instant-runoff voting (to avoid any confusing later)

I also had a question regarding the "12 month block" - Masem has this been signed off by ArbCom (also: has ArbCom yet given the blessing to the concept of a vote yet?)?

Scolaire, can you summaries for me that the difference between your version and Evertypes version are? Everytype's version was fine by me - I expect yours will be too. (Here is the diff of my edit.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

My sandbox‎ is only for playing with arguments. I have edited it to make that a bit more apparent. Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

@Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid: I reverted some changes you made. Mostly cosmetic -- but the last poll and its instructions succeeded quite well, so there's no reason to change the cosmetics. -- Evertype·✆ 23:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Morning. More specifically I put back the asterisk. I think it's no bad thing to avoid an actual count of votes during the ballot. What I did was to globally convert * in to # as I was closing the poll. In any case, I think that 50 editors did a great job last time selecting from the asterisk to the second curly bracket, and in fact if the template magically inserts anything what we'll end up with is multiple asterisks or *# — so please can you revert that one? -- Evertype·✆ 08:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Argument_summaries and moved the material above into it and put in an explanatory header. This will be linked from the ballot. -- Evertype·✆ 08:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Per my comments in several places above, I am totally opposed to the "summary of the two summaries", none of which are enlightening and most of which are biased towards one or other argument. Can we not please delete them, since that will no longer affect this page. Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this isn't clear. I really don't know what you're trying to say here. I created that page with content from this page. What is it you want? -- Evertype·✆ 12:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I see now what you meant (since you went ahead and did it). Good edit. Well done. -- Evertype·✆ 14:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like it, but that still doesn't mean someone else won't revert. Also, note that there are still comments in there on the lines of "this argument needs to be rephrased". Somebody would need to do the rephrasing before polling day. Scolaire (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now updated My sandbox‎ to include arguments for and against the remaining two options - the "China" option and the "Britannica" option.(diff) Like all the other arguments, they are only one person's idea and can be modified or completely rewritten. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The second of the two is OK. The first of the two... I think the rationales need work for them to work. -- Evertype·✆ 12:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland (state)

In favour: "Ireland (state)" works as a disambiguation term because its use is formal and precise; from the 1937 Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". See also Sovereign state.
Against: The word state could confuse some readers, because U.S. and Australia use the term for administrative divisions.

Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the political entity article should be named "Ireland (state)", one against ("This is why the political entity article should not' be named "Ireland (state)"). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆ 15:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing "wrong" with either statement. I have a vague feeling that a better "against" argument could be made - but I can't think of one :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the argument which has been put forward. We just reported it. -- Evertype·✆ 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

State very 'poorly' done by at Wikipedia, interesting how the term may be changing with the passing of years. Tfz 00:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I would like to suggest that we have consensus on the text for Ireland (state) and close this item. -- Evertype·✆ 08:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I do have an objection. See the following section. Scolaire (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking... -- Evertype·✆ 09:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of dab terms in parentheses are an ugly solution that should be reserved for instances where there is no other option. Fmph (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland (island)

In favour: "Ireland (island) works as a disambiguation term where either "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" is used as the title of the article on the political entity.
Against: The term is not unambiguous. See Ireland Island, Bermuda and New Ireland (island).

Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the island article should be named "Ireland (island)", one against ("This is why the island article should not' be named "Ireland (island)"). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆ 08:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree with Bastun. There is no strong argument in favour of either term. "x works as a disambiguation term" is at best a week argument and at worst a shrugging acceptance. I suggest we change the wording of both by inserting:

In favour: The article title needs a disambiguator because "Ireland" is ambiguous.

I would further edit this statement by replacing the current text with:

"Ireland (island)" works as a disambiguation term because it is neutral and factual.

See my sandbox (sorry, I didn't do it in a separate edit so I can't show a diff). Scolaire (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Evertype·✆ 09:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of dab terms in parentheses are an ugly solution that should be reserved for instances where there is no other option.Fmph (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

In favour: "Republic of Ireland" is a valid alternative name for the state, per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.".
Against: The intent of the Republic of Ireland Act was specifically to give a description, not a name; the only name of the political entity is specified in the Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". While "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949, that Act does not apply anywhere else in the world.

Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the political entity article should be named "Republic of Ireland", one against ("This is why the political entity article should not be named "Republic of Ireland")). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆ 13:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that MusicInTheHouse objected the the third part of the Against argument here. As far as I know, this IS one of the arguments against. It's not a question of whether you or I or anyone likes or dislikes the argument. It's a question of it being an argument. HighKing pointed out that this argument was missing. -- Evertype·✆ 12:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

While Scolaire pointed out its not an argument against, as have I. That does not mean it has consensus for inclusion. You are not the moderator to decide what goes in! If there is clear consensus then fine, but there is not for this.MITH 12:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Quit complaining about whether I am a moderator or not, please. Moderators don't decide anything either. I am managing the editing of that page as a (thankless?) service to this process. I added the text in because it made sense, because Scoláire authored it, and because HighKing thought that it went some way towards meeting his requirement. The thing you are citing Scoláire as saying has to do with an additional comment HighKing proposed, which would be to talk about how the UK media uses the term Republic of Ireland. Scoláire and I both think that's OTT. However, I think we both think that the clause here about the UK's Ireland Act 1949 is a reasonable addition to this part. If you disagree, please explain why. -- Evertype·✆ 13:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we would all be willing to manage actions taking place here, the fact that you have jumped ahead and taken control is not a thankless service. You are misintrepating Scolaire's text. "To my mind, "it is commonly used in British media" (or "it is the correct name under UK legislation") is a statement in favour of the term." It's pretty clear he agrees with me that it's an argument for. I agree that it's not an argument against. I don't mind it being included somewhere, but it is not an argument against. And besides the GFA has nulled the Act somewhat as an argument in any way shape or form.MITH 13:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, MITH, it is you who are misinterpreting me. I said that "it is commonly used in British media" is a statement in favour of the term. I did not say it was a good argument. I'm not bothered whether it's used as a 'pro' or not, I just think it would be daft to include it as a 'con'. "While it is the official name...", on the other hand, is fine by me as a 'con'. Scolaire (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing it here. Somebody has to manage the draft page. I'm trying to do a good job. Anyway I see your point. Would the following not be better, then?

In favour: "Republic of Ireland" is a valid alternative name for the state, per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.". Also, "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949.
Against: The intent of the Republic of Ireland Act was specifically to give a description, not a name; the only name of the political entity is specified in the Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Although "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949, that Act does not apply anywhere else in the world.

I think that balances it, right? The "although" and the underlined refutation should address your concern. -- Evertype·✆ 13:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are to mention it you'll have to mention the Good Friday Agreement too. You can't pick and choose!MITH 13:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, can't you simply make a case for what you think should go there? You've not made a case. In fact, you inserted this Good Friday Agreement stuff in the wrong section of the Draft Poll. That's disruptive and unhelpful. This isn't about your "rights" to edit anything you want on the Wikipedia. We're trying to solve a real problem here. -- Evertype·✆ 14:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And where's the case for all the text you inserted? Oh wait you just put in what you wanted according to what you thought was best. I do the same and I'm disruptive? Please.MITH 14:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take a breath and be calm. -- Evertype·✆ 14:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

HighKing and Scoláire discussed the fact that one of the arguments for RoI being used was UK legislation from 1949. That's true. Scoláire wrote a draft. It seemed OK, I put it in. You just deleted it without saying why. Now we've had a discussion and I understood your comment, and I made edits, proposed above. That dealt with your concern. Now, you want to make the explanations MORE encyclopaedic by adding "something" about the Good Friday Agreement. You haven't said what or why. You tried to dump some text in the Draft, but it was in the wrong place and it was also POV, and not neutral. I'm not your enemy for not wanting you to do that. Please stop making this into a fight. -- Evertype·✆ 14:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You put it in. I reverted it. You should have accepted that and waited until the discussion was over before putting in new text. Instead you felt to revert and edit first and discuss later.MITH 14:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the text it without discussion. Without offering an actual rationale there or here. Then you began an edit war. You haven't been content to discuss the matter here; you've continued to make disruptive edits to the Draft Poll, and as far as I can tell you're doing your best to ensure that the Draft Poll doesn't get put together in a careful or neutral fashion. I don't believe that is in the spirit of this collaborative project. -- Evertype·✆ 14:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You inserted the text without proper discussion. It is the same thing. The fact that you won't stop reverting is not in the spirit of this project either.MITH 14:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

See below, O wise and careful editor. I make a formal proposal for text. -- Evertype·✆ 14:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, I see your suggestion above about mentioning the UK media, and while I most definitely understand your point of view (given the ongoing fiasco of the Irish media's use of euro and cent as plurals) I sort of do think it's a bit OTT—this one is already getting long. I know it's emotive, but I think the reference to the 1949 Act covers subsequent media. What do you think? -- Evertype·✆ 12:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer "Republic of Ireland" is a valid name for the article on the state, per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.". We are deciding on article names, after all, not names of entities. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've tried to keep that kind of edit throughout the draft. (There's been some disruption there recently as you may gather.) -- Evertype·✆ 14:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus wept. I propose the following text:

In favour: "Republic of Ireland" is a valid alternative name for the state, per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.". Also, "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949.
Against: The intent of the Republic of Ireland Act was specifically to give a description, not a name; the only name of the political entity is specified in the Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Although "Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949, that Act does not apply anywhere else in the world.

Please discuss. -- Evertype·✆ 14:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am against the proposed text. Stating that it is the correct name under UK legislation is a statement in favour of the term" and therefore should not be included in the against section. Stating the Ireland Act 1949 as a reason for is also futile to the overall argument as the Good Friday Agreement, a more recent political development acts in contrast to it, accepting the name of the state as Ireland. Besides this, no reason has been identified to as why British use of terms can be seen as a positive or a negative, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, would suggest that the points made a particular Act are not necessarily desirable as main points.MITH 15:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) It is a fact, that RoI is given in the UK Act cited. So, "in favour" of the argument that the article should be at Republic of Ireland one of the arguments given is that it's in the UK Act so it's kosher. You might not like the argument. I might not. But that's the argument. (2) The counter-argument which responds to that argument is the "so what?" argument -- it says "ALTHOUGH the UK has this Act, that Act does not apply anywhere else". So that is a refutation, which is part of the "against" argument. Why is that sentence there? It is there in response to HighKing's concern. I don't beiieve that your WP:UNDUEWEIGHT applies here. Therefore your deletions from the text should be reverted. -- Evertype·✆ 15:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's deemed unnecessary and adding complications, I am happy to withdraw the point. I seem to be the only one that attachs any weight or significance to it in any case...not sure why that is either... --HighKing (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Moot, as this text won't be on the ballot itself now. -- Evertype·✆ 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland (as a name for the political entity)

In favour: The primary meaning of the word "Ireland" is the sovereign entity, per the 1937 Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland".
Against: Either the primary meaning of the word "Ireland" is the island as a whole, for example, as shown in the statement "Lough Neagh is in Ireland" (The lake is in Northern Ireland); or the word "Ireland" is ambiguous and can refer to more than one entity with none of them having verifiable primacy.

Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the political entity article should be named "Ireland", one against ("This is why the political entity article should not be named "Ireland"). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆ 13:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland (as a name for the island)

In favour: The primary meaning of the word "Ireland" is the island as a whole, for example, as shown in the statement "Lough Neagh is in Ireland" (The lake is in Northern Ireland.)
Against: Either the primary meaning of the word "Ireland" is the sovereign entity, per the 1937 Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". or the word "Ireland" is ambiguous and can refer to more than one entity with none of them having verifiable primacy.

Here are two arguments. One for ("This is why the island article should be named "Ireland", one against ("This is why the island article should not be named "Ireland"). Is there anything wrong with either statement? Not whether you agree; whether the statements are accurate evaluations of the arguments. If not, then please clearly indicate what is wrong, and offer text that could improve them. -- Evertype·✆ 13:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)