Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Position argument summaries

For summaries of the various arguments pertaining to particular names, see the archives. Any further discussion should take place here, rather than there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


As I see it, two mechanisms have been proposed for allowing links to statements of pros and cons (or pros only). Both have drawbacks IMO:

  1. A link from each of the options to a single 250-word essay. Problem: who should write each of the essays won't be agreed before 2010; Sarah777 will never agree to Scolaire and [username deleted] will never agree to anyone.
  2. Each and every user is allowed to add a link to a place of their choice to their vote. Problem: in principle the majority of voters will be uncommitted so the links will be scattered; everybody in this collaboration will not vote en bloc at the beginning of the poll, so many users will be voting before all the arguments have been linked to.

My suggestion: allow as many users as want to to link to a statement before the poll opens. The links can either be submitted in a designated section on the talk page, and moved onto the ballot by the moderator, or be added to a sub-page of the ballot which is linked to from the ballot and protected at the same moment the poll opens. All submissions would be in one of three forms:

I would suggest that the following rules should apply

  1. Every link is included, without any kind of vetting, unless either it is completely off-topic (like my examples above) or it contains a personal attack on another editor or editors.
  2. All participants undertake not to interfere with the text linked to e.g. by adding comments. Editors have an absolute right to revert any edits to the text linked to.
  3. Only one link per editor.
  4. Links such as Names of the Irish state and Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote can only be added here. The editor linking to them may not also add a link to a personal statement.

Workable? Scolaire (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Links are totally inadequate. The disinterested voters we are going to attract from across En:Wiki must be given upfront information that RoI is the problem. The fact that people supporting the status quo here keep playing what they think are winning cards every time they get a reference to use of "the Republic" illustrates their real or feigned ignorance of the core issue. So I'll point out that:

and any other variants are totally different in concept and affect from calling the article "RoI". These versions make it clear that "Ireland" is the name of the state. That is one reason why I became worried when Masem and others apparently thought that dropping Ireland (Republic of) in the (xxx) vote was sensible because it is basically the same as RoI. It absolutely is not. Ireland (the Republic) is used in conversation for dab purposes by people who would never call this country the Republic of Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And while Sarah777 would never agree to Scolaire writing the "official" summary, Sarah777 is prepared, in the interests of the project, to write the summary herself:) Sarah777 (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Reading the talk above I see that some defenders of RoI are now claiming that the fact that Ireland is the actual name of the country is something ("everyone knows"). But this fact was only generally conceded on Wiki after a titanic battle in Ireland talk-pages; when I first came here the defenders of RoI frequently claimed that RoI was a/the name of the state. It took a year to sort that one out. Now we have (above) an RoI supporter saying "Ireland is the name of the state, it is the recognised international name, it is the widely used common name." But in the light of this new admission he then says - So What?" Sarah777 (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the suggestion above by Scolaire although i dont think there should be a restriction of 1 link per editor, people should be able to provide links to several of the options. I also think we must allow negative links, to talk of the problems of each article.
Sarah, nobody here is questioning the fact that the name of the sovereign state is IRELAND. The problem is there is also an island called Ireland, there for its ambiguous. Those that support Republic of Ireland being the title of the article on the state do so because they see it as a common name of the state and there for a good compromise allowing the island of Ireland to be at Ireland. The Island has far more right to be at Ireland than the 70 year old state called Ireland. This has been addressed above, many countries dont have their official name as their article title. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I find myself in agreement with Sarah. If I came to this vote as an uninvolved user without detailed knowledge of the issues, I think my first questions would be: what is the current situation and what's wrong with it? So I think people will expect to find discussion of the term "Republic of Ireland", and specifically what's wrong with it. And to me that seems like something that would be best written by an editor who is passionately anti-RoI. Sarah has a very good writing style: perhaps she would be willing to draft a couple of sentences on the subject? I have to confess, I suspect part of the problem is a cultural issue. I'm English, and despite having read many, many comments on the subject, I find it hard to fully appreciate why RoI is so problematic; I dare say a number of other English / British people are in a similar boat; a similar bias may exist elsewhere in the English-speaking world. But that doesn't mean we can't appreciate that there is a problem, even if we can't easily empathise with it. I would be very supportive of some text explaining this. —ras52 (talk)
It's true, BritishWatcher, that some editors "see it as a common name of the state" and think it's OK for the article title. But there is fundamental opposition to this from some other editors. There has been since the beginning. So, one has to ask all those editors who "see it as a common name of the state"—why is it that you (they) can't take on board the discomfort that those other editors feel? Is it just "screw you lot, you're just big babies"? I don't understand the psychology. You (lot) should want something other than the status quo simply because you know it's a way toward some kind of peace. Isn't that what Ireland (state) is about? I'll agree with you that Republic of Ireland has legitimacy—it's used out there in the real world by real people on both islands and elsewhere. But it is irreparably controversial whether you (lot) think it is "neutral" or "acceptable" or not. I'm not making a personal attack on you, or on anybody who favours the status quo. I'm trying to get you to see that there's another side. That other side (Sarah's an example) feels very strongly that the status quo is offensive. Rightly or wrongly. Their view isn't going to change. And honestly, because of that, there aren't very many ways one could write arguments for why the status quo is superior to any of the other proposal suggested. Republic of Ireland is just not a "good" compromise. It's not really a compromise at all—and if it were, it could only be categorized as a "bad" one. So why pretend that it's neutral? Why pretend that it's not the reason, the source, the cause, for this entire Project? But that's what I see you arguing. -- Evertype·✆ 09:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with the introduction explaining all the problems with the Republic of Ireland option and i accept there is justifiable concerns against using it. However i do not support an introduction which is biased against one option, that is simply not fair. If the bad points about ROI are mentioned, the justification for keeping it at ROI must be clearly presented as well. It also must do the same for the other options if needed and in one case i certainly think its needed.
I am not someone who thinks it should be Republic of Ireland and nothing else, to be honest as long as Republic of Ireland redirects to where ever the state goes i am ok with that. The whole reason ive taken an interest in this is because i strongly oppose the option of the country at Ireland, i find that totally unacceptable and as long as the outcome here does not result in that happening and typing in Republic of Ireland still takes me to the article on the state (directly or as a redirect) i am happy. On several occasions i have said i support ditching the two problematic options of the state at ROI/Ireland so we can have a sensible debate on a compromise be it Ireland (state) or one of the other solutions but that has not been supported. So since we go into the vote with both "bad" options we cant only talk down one, it has to be fair and address the core problems people have with other options too or none at all as the 3rd wording attempt does which is much more reasonable. We just need those pro/con statements for each option and it would be a good vote allowing people to be informed about everything and that "name (see..)" giving everyone a chance to make their own points for people to read.
The sort of structure of a single statement to cover everything i would of liked to see is..
# Basic explanation of what the vote is on (location of Ireland related articles)
# Explain how we got here - Years of disputes/ Arbcom ruling, collaboration process etc.
# Explain the current setup (where the articles are now AND how long they have been there)
# Explain why that setup is justified (starting with.. "Supporters of this say..."
# Explain why its unacceptable to some (not name of state, some find it offensive etc)
# Explain each of the other options separately stating clearly the main pros and main cons
# Remind people about the implications of this vote (no change for 2 years i think it was)
That in my opinion would be a fair opening statement which covers everything and could be presented in a clear way. Now that text would be quite long, which is why i support the idea of Pros/cons separate from the main intro but displayed clearly for each option (not just someones (click me) after their own vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

@Sarah777, "Now we have (above) an RoI supporter saying 'Ireland is the name of the state, it is the recognised international name, it is the widely used common name.' But in the light of this new admission he then says - So What?" Please don't presume you know how I am going to vote simply because I am not going to push misinformation and nonsense in order to have my way. "Ireland" has been the name of the state since 1937. This is not new information, but please answer my question: So what? We have two articles to organise on this encyclopedia, both on topics named "Irealand". Simply knowing that both are properly called Ireland is of no aid to us in organising them. "Ireland is the name of the state." "Ireland is the name of the state." "Ireland is the name of the state." "Ireland is the name of the state." You can repeat this fact all you like. We all know it. But simply knowing it is of no use to us. It does not inform us on how to organise the two topics, both named "Ireland". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

@Rannpháirtí anaithnid; you are attacking a straw man there! So I won't raise the temperature by responding in kind. Sarah777 (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

@ras52, "And to me that seems like something that would be best written by an editor who is passionately anti-RoI." Normally that might seem logical, but the purpose of the into should be to inform the voters, not mislead them with nonsense. There is no much nonsense being floated around about "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. that it has a UK-bias, that it was a source of contention between the UK and Ireland, that it is offensive, that the UK has agreed not to use it, etc.) that I cannot see the outcome being anything but a POV-fest of drivel (undoubtedly backed up by the synthesis of hundreds of irrelevant citations - complete with ISBN numbers!). I would love to be proven wrong but there is nothing on this page - or from what I have read elsewhere from these editors - that would suggest to me that that is likely to be the case. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there are a number of options indicates clearly that there are both Pro's and Con's attached to each option. Letting the reader know what these Pro's and Con's are is common sense in making an informed decision. To suggest that we only have Pro statements can not be considered as a serious consideration, however this suggestion was made. I would only hope that having agreed to statements on both Pro's and Con's we would have in the intrest of informed opinion relied on supporting references to remove the POV, but this does not seem likely. Statements in my opinion should focus on our policies and how they support or got counter to them, but that is just me. --Domer48'fenian' 13:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So, when is the Final Poll gonna begin? GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be rushin' yourself G'Day. You do like a good row though! From Jimbo's talkpage to the Deserts of Sicily, wherever there is discord there is G'Day pouring balm on troubled editors.....Sarah777 (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Preparing for poll

There seems to be two issues on the table (there are likely others but they are not as objectionable)

  1. Including linked-in POV statements. The above section outlines this, and I believe this is the best solution to making sure non-involved editors can seek out commentary on this without wading through this page. I will be happy to vet these and add them (making sure they're not loaded personal insults) to the ballot, and encourage the idea of three possible types: a general position statement, pros and cons. There need not be one of each for each option, but if you feel strongly one way or another about an option, this is your time to state it. Please note that these should be not be comparative ("This option is better than option X because...") but only highlight pros/cons/general facts about that option. (If you do make these, I'd recommend subpages for each one seperately and I will also be happy to protect them when the poll starts).
  2. The ROI issue. I'm stumped here: I've tried to include a neutral statement, but every version there seems to be more that needs to be added to keep it fairly balanced, expanding it out too far and pushing away from what the core issue is, how we dissect the information on the island and country into different articles. If I take any direct mention of ROI out, people complain that it's not being mentioned. I believe that it needs mention in a general statement, but with the user-space statements above, I think that all that needs to be said is that the phrase can be taken both positively and negatively - without digressing into the history of the term - and voters should be encouraged to read the user essays to make a judgement. This is the only way I think this can go forward without spending hours arguing on the language in the poll itself. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with having RoI mentioned as a descriptive of the country called Ireland, helping to clarify the country from the island. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, so long as it's also stated that as choices for a dab term, why pick the one that the British used for decades because they wouldn't use the correct and internationally recognized and legal name, and why not simply pick another? Etc, etc, ad nauseum. There's no way of putting a neutral statement in that even looks like it is giving weight to either the status quo, or a change. I believe it should get a minimal mention, as per Masem, and damn the rest. Have a little faith in the community to decide and form a consensus. --HighKing (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The one the Irish government chose that the British government used lol BritishWatcher (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
(With respect to BW, no offense meant of taken) You see? This point alone (which I use merely as an example) is a good indicator of one small point of disagreement. As I said, best leave the intro simple and leave the discussion points to statements. --HighKing (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll go along with anything, that'll get this Poll started. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I support the two points made by Masem above. The #3 attempt summary works well if we have pros/cons for the options provided in other places which are put under protection during the poll. The only thing that needs to be added to the summary is a basic explanation of the current setup that the country is at ROI, island at Ireland (without trying to say its a good or bad thing) but pointing out people are divided on this matter and urge people to read the statements provided for the different options before voting also pointing out this poll will result in the articles staying at the chosen locations for 2 years.

One little thing i think needs changing from the summary is the bit where it talks about the six options below. It says "the six most likely options"... "most likely" should be removed as the options have already been decided. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Do I have this right:

1. I'm not sure what is meant by "linked in POV" statements - where would these fit in? Would there be a POV neutral intro text - one that doesn't go into any of the argument, just explains the predicament - followed by a list POV statements by individual members of WP:IECOLL (maybe endorsed or otherwise by other members). If so could we be given a week or so to prepare our statments, and get approval for their inclusion from you - but no endorsements until the vote happens, maybe. I would not put any restrictions (except civility, etc.) on these POV statements since this is a complex problem and atomising it is not possible IMHO. I would suggest that we use something like "Summary attempt #3" as the text for the ballot, and the links to individual member's POV statements appear below in under a header such as "Member statements". (For practicality too can restrict these to members and to be given to you before a deadline for the poll.)
2. If so, the can we scrap mention of ROI, etc. and leave all of that to our individual POV statements? A great problem I have is, for example, with the statement you made above that, "I think that all that needs to be said is that the phrase can be taken both positively and negatively." By who? There is no secondary source that says that the term can be taken either "positively" or "negatively", merely individual editors here (and I have *never* came across such a position in "real life"). I think the ROI issue is so bogged down in POV that it should just be left to individual POV statements.

I have also posted message on your talk page, Masem. I have made an update to the ballot template that would allow a single uniform link to a personal rationale. The additional parameter ("link") is optional, but I think it was received as a compromise to the "comments in the balloting area/genuine rationale being lost it the shit-fest" problem. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, can people please comment or otherwise on the method to be used to calculate the result of the vote. Again, I know this isn't a sexy issue but it is *very* important that we agree on it in advance. Thank you to everyone who as commented/!voted already. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You basically have it. No text of support/oppose statements on the actual ballot but linked as needed, and yes, I would only review the statement for incivil remarks. The only thing that I would change is to explain The phrase "Republic of Ireland", the current location of information pertaining the country, is strongly backed by some editors and strongly contested by others; voters are encouraged to review the provided rationales from involved editors to understand the history and current status of the conflict over use of that term. Nothing else - no Acts, no history lesson, as you've pointed out before, this is how the info on the island and country are filtered into articles, and finding the best fit for that, but it is necessary to flag ROI as the monkey wrench in the works. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "Republic of Ireland", which is the current title of the article on the state, (or sovereign state if people prefer; or even political entity), because (a) a term cannot be a location, and an article is more than just information pertaining to something; and (b) country is ambiguous as already mentioned. Scolaire (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
At least we know, the country article & the island article, can't both be named 'Ireland'. Wikipedia doesn't allow articles being named exactly the same. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
But if we say that the island is the country, and the state is just a state? You don't have to be a diehard republican to believe that. Scolaire (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Jumpers, the country just had to name itself after the island. Obviously, nobody was concerned about Wikipedia in the 1920's. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Masem, how about something like "The article on the island is currently at Ireland and the article on the country called Ireland is at Republic of Ireland" Rather than just saying the location of the state, i think we focus too much on the country and forget about the island. Agree with the rest of it although i think we should also point out this has always been the setup of the articles on wikipedia from 2002/2003 despite edit wars as far as i know (unless it moved for awhile at some stage), the article at Ireland started out talking about the island. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
"...voters are encouraged to review the provided rationales..." I like very much - and back Scoláire suggestion re: changing "country" to "state".
If we do go with this, and I know there has only been limited feedback on it as yet ... but if we do ... can we get a hard deadline for go-live? One, it will help focus minds on writing our own POV statements. Two, it will aid in the writing of them to know how long we have. Three, it will guard against the shock that "it's really happening", which can be a de-stabilising factor. In Ireland too, we have a so-called "day of reflection" ahead of a an election. Knowing when the vote is going to happen, I think, will help us to privately consider our positions ahead of the vote - which would be a good thing. I, personally, think 5 days to a week.
Also, did you give any consideration to changing the go-live time. Last time it was a 00:00 UTC, which is 01:00 IST/BST, a bad time for most people here. I think 20:00 UST UTC (21:00 IST/BST) would be better. Also, maybe midweek would be good? Rather than the weekend? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I will be very happy to offer a fresh eye to final edits if we have a hard deadline. The go-live-time for the (xxx) poll was sometime between 18:00 and 20:00 IST/BST; I would think that a start time between 20:00 and 21:00 UTC would be fine for this one. A day of reflection is a doubleplus good idea. -- Evertype·✆ 22:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I corrected a wee typo error below. --HighKing (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary attempt #4

Here is a revamped text to lead in the poll. Based on the above, it alerts the reader that there's an issue with the current scheme due to ROI, but invites them to read essays further.

As for above, given that everyone seems open to providing input, let me suggest this:

  • All essays to be complete by 00:00 UTC, July 18 (that is, up to next Saturday).
  • I will incorporate them into the ballot (And if people want protection, I can do that).
  • Barring any difficulties, let the poll go live around 00:00 UTC, July 20 but give or take a few hours - however, once we're sure the poll is live, we'll start the 21 day clock from the nearest "go live" time that has yet to pass (so effectively, 21 days+ some hours). --MASEM (t) 23:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the summary is good enough now presenting as much of a balanced view as is possible here. Could i suggest we create a list below where people can just sign their names if they are intending to write a statement (pro or con) for which option? That way we will be able to see clearly if any option isnt going to have a statement, or if several are writing one for the same option. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep being so pedantic about language, but "There is discrepancy in the use of phrase 'Republic of Ireland' to describe the state" doesn't actually make sense to me. "There is disagreement over the use of phrase 'Republic of Ireland' to describe the state" is surely what is meant? Also, "the state article is located at...the island article is located at...", and "some editors believing it to be inappropriate and others believing it to be appropriate". Scolaire (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem you suggest three possible types of statements. Could you possibly narrow this down to an agreed format? Is it to be an (a) general position statement, that is POV statements i.e. general soap boxing or (b) statements which address both the Pro’s and Con’s using sources, references and policies to guide, inform and facilitate conversant decisions by non-involved editors? Option (b) would “highlight pros/cons/general facts about that option” as you suggest, while (a) would simply perpetuate the type of discussion which has been the hallmark of this process and be basically useless.--Domer48'fenian' 08:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I like again - and again back Scoláire suggestion. I think there's great merit to Domer48's suggestion too. However I don't think that putting a fixed format onthe POV statements is the right way to make sure that they are more than just soap boxing. Soapboxing and unreal hysteria is just as likely in a pro/con statements format as it would be in a an essay format.
Maybe a "terms of reference" for the POV statement would be good idea? i.e. the statements must refer to sources, references and policies (and most not contain incivility, bad faith, personal attacks, etc.) like Domer48 says. They may address some things, may not address other things, and must address other things again. But the format for how they do this should be left up to the author.
I'd still be concerned about synthesis of sources that has been a trademark of some editors referenced contributions though. Will we get a chance to endorse/comment on the POV statements after the vote begins? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I would be against any "terms of reference" for POV statements. Per my original proposal, "Every link is included, without any kind of vetting." POV statements by definition are statements of opinion, not statements of fact. They needn't and shouldn't adhere to WP:V etc. The idea of the statements is to educate the uninitiated (and unwary) voter as to the arguments, that is, what people have been saying the last six months / six years. Plus I agree with Rannpháirtí: synthesis in sourced statements is a far bigger hazard than unverifiable claims in unsourced ones. Scolaire (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I envision all three types of POV essay links: generic for an option, pros and cons, editors have to be explicit which they are writing for. Now, I do like the idea of allowing for "in support of" responses so maybe as they are put up and in the few days before the poll goes live, editors can add their support for specific statements (maybe even allow these to be added as the poll goes on, let me think about this.) Now, with that "support of" comment, these can be truly POV statements (they need not be based on sources), but I would expect those that are backed by sources to have more stronger support from others. They will still be vetted for incivility and pointless POV statements. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem, on your latest “Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration Project” I welcome the removal of the ridiculous Belfast / Cork analogy and the nonsense about the UK’s use and abuse of the term Republic of Ireland being utterly irrelevant. However, the removal of the alternative options to polling has not been addressed. While no editor asked for it to be removed, its removal remains unexplained? I agree also with the point made above i.e. there is no discrepancy about the RoI being a descriptive term, it is a descriptive term. It’s the use and abuse of this descriptive term as the name for the Irish State which is the issue, and is reflected in the current article content on the RoI article. It’s the inability of editors to agree were the current article text should go which is the crux of the problem. I’m disappointed again to have to point out that Standard naming conventions have not been applied to the problem of Ireland being the internationally recognised name for the State, and the use of Ireland in a purely geographical sense. This is very disingenuous, and that I have once again to comment on it is becoming a bit of a concern. This issue could quite easily be resolved by doing one of two things, pointing editors to the discussion were editors attempted to apply Standard naming conventions to the issue, or removing the comments from the summary. That the subject of how the article “Ireland” should be named led to long debates and edit wars is a fact, it is wrong to imply that the long debates and edit wars were on the application of the naming conventions. I just have one other concern on the proposed text and it is this “As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter.” This gives the impression that after reasoned and rational discussion there was a stalemate in achieving consensus. This is not true. It is because there was no attempt by some editors to engage in reasoned, rational and fact/policy based discussion that it was decided to have a poll. Masem, you yourself have said on a number of occasions that you simply felt there was no alternative to polling. On a personal note, I think Wikipedia Editors will agree that when dealing with POV warriors achieving consensus is never possible, that’s why we have policies and guidelines. --Domer48'fenian' 10:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There was attempts by editors before and after the ArbCom case to reach a solution through consensus and it is clear that there's a gap that people are not going to cross (that's the reason for the ArbCom case). There's a point where you need to count the losses and recognize that we could have forced everyone to forget about the poll and say "no one is leaving the talk page until we come up with some consensus-driven solution", but that would effectively be futile; it may have happened but after a long drawn out process that might have caused members to be driven from the project or WP itself. Instead, it was recognized that most would seem that a poll was the better way to come to a conclusion, and that's a perfectly acceptable alternative situation for resolution as long as it wasn't the first thing tried without any attempt of discussion. I point to the entire Statement process here as a sign of an attempt to work out consensus first. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose; this is way worse than Version 1 and hardly any better than the original; it even still includes the phrase "26 county state". I'd suggest:

Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop using the phrase "26 counties" as shorthand for the State; it is a sovereign country, it is the only "Ireland" that is a sovereign country and as there is no ambiguity about that, so will everyone please stop and desist from referring to it by any other shorthand in this summary? Thank you all. Sarah777 (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Like Sarah, I'm puzzled by the specific reference to ROI alternating between necessary and undesirable. I think we have to come down on one side or the other. Scolaire (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with Sarah on the other matter: "26 counties" is not being used here as shorthand for the State, it is the way the country happens to be divided. If the British had decided to partition off 17% of the country south of Malin Head, the two states would look very different indeed. Scolaire (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
It's clear from how people have responses that some see absolutely no problem with ROI and infact see it is as the "right" solution to simplify the naming scheme, just as there are those that refuse to live with the ROI term. If it was the case that ROI was seen negatively and that everyone else recognized other possible names for the country article (that is, no one saw ROI as the only right solution), then this process would have been a lot simpler, as "ROI" would have been off the table completely. The reverse is even more true if no one saw "ROI" as a negative, instead. It is thus necessary to identify the statement has been taken both ways to make voters aware of the complexities of the naming scheme. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
First, identifying that ROI is a British POV is both adding the only piece of bias to the statement plus it also doesn't reflect that there are some that just don't argee about using it as a name because its only a description, not the real name. As I've mentioned above, the issue is so complex that we just need to hilight it is there and avoid descending any further letting our POV statements do that job. Further, while we don't use "26 county state" in normal text, it has been the status quo here to make sure we're talking about the state of Ireland and nothing else. As some have pointed out, those that are that are very pro-Ireland that likely would presume that for them the "sovereign country" is still the whole of the Ireland regardless of what politics may say; heck there may be editors that are not aware of the existence of Northern Ireland as a separate country from Ireland. "26 county state" is an aukward, but explicitly neutral term, to describe the country and completely appropriate for this poll. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately Masem, referring to the state as the "26 county state" isn't really as neutral as you might think. It avoids referring to the state as a country, or a state, or any stand-alone entity. Instead you are essentially describing one entity, the state, as a subset of the island. For the opening statement, it might be better to introduce new terminology - for example, "Ireland the island" and "Ireland the sovereign entity". --HighKing (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Endorse this solution, and I volunteer to submit the piece in favour of the status quo. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, are the POV statements per solution or per editor? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Per editor, hopefully. I see a couple of people volunteering to be "the one" but where would that leave everybody else who has something to say? Scolaire (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
To be clear it was Masem's version I endorsed, not Sarah's. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with this version, but I do think that the Masem's earlier version was better written e.g. the part, "with an Ireland disambiguation page" doesn't make since as a written phrase (I assume what is meant is that "there is also an Ireland (disambiguation) page"). Also phrases like "British pov" is poorly written as it uses "wiki slang" (uncapitialised also) - there is nothing wrong a British POV (viz. point of view), I assume what is meant is a "British bias". Like Masem, I also don't think that that is the only reason to disagree with the status quo - it could, for example, also be said that "Ireland (state)" is simply better as per WP:NAME. Also "sovereign country" is a relatively unusual turn-of-phrase compared "sovereign state", or, better still, simply "state". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a rushed job in response to "Version #3"; so the syntax etc I'm not defending. As for sovereign country, I would be happy enough with sovereign state, but not with 26 counties. I thought British pov was less "biased" than the term "British bias" and if there are other reasons apart from that we should maybe mention them too. Sarah777 (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I have raised a number of concerns and in fairness some of them have obviously been considered and acted upon, see my comments here. However, as can also been seen some have not been addressed at all. This is supposed to be a summary of the collaboration process yet one whole side of the discussion has been omitted, namely those who opposed the poll and all mention of the alternatives which were offered. In the original summary one of the alternatives was alluded to, and others omitted. I drew attention to the omission, and not one editor objected to the inclusion to reference being made to the alternative being mentioned. Despite no disagreement on it, this section was removed and I’d like to see it replaced with mention of the alternative suggestions mentioned. As can also be seen with the diff above, I raised the issue of the Standard naming conventions being mentioned in the summary. I invited Masem to show were the application of the naming conventions had been attempted by editors to address the issue and where it had failed. As can been seen from the second response the issue was not addressed at all. I hope editors will agree that if we are going to identify only one of our policies i.e. the naming conventions and tell readers that we did try this but it failed we should be at least willing to show were the attempt was made and let the readers judge for themselves as to the level and quality of the discussion. This is getting put before the community, were telling them we could not find a policy based solution. Were telling them we failed. Were telling them the application of our policies failed, that Wikipedia failed. How many content disputes has the project failed to address? All it takes is one good Wikipedia content editor who knows our policy to ask were was this policy or that policy tried. To ask to be shown how it failed and where? When this gets put before the community I for one will not be found with egg on my face, because it will not be me who is being asked.--Domer48'fenian' 20:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Referring to 'Ireland' in articles

The intro text says the following: "Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the 26-county state named 'Ireland' will be referred to in the text of other articles."

Are we not basically agreed on this already? Otherwise don't we want to do things in this order: have the vote, calculate the result, make the page move, discuss in-article names? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No we must do it in the order planned. Have the vote, calculate results, decide the remaining problems THEN make the page moves. If the articles are moved there will be attempts by some to start making changes in text across wikipedia that refer to Ireland. The page moves should only take place after everything is sorted, otherwise some may choose to delay sorting the remaining problems by many months. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
There will be no chance of changing the poll results after the poll is completed, but before the pages are moved, we want to make sure that if there's any bot action or automation scripts involved to reflect names of other articles or the like or article text, make sure its all identified as one solution. Again, once the poll is closed, that result will not be changed due to followup discussion, but simply deferring the move to make sure all changes related to this results and followup discussion are announced and performed as closely as possible. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Another major reason why I am/was anti-poll. This whole area is a mine field, any "stupid rule" that passes will be highly abused, no doubt! Tfz 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Well we have to make sure the "Stupid rules" are very very clear and detailed so that cant happen. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. If there's method to it then that's fine. Waiting just didn't sense to me. That's cool so. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Very difficult to legislate for usage of terms and names, it's much easier to proscribe something though. Tfz 00:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Writing essays?

Because a question can get lost in the middle of a ton of other stuff I've moved this down here:
We seem to have begun talking in terms of writing of essays. I understood from way back that "linking" meant linking to anything we like as long as it's relevant e.g. "Summary of pros and cons submitted by Scolaire." I for one, if I decide to link at all, will be linking to something I have already written or collaborated in. Scolaire (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I too think it should be anything we want so long as it is relevant. Maybe, however, we should keep them all in one place such as on specific sub-pages of this project (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Statements/Rannpháirtí anaithnid) or in our own user space (e.g User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/Ireland-vote-statement). I would prefer the first, though with the understanding that individual members "own" the content of the statement (the associate talk page and endorsements section would be covered by the usual Wiki etiquette).
I'd also favour a semi-structured template that could be auto-generated (there a button that does this, if I can find it). Something like this?
I would have thought though that they would appear in a uniform way on the "info" statement e.g.:
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I dont think we should do it like that. We need statements for and against the options people care about, we shouldnt use the persons name on the voting page, just links "Statement for option 1" "Statement against option 1" next to the actual explanation of the options on the ballot paper. The short "statements" are going to be the main arguments for and against, people are also still going to be able to do that (my rationale) when they vote for others to see. Well atleast thats what i thought was going to happen. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
BritishWatcher, we are talking about two different options here: the one you are referring to is the "statement by a designated editor beside each option" and a (my rationale) with each vote. The drawbacks of this option are (a) we will not succeed in "designating" an editor for each of the options this side of Christmas; and (b) there is a real danger that uncommitted voters will come along after all the Island-of-Saints-and-Scholars partisans have added their (my rationale) and before the Land-of-the-Little-People partisans have added theirs. The option Rannpháirtí and I are talking about involves some or most or all of us committed people adding a link to an argument infavour of X or against Y or whatever in advance of the poll, so that the uncommitted voter has the option of reading all the arguments, or some of them or none as they choose, before voting. Scolaire (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Rannpháirtí, I continue to think that we should all be allowed to link where we want. Putting them all in one place will in some cases require third-party intervention and then all the accusations of fiddling and censoring and owning will start again. Besides, as I said above, I want to be able to just type a link, not type an essay or create a user sub-page. I also suggested, and Masem seems to prefer, that the links should state explicitly what they are i.e. general statements, statements in favour of an option or statements against an option. Scolaire (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
But they would have that with the pros and cons arguments people are going to write which would be linked to on the ballot paper. Most people here will not write the essays, i dont think its going to be too hard for us to reach agreement on whos statements are best to go with which argument (aslong as we do not go down the path of people picking bits saying add this remove this) should just let everyone who wants to write a statement for an option write it, then at the end of the week we pick and if we cant reach agreement where several have written an argument for one option we display them all or just get Masem to pick which is the most reasonable.
Then once the vote starts people can add their own (Rationale) link when they sign which can be as POV as they want. The pro/cons statements are going to be the main thing people use and are able to see from the start of voting, not peoples (my rationale) links. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You are the eternal optimist, aren't you? ;-) Anyway it is yet to be decided which way we are going to go. Scolaire (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And a question: if (my rationale) is not going to be used by voters then why have it at all? Remember, this is an actual ballot, not a standard WP poll where arguments are more important than numbers. Numbers are everything this time around. Scolaire (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Lol i have faith in everyone here (i must be mad). Some will take a look at (my rationale) i just do not think most people will go to that much effort before voting. Im concerned not enough will take a look at the actual essays for/against options which will have prime place on the ballot paper, but certainly more would read those than the (my rationales). BritishWatcher (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Please realize that I was suggesting, to avoid asking "who" would write essays, instead allowing anyone that wanted to to do so, and indiciting where they want that link to occur. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
As we are anticipating so many "disinterested" and perhaps "uninformed" editors from the wider En:Wiki the initial box is still crucial, because many editors will not look beyond that. Sarah777 (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The point surely is to provide an editor without experience to understand the issues involved. Multiple statements by individuals will mean a lot of noise. Better still if editors signed up to an option and then worked this week on getting the statements agreed on separate pages - or at a minimum a PRO and ANTI ROI 250 word summary that everyone would read up front? --Snowded TALK 07:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, but it seems pretty clear to me what will happen. First, editor A will be nominated to write the "Pro" summary for option X, and editor B will say, "but I already offered to do that, and I know exactly what needs to be said and A hasn't got the same grasp of the issues." Then, when editor A is finally agreed and produces a 250-word essay, editors C, D and E will say, "you can't say that - it's inaccurate, unencyclopaedic and POV!" The process will halt until that issue - one issue out of twelve! - is addressed, and will never get back on track again. A good example is whether to refer to the Ireland Act 1949: one anti-ROI party says it is essential to do so, while another anti-ROI party says it is unacceptable to do so. So who's going to write the essay and what are they going to say? Where everybody gets to link to a statement, everything that could possibly need to be said will be said. Voters have the choice of reading the actual arguments for and against, rather than one editor's attempt to summarise them. Scolaire (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, will go through the grinder first! I think it should be up to Masem to finally vet them, and totally unfounded statements like "roi is the most common name for the state" should be disallowed. Equally statements like "roi appears to be a slur on the state". All such statements are emotive and are false arguments. Also calling other editors "silly and immature" because the don't support a particular option should be seen as an "ad hominem". Therefore it should be Masem's call what finally goes forward. Tfz 09:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I maintain my opposition to a set of formal arguments to be offered. We tried to make concise NPOV arguments. Nobody likes that. What Scoláire says about this never getting done by Christmas is spot-on. If people want to link to their arguments (whatever or wherever they are) they should be writing those arguments now in advance of the launch of the poll. Then in the ballot area each person who wishes to may link to their arguments. I oppose having arguments on the actual ballot at this stage. Real ballots don't have these, wikilinking should be sufficient. -- Evertype·✆ 10:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's my impression of what everyone seemed to want- Anyone can write any (appropriate, civil, whatever) statement in general, in support, or in opposition to any argument which will be linked to the poll before it opens. There's no assignments or anything, only that I just need to know what essay goes where. I will vet for any incivility and hostile attack, but that's it. They will be linked and encouragment to read them will be given, but nothing else on the poll beyond a brief intro statement. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not everyone. Would you please hold a straw poll to gauge actual consensus? The question is, should the statements be linked to the poll before it starts, or should people be allowed to link to statements from their votes instead? -- Evertype·✆ 17:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
They should be linked in before the poll starts. Votes should not include any discussion though the talk page should be used for further discussion. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Masem! You're not listening! I will try again. I object to having the statements linked from the ballot. I think that this gives them a consensual status they don't have. I think that it would be better to have "ABCDEF Jimmy Wales Datestamp (see my rationale) than to have links to some of them on the ballot paper. You said "Everyone seemed to want" it linked this way. Everyone doesn't, at least I don't. I think it's a bad idea 'and I am asking you not to "guess" about what "seems" but to hold a straw poll about this. I may be in the minority, but I don't believe you've done diligence on this and I don't think it's trivial. -- Evertype·✆ 09:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with some of the points rasied above, and disagree with others by Scolaire. I agree that "the idea of the statements is to educate the uninitiated (and unwary) voter as to the arguments" and that "POV statements by definition are statements of opinion, not statements of fact." I don't think you'd get much disagreement there. However, to say then that statements "needn't and shouldn't adhere to WP:V" or that on statements "every link is included, without any kind of vetting" contradicts the previous comments. To provide a soap box to allow editors to keep saying what they have been "saying the last six months / six years" and will not "educate the uninitiated (and unwary) voter as to the arguments." I also agree that "synthesis in sourced statements is a far bigger hazard than unverifiable claims in unsourced ones" an example of this being when I quoted Masem who said quite clearly that "I would expect those that are backed by sources to have more stronger support from others" can with synthesis be suggested to mean "'I expect it will rain' sense and not in an 'I expect you to have that done by tomorrow' sense." Masem can talk for themselves, and I like to suggest that each statement have a hat note stating that statements which are sourced and referenced should be given more weight and consideration that POV statements. I agree "POV statements by definition are statements of opinion, not statements of fact" and this should be pointed out to the "uninitiated (and unwary) voter as to the arguments." --Domer48'fenian' 08:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how it hurts to say what I thought Masem (the Masem's?) meant when they said that, but for sure I can't see how it can be called synthesis! Anyway, my feeling on this is that the voters, though they might be unaware of the issues, are not sheep. We may "strongly encourage" them to read the statements, but we shouldn't instruct them how to read them. Whether to attach weight to sourced statements, or how much weight to attach to them, is a matter for the voters themselves, all of whom are adults with experience of Wikipedia policies and how they work. Scolaire (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


Confusion -> Clarity

Masem, can we see a mockup of the balloting page with (mock-up) links to the POV statements. I for one am definitely confused about what is being planned. I thought I knew what was going on, other editors also seem to think that they know what is going on, but yet we all seem to be thinking different things.

So, Masem, some idiot-proof clarity please. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I was thinking of, this is option A, I pulled it only as an example:

  • A: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.
Name of page Initial text (the first sentence in the article)
Ireland Ireland is a European island and an independent state of the same name. (The text here was based on the article on Tasmania.)
Ireland (disambiguation) Ireland commonly refers to: ...
  • General essays on this option: None
  • Essays supporting this option: Example1, Example2
  • Essays opposing this option: Example3

Repeat for each option. No one is assigned to write an essay, they write what they feel is what is needed. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And a vote is only a vote? There is no (my rationale here)? That is my understanding but I'd like to see it confirmed. Scolaire (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
No statements attached to votes, but the poll's talk page will be open for further discussion and if people want to link more, they can there. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. Some questions:
  1. Do the "essays" (I think "statements" would be a better word) have to address specifically that option? I mean suppose someone writes in favour of a disambiguation page are Ireland then could that statement be placed in the "essays opposing" section of every other option?
They should be tailored to that option, and no, a statement in favor of an option should not be considered as opposition to other options. Opposition statements should be aligned in that the user believes the option to be completely unacceptable, not juust because they prefer option X instead.
  1. What do you see as being the actual text used instead of "Example1" etc.? Would it be the user's name or could it be text like "Such-and-such is ***TOTALLY POV***!!! If you vote for this then ***WIKIPEDIA HAS FAILED*** and ***YOU*** are ***EVIL***!!!!!"?
Just the user's name. Not a word on the content on the essays nor any assessment of them beyond which side they support.
  1. There are 35 members of this project and there are 7 options on the ballot. If each member writes pro/anti statements for each option that's 245 statements. In reality, there are only 35 actual statements (1 from each member and each one, generally speaking, being "pro" one option and "anti" all others). In such a circumstance, why do you think it would be better to present 245 statements to the voters rather than just 35?
If any user wants to write a statement for each option, fine, that's great. I'm not pushing for "exactly one" for any option, and may expect some options to not have support/oppose statements, and others to have many of those.
  1. If we go with this format then it is likely that some editors will writes essays pro/anti every option. Other editors may only write one statement. What safeguards are their against some editors "spamming" the ballot with their POV to the detriment of less vocal contributors and their POV? We all know that it is quality not quantity, but in reality it's quantity counts.
These are essays, which won't be repeated here but will be visible. The voters will be able to figure out for themselves which is which. But in tied in with the question above, I strongly only encourage essays that the write feels is the absolutely right solution or absolutely a solution they can't live with. They shouldn't do anything for an option they are acceptable to but not their first choice.
  1. I don't plan to write a statement specifically in favour of one option or another, but around the issues involved and the things that I think voters should bear in mind. How anyone then votes, I would prefer to leave up to them rather than soapbox for one option or another. Where would my statement fit in?
We'll have one general "overall" place for comments, and then ones for each option.
  1. Using this format we a mixing the options on the ballot with arguments pro-/anti- them. Do you think that this is the easiest way for voters to navigate user statements? How does it help voters to see the issue in the round and not merely in terms of belligerence and opposition/support?
This is the problem with trying to decide how much to tell people in the poll ballot. If we start down any path that explains it more, we're going to need to get into a lot of explaining. I'm thinking that the options thare are most controversial will likely have the most essays attached to them, so voters will be able to see that some options are trickier than others. I think we need to make this a conscious decision to treat it like a normal political election where you aren't give much beyond instructions before you walk into the polling place but have the ability to research it outside before you do.
  1. I think it would be useful to the voters to see who wrote each option (including things like edit histories, logs, etc). Do you plan to facilitate this? If so, how?
Essays are linked and referred to user's name
  1. Using this approach, it is likely that some options may have few or no statements in favour of them. This may not necessarily mean that those options do not have support, merely that they do not occupy the extremes of the dispute. I suspect that there will be a glut of support in favour of some options and anti- others. Do you think that that is the best way to encourage consensus and compromise? Do you think that it may further seperate people into camps and isolate the middle ground?
I see that happening, but I don't see it as a problem. Again, the fact that a majority of the people involved here - including the extremes - seem willing to abid by the poll's results means to me that it doesn't matter if there's an unbalanced approach to the poll ballot to start with, as it will help indicate to the non-involved voter what are hot issues in the entire thing.
  1. Can voters add their "essays" in favour or support of each option or it is restricted to only the members of this project? If voters can add their "essays" how may do you expect to appear after each options? How many will it take before the number of "essays" become unwieldily?
I'll keep the option open for that, but I suspect that this won't be a problem. If there is a need to add more essays, they will be only in the frist two weeks of polling. I'd see any more than 10 being a problem, but I doubt we'll get that many for any given option/position.
Thnaks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Comments above. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
How is the positions of the essays/rants going to get decided? I'm sure editors will want the one they wrote first followed by others.BigDunc 18:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Two possibilities really: (1) first come, first served; or (2) randomise à la Evertype. Scolaire (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I volunteer to do the randomization. -- Evertype·✆ 20:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Would an alphabetical sort not be the most sensible way since the text will be each users username? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Great idea! So my statement can be as rambling and as pointless as I like and it will still come before BigDunc's, Domer's and Evertype's. Aardvark (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I suspect everyone who reads these will have a back button on their browser. Scoláire, you may rambale all you like. Coming first in the list is no guarantee that anyone will actually read what you write. (Also, see Wikipedia:Signature_forgery#1 and Wikipedia:Point.) Edit: striking because the "WP:POINT" was meant as joke.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
As I say, I volunteer to do the randomization. That way nobody can complain. I have done the two other randomizations, and no one has complained, so it should be fine to do it with these. -- Evertype·✆ 16:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Masem, if you think it is necessary to have statements on individual options then OK, that sounds fine, but for it to work I think it will require a lot of policing on your part. Maybe an option would be to emphasize general statements. A reason to do so would be to make sure that per-option statements are, like you say, to "only encourage essays that the write feels is the absolutely right solution or absolutely a solution they can't live". I've mocked up what the ballot paper would look like using your way above but with a "General statements" section in the "main info" section.
I'm a little concerned now, however, that it is difficult to see all of the options. With all of the additional bits below each one, they straddle three page scrolls. I think it's fine for us because we know what the options are but for someone coming fresh it is quite hard to read and know what all of the options are. I've done a quick suggestion for how to get around this problem (see "Ballot" vs. "Description of each option"), but more thought has to be put into getting around this problem IMHO.
Also, did you see my suggestion for a standaradised format? (I've made some change to it on the back of what you wrote above.) I think a standardised page for each "essay", with elements such as endorsements sections, etc. and links to alternative perspectives, would help the voters navigate around them. The pages could be generated using a form similar to the form on the RFC page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Rannṗáirtí, I know you put some effort into that and so are keen to have it adopted, but I oppose the "hidden" descriptions of the voting options and I oppose the placement of 'any individual editor's name on the ballot. That's improper. It's prejudicial against the views of any member of this project who doesn't want to or have the time or have the spirit to write one of these "mini-essays". I support your standardized format, which (although it practically canvasses for argument) does have the advantage of preventing people from (as has already happened) editing archived pages. Please give up on trying to get editor's names on the ballot itself, though. For me that's a deal-breaker. -- Evertype·✆ 08:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Timetable

From the project page:

  1. 24 June 2009 - Polling opens for subsidiary poll on "Ireland (XXX)". Vote here
  2. 1 July 2009 - Polling closes on subsidiary poll.
  3. 5 July 2009 - Date to be confirmed: Polling opens for main poll on Ireland naming options.
  4. Three weeks later - Polling closes on main poll.

Please can some one update this and have clear dates? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell? Everytime the final Poll is about to be started, somebody has a complaint & the Poll gets put on hold. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I've updated it with unclear dates. Scolaire (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I fixed it so it says 21 days, which is more precise (and what was explicitly agreed). -- Evertype·✆ 17:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary attempt #6 - proposal by Scolaire

  • Note: attempt #5 was proposed by Sarah777, but does not have its own heading.

In the event that it is agreed that the ballot page will contain links to arguments from participants, and that these will be clearly identified with respect to the option being addressed, and whether they are for or against (or whether they are general comments), then I am more and more convinced that the introduction should do no more than address the question being asked, and should say only the absolute minimum - preferably nothing at all - about the options themselves. Rather than continue to tweak the originally proposed introduction, I propose here a completely new one, which I think addresses in particular some of the reservations expressed by Domer48 and Sarah777 e.g. discussing some options at length while not mentioning others at all; saying that the poll was "agreed" or "decided" without saying that some participants were in favour of continuing dialogue instead; use of "26 counties" to refer to Ireland-the-state etc. Here it is:

  • "Ireland" is the commonly used name of two different entities: a political entity and a geographical entity. Ireland, a sovereign, independent state, covers about 83% of the island also called Ireland. Currently on Wikipedia the article on the state is titled Republic of Ireland and the article on the island is titled Ireland, but these titles and issues related to them have been subject to dispute for several years, culminating in an arbitration case in early 2009, and in an as-yet unsuccessful attempt to reach a consensus at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.
This poll is an attempt to resolve the article naming question by means of a ballot between six different options, using the single transferable vote system. In the opinion of the monitor appointed by the Arbitration Committee, all six options are equally valid. They are presented below in no particular or preferential order, as well as links to arguments from Ireland Collaboration participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice.
Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion will take place at the Ireland Collaboration Project to resolve other issues such as how the sovereign state named "Ireland" will be referred to in the text of other articles. In the event that the poll results in one or more page moves, this discussion will take place before renaming the articles.

NB I made one edit to this draft before there was any response. Scolaire (talk) 10:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I made another. Preposition and punctuation and indentation. -- Evertype·✆ 12:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Must have looked different on your browser than on mine. Looks okay now anyway. I don't have any issues with "in an as-yet" either. Scolaire (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your remark that "the introduction should do no more than address the question being asked", but weep at the thought of an entirely new intro text. Apart from the sentence about ROI, would version #4 not suffice?
Anyway, here's my 2¢ on the above:
  • "...a political entity and a geographical entity." The article on the "Ireland"-that-is-not-a-state is about more than just a geographical entity. It deals with the sport, culture, history, people, politics, demography, science, music ... (well, just look at it's table of contents). The Ireland-that-is-not-a-state is quite easily arguably a geopolitical entity also. What not just say "an island and a state" like we had said before? There's no need to use big words for simple things.
  • "...a sovereign, independent state..." Ah heck, at this stage we might as well just quote the constitution and throw "democratic" into the mix ("Article 5: Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.") All this caboodle about "sovereign state", "sovereign country", and now "sovereign, independent state" is overkill. "State" is what was chosen for the "xxx" option, surely "state" should do for the intro text also.
  • "...but these titles and issues related to them have been subject to dispute for several years..." The "but" implies that there is something wrong and thus expresses a bias against the current solution. The long sentence around that remark can be broken in to three smaller ones and the "but" should be removed.
  • "...an as-yet unsuccessful attempt to reach a consensus at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration." If if it's only "as yet" then why are we having a vote? "As yet" implies that if we stick at it we will reach consensus. We are only having a vote because we are agreed that we never will.
Anyway, that's my 2¢ but overall I oppose this version in favour of version #4 above (but per Scoláire reasoning, I would suggest that the sentence about ROI be removed from that version). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to answer you point by point but there are two things I think need to be said. First, "...but these titles...have been subject to dispute" is a neutral statement of why we are here. There are titles but not everybody likes them. To suggest in any way that the titles are fine would introduce bias. Second, at least one participant, Domer, continues to believe that we can achieve consensus through dialogue, so it's not correct to say that we are "only having a vote because we are agreed that we never will." Scolaire (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
RE: "...but these titles...have been subject to dispute" You say that "{to] suggest in any way that the [status quo is] fine would introduce bias." What you do is to suggest that the status quo is not fine. That "but" implies that there is a problem with the current solution that needs to be changed. I don't need to remind you that in the countless polls held at Talk:Republic of Ireland over the past seven years, the status quo was favoured by the majority? (That is not to say that I favour the status quo or any other solution.)
RE: "...as yet..." Domer48 opposes the vote, as he/she is entitled to do. That doesn't merit an "as yet". If it is genuinely merely "as yet" that we have not reached a consensus then I, and I think everyone else, would agree with Domer48 and not want a vote. Consensus is far more preferable. However, even as the moderator (and presumably ArbCom too) have said, consensus is not possible. It is not merely a case of "as yet".
What would you say is wrong with version #4 that require a full rewrite? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Read what I said at the top of this section. I made it quite clear there. Scolaire (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"Rather than continue to tweak the originally proposed introduction..." - this part? You didn't state why it is better to do so, merely that you would do so. That's clear as mud. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the text is a sight better than the previous 5 proposals. It appears we are going full circle with the wording coming round to the exact same text as ArbCom came up with when they outlined what the issue was. Giving editors the option of using the “General statements” as a platform for soap boxing will definitely give readers a sample of the quality of what passed for discussion, but they will not find it very informative. On the statements however Masem says they “expect those that are backed by sources to have more stronger support from others” and I’d hope that is the case. A note to that effect on the top of the statements could not possibly hurt and should not meet with any objections from editors? --Domer48'fenian' 21:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Masem meant that in an "I expect it will rain" sense and not in an "I expect you to have that done by tomorrow" sense. IOW it's common sense to expect voters to be more influenced by sourced statements. Scolaire (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse best effort yet though still begs the question, what is wrong with the current title? Te reader will be directed to the pros and cons of this I assume? 86.47.158.18 (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Version #7 - Rannpháirtí anaithnid

OK, I've decided to get in on this act. I don't think that a total rewrite of the into text is the right way to go as it puts us back at square one when the concerns raised about it are relatively trivial. "My version" is based on #4 but with some changes.

An "innovation" I've introduced is the section "Statements by individual members of the project". This section would link to "main" statements by individual editors. Specific pro/anti statements would also appear along side each option on the ballot. But allowing for general statements first (which may conclude being pro/anti an individual option) would, I think, be an easier introduction for the voters. Please also see my suggestion for a layout to these statements pages.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose That list is going to have the potential of growing a bit long. Also what happens if some active members don't want to write statements? Make a new page from which all those statements can be linked, if the (better) idea of just allowing people to link next to their votes is rejected. -- Evertype·✆ 08:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
That's possible but I really don't like the idea of statements simply for or against options. I don't think it will help voters see the whole picture. As it stands there are a whole load of stuff underneath each option. The seven options stretch on for three full page scrolls. It's nearly impossible at this stage for a person that is not already familiar with the options to simply know what is on the ballot. If they have to drill into these to read a pro "essay" here and an anti "essay" there, they are not going to read very many. And they are not likely to consider the ballot as a whole, merely this option vs. that option and ignore anything else in between (if they can even read them).
The alternative I'm presenting is that we can have a list of statements (as well as the pro/anti "essays") that summarise a member's position. After reading a handful of these (and seeing which one are endorsed, etc.), a voter would have the breadth of the discussion. I think it would be a whole lot easier than picking out atomised pro/anti "essays" (and less adversarial).
I don't see any issue if a editor doesn't want to write a statement. They just don't write a statement. No big deal. Maybe they don't want to. Maybe everything they might have wanted to say was said already by another statement (which they can just endorse, if they wish). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I object to ANY individual editor's (nick)name appearing on the actual ballot paper. A link to a page full of statements is one thing. Personalizing the ballot with individual names is quite another. I can accept an editor linking to his or her statement from his or her vote -- as has been said many times -- or I can accept a sentence "A number of the Projects' editors have made position statements available [[Main Page|here]"], but what you proposed is, to me, quite unacceptable. Sorry. -- Evertype·✆ 13:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


Simply stating "oppose" isn't helpful. It won't get us any to consensus any quicker to leave other editors guessing as to what you like/don't like about any option. This should be a collaboration, not a riddle or a game of 20 questions. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Rannpháirtí, you are becoming tedious! I oppose this version because it bangs on too much about the options, same as versions 1-5. I said as much when I proposed version 6. I only said "oppose" on the misguided assumption that you wanted to know if your new tweak of the old tweak had support or not. Please stop taking everything so personally! The poll will take place on the terms that suit most people. Getting emotional isn't going to convert anybody to your way of thinking. Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Not getting "emotional", but I do want to know what you mean. To my eyes it doesn't "bang on" about the options. In fact it doesn't mention any one of the options at all. Maybe I've missed something, but I'd like to know what? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Since you ask me nicely...
My rationale is, and I quote, that "the introduction should do no more than address the question being asked". Versions 1 to 5, and 7 to 8, have a lot of words in them that don't directly address that question, don't especially clarify anything IMO, and really just hurt my eyes, viz.
  • The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings (this is not even English. Does it mean "The name can have a number of meanings"? Why not just say so? More to the point, why say it at all?)
  • (Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining portion of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.)
  • Other naming conflicts that involve countries do not provide consistent advice for resolution of this issue (compare, for example, Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China).
  • The six most likely options (most likely to what? And why should likeliness be a criterion?)
Additionally:
  • the state is not located at "Republic of Ireland", nor the island at "Ireland". Both of these are web pages. The state and the island are both located at the edge of the continental shelf, on the Atlantic Ocean, west of the island of Great Britain. I live there, and I've seen it with my own eyes.
  • The validity of both uses of the name has not led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues; disagreement about the appropriate use of the name has.
  • It has not been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. That would presumeably involve sending the said results to some sort of analyst to see if he or she could find some underlying trend or meaning in them. It was decided to hold a poll to decide the matter.
  • The six ("most likely") options are not based on solutions used for other country names; they are the stated preferences of the people who have been debating this for the last seven years, since before some of those other naming disputes even arose.
  • Further discussion will take place before renaming only if there is renaming to be done. All the versions except mine prejudice the poll by assuming that option F will fail.
  • The whole thing is not a summary of [the] result of [the] Ireland Collaboration Project; it is a preamble to a ballot. The project has not had a result - certainly not one that could be summarised in this way.
In short, I think the original was poorly written (no disrespect intended to the author) and thus does not need to be tweaked but re-written. I also think that the proliferation of tweaks is only adding to the confusion - I seriously doubt that anybody besides us is even reading them any more!
Please do not respond to any of my points above. I know you will disagree with me and so does everybody reading this, so no purpose will be served. Let's just leave it lie for the moment. Scolaire (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors of this discussion know full well what the issues are, restating them again is not isn't helpful and suggesting that the issues are not know won't get us any to consensus any quicker. A spa account who's first edit was on this project is still a riddle? --Domer48'fenian' 13:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, give the frakkin' "SPA" thing a rest, Domer. Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's contributions have been mature and sensible. He like a few others (one whom I am proscribed from naming, tsk) has done his best to try to build text which is agreeable to all. He understands the word "collaboration" which is more than I can say for some members of this project. -- Evertype·✆ 13:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Since signing up for an account, I have made 1,531 edits across the length and breadth of Wikipedia. (See here.) Please read Wikipedia:SPA, particularly the section entitled "Identifying SPAs". Thanks. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose:

I hope this is OK. -- Evertype·✆ 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment On a DIFFERENT page. I believe that we should definitely not allow personalities (i.e. known or unknown editor's names) to be on the ballot. I think that's extremely inappropriate. -- Evertype·✆ 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Note that this is now version 8? Could I just point out we're probably not going to get 100% agreement - especially as some are opposed to polling at all. If there is broad consensus, can Masem not just say grand, we go with that one? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that protagonists in this debate no matter how well intentioned should leave it to the moderator to propose wording and guide the process, the last one from Masem was better than this (or the other alternatives)--Snowded TALK 17:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Archive_15&oldid=1137379158"