Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 34

Temporary Move

One thing that might be considered (if it hasn't already in the past) is a temporary move to "Ireland (xxx)" for say, X months. This would enable us to gauge whether it's any improvement over the current situation or not. It would need some sort of assessment process after the X months, which could be tricky to organize and agree on and involve a significant amount of work, but might be worth a spin.

(Another thought, but I hesitate to express this as it might seem facetious, is to have some sort of name-sharing agreement, where for instance the article is named "Republic of Ireland" for six months of the year and "Ireland (xxx)" for the other. Or maybe alternate the months, hmmm...)

Dickdock (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right, it does all sound facetious. Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
A temporary move would make a bigger mess of this discussion than it already is. If there's no consensus to move, don't move. Not even 'temporarily'. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to make a bigger mess. A temporary move would be an interesting experiment, and provide useful feedback. Dickdock (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Dickdock: Although I think your position in this debate is complete bollocks and would rather cut my granny's throat than have the article moved, that might be a plan, as long as the default action is to move the article back. As part of the assessment process, we could monitor the talk page to see whether the move raises issues. Of course if immediate issues arise we move the article back pronto without waiting no stinking X months. If not, a count of the number of times the title is raised as an issue would give us an objective measure of how better or worse the move is compared to the historical situation. We'd still need though a very definite agreement as to how to use this measure once the X months is up. SockOfDickdock (talk) 08:01, 29 October 3011 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion SockOfDickdock, even if I say so myself (and by the way your position is complete double bollocks with knobs on and I too would rather cut your granny's throat than have the article stay). Comparing simple tallies of unique new issue-raisers over the same number of X months would be my choice (in the historical case the X month period ending the Day Before The Move), with a tie meaning the default action. Dickdock (talk) 08:01, 29 October 3011 (UTC)
Fair enough Dickdock. Sounds reasonable. See you in X months. SockOfDickdock (talk) 08:01, 29 October 3011 (UTC)
Chears SockOfDickdock. How is your granny by the way? Dickdock (talk) 08:01, 29 October 3011 (UTC)
Fine, thanks for asking. Didn't do too well in the elections though. SockOfDickdock (talk) 08:01, 29 October 3011 (UTC)
Dickdock (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The verdict is clear, people do not support a page move.. why are people continuing to push for such a change. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as you ask, this person is pushing for a change because the current title is wrong, politically-tainted, and insulting. Dickdock (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
It is "wrong, politically-tainted, and insulting" in the view of a loquacious minority of editors. It is also, in the view of the greater number of editors discussing the matter now and the greater number of editors voting on it in 2009, a reasonable compromise, and a reasonable way of dealing with the problem of how to provide encyclopaedic coverage of both the country known as Ireland and the present-day Irish state. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The 3 articles-in-question (Republic of Ireland, Ireland & Ireland (disambiguation)) will be staying put, for the foreseeable future. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The "Republic of Ireland" title is no compromise. It has been in place and enforced against all comers since nearly the beginning, 2002, and equally argued against repeatedly since then. The essential undercurrent of this farce of a situation is well-illustrated by paraphrasing Orwell: "all titles are equal, but some are more equal than others". You could try telling the truth, or stick with those fairy tale beliefs of a "reasonable compromise", beliefs enforced by arguments straight out of Animal Farm. You could try telling the truth about 2009 and bad votes and bad moderators, about systemic browbeating and dismissal of good hard-working and trusting editors until they simply left out of a sense of personal dignity, rather than take all the snide comments or repetitive pure shit anymore from people still writing that same garbage on this page. Have fun with your blessed "compromise", but don't expect real thinking editors to revert to childhood fantasies along with you. The title should be changed permanently, let alone for six months, and the false POV based arguments for the current title consigned to the same dustbin as those for things like the geocentric universe. Sswonk (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hear, hear. -- Evertype·✆ 19:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
It's a compromise between the various titles available for the different articles, and it's a solution that the 2009 poll showed was the most preferred option of those voting - see Rannpháirtí Anaithnid's analysis. Using the Condorcet system that poll gave the same result. The Condorcet system is a pretty good way of working out what counts as an acceptable option to the greatest number of people voting regardless of whether the particular option got most first preferences or not (as the status quo also did). ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hogwash. Ireland (state) would be a neutral compromise: it is accurate, verifiable, and does not have a history of people arguing over it again and again. Some people find Republic of Ireland to be problematic. Even if you don't, you ought to recognize that people who do, do. And a spirit of compromise might have you give up your favourite term in exchange for good will and peace. I don't really edit Ireland articles much because of all the disgusting bullshit we have to put up with for every fecking article because of this dispute. Neutral terms are Ireland (state), and Ireland (island). The rest is POV wikilawyering, "proving" that Republic of Ireland simply isn't problematic. Any person who refuses to recognize this is simply offering bad faith. And that is why every aspect of the Wikipedia that has to do with Ireland just stinks. -- Evertype·✆ 19:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Don't let little things like truth or facts get in the way of rants, hyperbole, POV, personal attacks and, er, accusations of meanness... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I certainly recognize that some people find "Republic of Ireland" problematic. That is perfectly obvious. I can't really very easily understand why, but I respect their point of view. But the fact that a minority of people find it objectionable is only one of the considerations to be taken into account, and personally, I think that on balance the strong objective arguments in favour of it outweigh that fact as well as the arguments advanced against the title. I don't see why you can't accept me or other people holding that view in good faith just as I accept that you hold your view in good faith. For that matter, I don't think "Ireland (island)" is a neutral term at all, as it implicitly supports a narrow (partitionist, some would say) view that Ireland is simply a geological phenomenon and not a country with a long history and rich culture. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's put our views to the test. Let's do the temporary move and see what happens. Dickdock (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
See above - 24-10 oppose a move. So let's not. (All my socks agree with me, too :P ). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not letting my socks into this, because they have a range of views on the matter which would vitiate my unanimity with myself. The idea is, I must admit, kind of appealing, but I am not sure that it would work, because it seems to be basically designed as an experiment to gauge reaction to the new title, but a great many of those whose reaction might be negative will know that it is an experiment, or may find out, and therefore may not react in the way that they would if the page was genuinely at the other title. In other words, the experiment, while a brilliant concept, seems difficult to design and implement in any way that would give really reliable resulsts. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
There can't be a temporary move. It is not feasible. I might support an experiment to recast the articles as drafts in a few subpages of this project. Deeply consider trying forms that do more to recognize that Ireland, the current article about the thousands of years before 1922, has continuity with the modern state. In reality, Wikipedia is treating the modern state as some sort of experiment, an aberration, a cloak covering most of the 'real Ireland' that will eventually be removed. The undercurrent referred to above, "some titles are more equal than others", has to do with the obvious strong desire of Unionists to maintain the 'Republic of Ireland' title, and the fact that position is usually supported by UK editors who grew up with it being the name of the state promoted by their governments de jure, by their Foreign & Commonwealth Office, printed on maps, and on and on until only a dozen years ago. Since the population ratio is nearly UK 15 to IE 1, the idea that a democratic solution will be totally unbiased, or results from an experimental trial renaming will be easily interpreted, is hard for me to see as possible. These nations were in a condition of diplomatic tension over some of these naming issues for decades. Today, a handful of Irish editors on this page claiming it's a trivial matter and they see nothing wrong with the current title does not legitimize it as the most logical or best title, not in light of how the world outside this page has long since come to use the word Ireland as the common name for the state. Conversely, it won't take having a majority of Irish editors complain about the 'Republic of Ireland' title to finally change it. It will take having Irish and British editors together realize it is not worth the excuse making and appeasing of the Unionists and anti-partionists (both) in denial of reality. The problem is as Michael ("Evertype") has noted: the anarchic character of Wikipedia; the predominance of somewhat belligerent male voices and the inability or disinterest of the oligarchic leadership to recognize the outlier status of this mess when viewed against what titles or labels formal publications outside of here use. This titling gives in to a determined group of Wikipedia editors who have fought against change, it is not at all a compromise. Face facts: modern cartographers and publishers see zero problem labeling the political entities with 'Ireland' and 'United Kingdom'; ambiguity is simply not an issue. At a minimum, Ireland (state) would recognize that reality more accurately. Experiment with subpages as part of an effort toward moving to new titles, permanently, that would be the most mature gesture. Sswonk (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Having the article at "Republic of Ireland" is "treating the modern state as some sort of experiment, an aberration, a cloak covering most of the 'real Ireland' that will eventually be removed", but having the article at "Ireland (state)" wouldn't be doing this? I'm sorry, I don't get it. Your Unionist conspiracy theory doesn't hold water when one checks the votes and sees that Option F was only slightly less popular among Irish editors as among British and/or non-Irish. In fact, DrKiernan already pointed that out, above:
"Analysis of the first 200 first preference votes in the Ireland article names poll showed that the proportion of "British" editors and "Irish" editors voting for "Republic of Ireland" was essentially the same (both about 50%).
Based on the editor's self-identification with a specific country or nationality on their user pages, counting "Northern Irish" as British, and "Irish" as "Irish",
British (55): 29 F, 26 not F
Irish (30): 13 F, 17 not F
Others (identified) (59): 21 F, 38 not F
Not known (56): 22 F, 34 not F
Total (200): 85 F, 115 not F.
Conclusion: 53% of "British" editors vote F, and 43% of "Irish" editors do.
Counting "Northern Irish" as "Irish", except for one editor who identifies as both British and Northern Irish:
British (52): 26 F, 26 not F
Irish (33): 16 F, 17 not F
Others (identified) (59): 21 F, 38 not F
Not known (56): 22 F, 34 not F
Total (200): 85 F, 115 not F."
And of course that's only first-preference votes. Many Irish editors also gave F a lower (not last) preference, indicating they'd no ideological problem with it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Bastun I appreciate the measured response. It's not a conspiracy theory. You are very correct, Ireland (state) does also pose a similar problem of treating the nation as an aberration, but it uses the common, preferred, and official name as the focus of the title. The single word Ireland is the focus. Fifteen of the top twenty language version wikipedias do that, either through direct titling or with brackets (parentheses). The likelihood that voting will choose the best title is low, this is what I am saying. You realize that given the nature of this website, anyone can claim to be anything. There's not a way in hell to satisfy claims of bias in either direction as long as such a high percentage of editors choose anonymity. The fact that the populations are 15:1 UK and there still was a good bit of numerical support for change is still significant. Again, thanks for really responding with those numbers. Sswonk (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I am one of those. I voted first for option A (merging the two), then for F, knowing that A would fail and my vote would transfer to F. It's called tactical voting, and it means I voted for F, not against. I said that at the time, yet people still insist on counting me as an "against". Even just counting my vote fairly would mean that a majority of Irish people self-identifying as Irish voted for ROI. Scolaire (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I also have long understood your stance. I don't count you as against the "status quo" like me, but as more likely to be "for" a new direction. Sswonk (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Eh, no. I am "for" the status quo, pure and simple. If there was a genuinely new direction like, say, a merger, I could be interested. But there's not going to be, and I am against any and all title changes so far proposed. Scolaire (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Modern cartographers also don't have a problem labelling the island 'Ireland' in maps of physical features or in political maps relating to a period before partition. Unfortunately, we are dealing with an encyclopaedia that wants to cover both Ireland as a whole and the contemporary Irish state, and while I personally would be quite happy with a combined article, that was the least popular option in the 2009 poll (eight votes out of 234). Swonk, please don't continue to tire us with lengthy and repetitive disquisitions that ignore this problem and ignore the fact that nobody is claiming that 'Ireland' is not the most correct and common name for the state. I would respectfully suggest that you take a break from this discussion until you are ready to propose a way of getting to grips with the actual problem here. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Great with mustard
"Modern cartographers also don't have a problem labelling the island 'Ireland'". No shit. Diverting again, ComhairleContaeThirnanOg? After joining Wikipedia on July 25, 2011 you have spent close to half your time on this page. You came in early, sounding curious and interested in explanations but in the past weeks have sounded more like the hardest of hard-liners such as BritishWatcher and the banned MickMcNee or worse, simply haughty and dismissive like the sad admin Andrewa. I gotta tell ya, you are the one that is stuck here. I could tell you fifty fucking times that I am for replacing 'Republic of Ireland' with 'Ireland' or 'Ireland (state)'. Either one, with the second choice fully recognizing that there would be an additional article such as the current Ireland title. Fifty times. And you would still tell me I am boring you, and stupid, and dim, and repeat your mantra, "Sswonk doesn't get the big huge problem that there are two things called Ireland." In fact, that is more or less what you've done. You "like" 'Republic of Ireland', can't prove it's the best logical choice, so you try to tell everyone I don't realize that this database server is not capable of handling duplicate article titles in the software. I entered my first Fortran program on punch cards in the 1970s. After the Gold Rush was still a fairly recent album, and even then I knew how computers work, and how to approach the limitations. I've been politely holding off explaining this to you, figuring eventually you would realize how ridiculous your contention that I don't is. Do you act this way in defense of your choice, or because you enjoy pushing? All readers please note: This is exactly the sort of behavior I seriously have little time for, and this is why funneling all readers into this forum, where that sort of behavior has become acceptable, is wrong. It is a meta-creation of the bad arguments that support the title. Even suggesting working on a different solution gets me shoved into your remedial program, ComhairleContaeThirnanOg. If I stop writing, trust me it isn't going to be at the request of someone as disrespectful as you. You can't come up with any more excuses, so you start pushing. No more for the foreseeable time: the problem is editors like you. Ultimately, using the word "encyclopedia" to defend what you and this page are defending gives the word a false meaning. This is a wiki, a glorified blog, and not nearly good enough to be called an "encyclopedia". Sswonk (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
<sigh>I have already said I don't have a big problem with "Ireland (state)" although it is not my preferred choice and I think your arguments in favour of it and against "Republic of Ireland" are not convincing. At least this time you are not trying to use insults, outrage and condescension to persuade people who, although you seem not to have noticed it, already agree with you on one or both points, that the state is indeed called Ireland or that there is a case for combining the two articles. I guess this is progress, though no insults or condescension at all would still be an improvement. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Have I got this right, you think there is a case for combining the island and state articles and putting Dublin in as the capital? Dmcq (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Is that a serious question? Obviously not. We could merge the two articles, so that we would have one article entitled Ireland which covers Ireland in all aspects, and the section about the Republic of Ireland would state that its capital is Dublin, just as the section about Northern Ireland would state that it is part of the United Kingdom and its capital is Belfast. There would presumably still be a "main article" on Northern Ireland, and there could be, but would perhaps not need to be, one on the Republic. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
A main article about Northern Ireland but need not be one about the republic? I really can't see how you can be serious about that. Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Why not, if the article at Ireland includes all the material in the current article at Republic of Ireland as well as all the material in the current article at Ireland? Whereas it would presumably not include all the material in Northern Ireland. But I very much doubt that there will be much support for such an idea, for two reasons - first of all, merging the articles was the least popular option in the previous poll, and secondly, the merged article would obviously have to find some way of distinguishing the Republic from the whole of Ireland in (at least parts of) the text, because it would be talking about them both. In other words, it would solve the title problem for the people who can't stand calling the Republic "the Republic of Ireland" in the title but would potentially create all sorts of problems in the body of the text. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll oppose any attempts to merge the country article with the island article. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
That's the convincer for me. LE's merge the articles and see what happens. Fmph (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has wandered all over the place. There is no longer any discussion of a temporary move, so it's inappropriate to this section anyway. I think we should draw a line under this now. See my proposal at #Closing the whole discussion. --Scolaire (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

To Sswonk: Why is a temporary move not feasible? It could be looked at as a time-dilated version of what happens on Wikipedia every second. Someone makes an edit, many people look at it, and depending on the quality or otherwise, it stays or not. Except in this case there's an auto-revert. My hope is that people will look at this edit, see that it is good (or bad), and then after the auto-revert (assuming it occurs), will argue or agree one way or the other, armed with more (real, not bubble) data and thus more insight. A benign trojan horse with bungee rope attached, as we at the House of Dock like to call it. (Sprinkle naive throughout the foregoing to taste.) Dickdock (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not just Sswonk. Nobody has bought your idea. Sorry and all, but you need to let it go. Scolaire (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bastun seems to enjoy publishing his preferred stats, even though I know he has a copy of the complete stats, and he's commented previously when I've posted the results of the updated stats in the past. So why use old and incomplete stats I wonder? For those suspicious of revisionist memory and selective recall, here's the complete stats using the entire polled population (posted at least 3 times in the past)

  • 60% of British editors voted for Option F
  • 35% of Irish voters voted for Option F - still the highest percentage of any other choice
  • But lower that "Others", where 40% voted for option F

If we run STV on the votes, using combinations of "British" or "Irish" votes:

  • British only - Winner F (1st count :-)
  • Irish only - Winner C (5th count)
  • Exclude Irish Votes only - Winner F (3rd count)
  • Exclude British Votes only - Winner E (5th count)
  • Exclude British and Irish votes - Winner E (5th count)

So bearing in mind that 35% of all the voters were British as compared to 17% Irish, British majority numbers certainly skewed the result when you look at the voting patterns, especially when you compare how 60% of the "British" vote went with Option F, significantly more that "Irish" at 35%, and "All Others" at 40%. Looking at these updated stats, now is a good time to reread the case being made by Bastun above and the subsequent comments. --HighKing (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We're certain of one thing. To date, there's still no consensus to 'move' any of the articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
That analysis does not agree with User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/Poll on Ireland article names/Subsets/Irish editors. 137.205.183.44 (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure. And I bet if you were to take a sample of the first 50 votes, that analysis wouldn't agree either. Or the last 50 votes. Or every second vote. Or votes from editors with less than 8 letters in their handle, etc, etc. --HighKing (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, please stop using this section to get up on your soapbox and re-hash old arguments. If you must do that, at least be honest and open a new section at the bottom of the page. And I'm talking to all of you here, not any one person. Scolaire (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not the one who keeps rehashing incorrect stats over and over to make a point which then fails with the correct stats. Bloody annoying as hell. Maybe Scolaire you should've made that point to Bastun earlier when he posted (again) the incorrect stats? --HighKing (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
They're not my stats - I don't have a copy of any (bar access to RA's subpages). The ones I posted above are a repost of the ones posted earlier on this page by User:DrKiernan, which I took on good faith. Are your base stats available, so I can have a look? And are the percentages you posted here based on all preferences or just first preferences. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I previously made the full stats available to you on 13th Sept 2009. At the time we had a good conversation (and agreed) that all stats are inherently untrustworthy since Wikipedia has no real user verification process. Which is why I'm surprised when they continue to pop up (and no offense, but it always seems to be you). The RA subpage stats you prefer are incomplete, and was based on the initial rush of voters. It's skewed. If you can't find the stats, send me a mail. For the record, I've always resisted putting the stats up here, but I'm now thinking that if RA is happy to leave his incomplete sampling available, perhaps I should make the same available using the complete stats... --HighKing (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
You did indeed, but I can't locate the email. If you wouldn't mind sending them on again? The only vote-related emai I still seem to have is where an admin sent Sarah777's voter analysis to me and mine to her, but that was on 20/8/09. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Got your mail, thanks - will reply over the weekend. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ireland is, Ireland was.

Not a relevant topic, see WP:TALK

There is no problem. 124.169.204.158 (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not making any sense, IP. This section should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The statement "Ireland is, Ireland was." is correct. Is it accepted by all? 124.169.204.158 (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't add anything to the discussion. It's merely a statement & a waste of talkpage space. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that Ireland is and Ireland was. But what follows if we agree? Scolaire (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the statement "Ireland is, Ireland was." acceptable as correct? If so there is a basis for moving forward. 124.169.204.158 (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
You're still not making any sense. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It is acceptable as correct. What is the basis for moving forward? How do we move forward if we accept it as correct. Please make an intelligeable comment or else give up. Scolaire (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

One can move forward if one has an initial basis for agreement. If there is disagreement at the level of "Ireland is, Ireland was" further discussion is difficult. (Does GoodDay agree or not with the statement "Ireland is, Ireland was."?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.204.158 (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with the statement. I just wanna know what it has to do with the Ireland Collaboration Project. This whole section you've started & your posts are not making any sense. You're just wasting our time here, now. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you Mr GoodDay agree with the statement "Ireland is, Ireland was"? If so we have three people in agreement. May we move forward and see if we have others in agreement with this potential start point? 124.169.204.158 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely the nub of the situation is, "Ireland was, Irelands are". --RA (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. "Ireland was, Irelands are". Please clarify the statement? 124.169.209.148 (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please indicate where the "Irelands" exist? 58.7.154.150 (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is relevant, as the discussion encompasses whether or not there are multiple Irelands. 58.7.154.150 (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's Irrelevant & merely taking up talkpage space. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This entire discussion seems rather pointless… ~ Benzband (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Minimal changes.

The minimal changes to make are:

C.1 Delete redirect page "Ireland (xxx)" if it exists.

C.2 Move page "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (xxx)"

C.3 Create "Republic of Ireland" redirect page -> "Ireland (xxx)"

C.4 Edit the 35 redirect pages that point to "Republic of Ireland" to point to "Ireland (xxx)". (WhatLinksHere/Republic_of_Ireland&hidelinks=1)

That's it. Nothing else need change: pages, linking, piping, templates, categories, behaviour, points of view, nowt. The following are offered as (further) discussion points.

D.1 The "Ireland (disambiguation)" page remains the same.

A case can be made for this exception at WP:DABREDIR: "Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section". Add as a policy on WP:IMOS as well.

D.2 There is an embargo on changing existing "Republic of Ireland" links to "Ireland (xxx)".

A case can be made for this at WP:NOTBROKEN. Also add as a policy on WP:IMOS.

D.3 There is an embargo on using "Ireland (xxx)" in new contexts.

To avoid any fixating of the changes. Add as a policy on WP:IMOS.

D.4 The changes will be reviewed in X months.

D.5 The review will be limited to Y weeks.

A review I think is necessary, given the history.

D.6 The default action after the review if no consensus arises is to undo the changes.

The weakest link perhaps, but again I think given the history probably necessary.

So there you go. Nothing else changes. People go about their biz as normal, using and linking to "Republic of Ireland" or whatever else is appropriate as if nothing has happened. And we all come back for a bun fight in X months time. Thank you (Madame?) Chairman. Over to the floor. Dickdock (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Edited to incorporate Dmcq's point below. Dickdock (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Pages can't be Wikipedia:Double redirects. The consensus against change was more like WP:SNOW. Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)#]
Well that's very interesting. Most of the latest cases of fixed double redirects on Wikipedia are to Ireland related articles. I'll be generous and say the project has been busy making inaccessible pages accessible again! Dmcq (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, didn't think of that. Thanks for pointing it out. I've edited the minimal changes above to fix it (hopefully). Does make a bit of a pig of what I was trying to achieve, though. Dickdock (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There is only "Ireland"

What is the perceived problem? 203.206.0.59 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please be more explicit with your query. Also note that any discussion here must have relevance to improving the articles in Wikipedia about Ireland. General queries should be directed to the WP:Reference desk. Dmcq (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
And while waiting on an answer, anon IP, you can of course read the 20+ archive pages linked at the top of the page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to summarise if the IP is feeling lazy - there is only Ireland - but what Ireland are you referring too... Ireland or Ireland. Mabuska (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. One notes that there are two articles with substantially the same content and name, when one article would suffice. The reader of the encyclopaedia may be confused by such a choice. Is this the problem? 124.169.35.204 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignore the IP folks. It's the same editor who started the Ireland is, Ireland was stuff. Its last appearance was as 124.169.209.148 & 124.169.204.158. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


Grasping the nettle is within our power, if we have the will

I cannot believe the bad-faith bitterness this whole project engenders. Over and over again we have to explain that at least some people find Republic of Ireland to be problematic. Over and over again we make a tiny bit of progress, getting some agreement from some people that even if they don"t understand the problem some people have with the status quo, they recognize that some change might make this a better environment to work in. Consensus of people of good faith seems to be that Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) with Ireland being a disambiguation page would be a way of of this endless strife.

And then what do we get? We get thrown "majority rules" even though Wikipedia is not a democracy and are thrown dismissive numbers. "You lose, 25 to 10, status quo wins."

No wonder editors like me have steered clear of editing articles within WikiProject Ireland entirely for the past two years. Even keeping a page on one's watchlist invites updates where someone or other is changing an "Ireland" to a "Republic of Ireland", or changing it back. It is ceaselessly outrageous.

Any rational person can see that the problem we have is emotive and social. The problem is not the name of the article. The problem is the fact that we have a totally adversarial working environment. Only one thing will fix it: change of article names to something that doesn't kick anybody in the groin over and over again.

If the article on the state were at Ireland (state) would anyone be wasting his breath agitating to have it changed to Republic of Ireland? Hardly. Would a significant minority of people go on agitating for years to make that change?

The Ireland articles on the Wikipedia have been bedevilled by this argument since at least 2002. We're going on a decade of this crap.

Instead of all this, we could have a working environment where people could just get on with improving the articles. That would be collaboration. We've got no collaboration now. Just brinksmanship. I can hardly believe I'm even back here trying to make sense here again, because it's just all the same arguments over and over again.

And those arguments are all about the wrong thing.

The problem is not the truth-value of the article names. The problem is that the status quo of the article names causes bad feelings and ill-will among many, even if not most or all, editors—and this keeps talented editors from even bothering with articles on Irish topics.

And makes every one of us look like an idiot in the wider community of Wikipedians. And yet, there is a solution easy and within our grasp. I am tempted to invest some time in it. But it is going to take some bravery on the part of the fence-sitters. -- Evertype·✆ 01:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Well put. RashersTierney (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for saying so. -- Evertype·✆ 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm both content with where the articles are & with moving them to Ireland (state), Ireland (island) & Ireland for the disambiguation article. This is obvious in my participation in the polls. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I was not going to go check the 2009 poll results. I appreciate what you say. -- Evertype·✆ 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
And to put those objections of Evertype's in a policy context, they Republic of Ireland title may fail both/either of WP:NPOVTITLE and/or WP:NDESC. Thats the argument. Fmph (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but again, it is not the perfect truth-value of the article title names which is the problem. The problem is emotive and social; that problem interferes with genuine collaboration, persistently. -- Evertype·✆ 13:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Having the page about Ireland as a whole at "Ireland (island)" would certainly cause bad feeling and ill will, and I think there would be a much stronger case for that failing WP:NPOVTITLE than for "Republic of Ireland" failing it. Having Ireland as a disambiguation page would almost certainly also cause bad feeling and ill will. Finally, there's a Wikipedia policy about assuming good faith. I find it quite unpleasant to see that some people are instead assuming that only they themselves are acting in good faith. If people you disagree with don't question your good faith, you could perhaps return the courtesy - but no wonder the argument has been so long and bitter, if some of those involved can't even conceive that anyone could honestly disagree with them. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I used the word "bad faith" quite generally and find that it might apply to people on every side of every argument, but as this is clearly a red flag to a bull, I have modified my statement above: I cannot believe the bitterness this whole project engenders. Now, following on from that, I notice that you seem to have a crystal ball to determine what would "almost certainly" cause bad feeling and ill will. I happen to disagree with you. But it is certain that the status quo does; it is certain that the status quo engenders little but bitter argument. -- Evertype·✆ 13:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
So, why would Ireland (island) fail WP:NPOVTITLE? Fmph (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Evertype but I do not like being accused of bad faith. I believe you are even more wrong about this matter that what you oppose and I see no benefit in naming the article so it always needs to be piped and people are always sticking in something like Free State or Southern Ireland or the country of Ireland or the Irish State or the state of Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I am "even more wrong about this matter than what" I oppose? What does that mean? My thesis is that the problem we have is sociological, and that this argument prevents us all from collaborating as a team. -- Evertype·✆ 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Could we just agree to disagree for the moment and then the whole business can be brought up again when the arguments have been honed better or changed? There is no earthly purpose in putting around accusations of bad faith at this point. The only thing that will happen is that there will be another ArbCom ruling to keep with the latest decision for another two years. Is that what editors who wish to change the status quo really wish to do? Can we have an end to all this for the moment please? Dmcq (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
No. We can't. The arguments will never be honed better or changed. That's the point. The arguments about the status quo have been going on for nearly a decade. It's time to think outside the box. -- Evertype·✆ 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Or we could take up Dick-Dock's suggestion of a temporary move to Ireland (state). As I said above, I am not sure that it is a perfectly designed experiment, but it could give us an idea of whether that title would fly (or would fly more gracefully than the current one). Does anyone really have anything to lose by that? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no difference between a "temporary move" and a "move".

I am in Minneapolis working today, and it is just morning; I will return to this discussion when I can. -- Evertype·✆ 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no good reason to go around making a mess of Wikipedia for silly experiments. There is a perfectly straightforward way of deciding disputes and it doesn't involve power-sharing over articles or anything like that. If somebody wants to set up an encyclopaedia where the articles change name in proportion to votes or whatever at 2 o'clock or whatever time or some random time round the world and change all the links to the page every second Saturday then they are fully entitled to set up their own project. However this is Wikipedia and consensus is the way decisions are made. Going on and on with unconstructive ideas is disruptive. There is no way this is going to happen and therefore talk about it is not reasonable content for this talk page as per WP:TALK. As its nutshell says 'Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. They are also most certainly not just a random discussion forum, for discussing the subject in question.' Will discussion about swapping names around when it isn't going to happen help improve the articles in the encyclopaedia? I don't see that it would. Does going on about the decisions help or is it liable to sway minds at this point? I feel this whole business should just be wrapped up like the silly "Ireland is, Ireland was." stuff before it. It can be revisited again later but the longer this discussion is then the longer in proportion should be the time before the whole business is brought up again. All this waste of time = does is harden attitudes. Dmcq (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no real consensus here. There is one solution, the current one, that going on the vote that took place in 2009 is supported by the greatest number of people and objected to by the least number of people, but it's certainly not won consensus (even in the distorted Wikipedia idea of what constitutes consensus). ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
We just had an RFC and the current position was preferred by a very clear majority. 2009 has nothing to do with it. Consensus does not have to be total. What happens at Stormont is consensus politics. Your consensus is that you are willing to abide by the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. If you are not willing to abide by them then you shouldn't be editing here. Dmcq (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
An RFC within this project cannot yield meaningful results. We need to ask the whole community for help, as we have clearly unable to settle matters ourselves. -- Evertype·✆ 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a question for Evertype. You say, "Consensus of people of good faith seems to be that Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) with Ireland being a disambiguation page would be a way of of this endless strife." Can you show me diffs to that consensus? In all the hundreds of kilobytes of discussion since 18 September I haven't seen that particular proposal even mentioned, never mind getting a consensus. In fact the last time I saw any reference to it was in September 2009 when you yourself were pushing it as the only allowable solution. There may have been one or two proposals this time around that people might have budged on - Ireland (state) on its own, for instance, or merging the two Ireland articles - but you don't seem to have noticed those. A further question while I'm at it: how do you determine who "people of good faith" are? I presume I'm not one since I don't agree with you and I never have. Scolaire (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2011 (UTCa)

We have endless strife because "consensus" in the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is not inclusive and the status quo allows only for (what some say is a large group of) winners and (what some say is a small group of) losers. This is no consensus at all, and isn't even in the spirit of the word "collaboration". We have to do better. -- Evertype·✆ 16:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Well it was mentioned it again a few weeks ago and there's a reference to Citizendum doing it but yes I think logic implies there must be very very few people of good faith if that was a consensus of them! Dmcq (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Not my point, Dcmq. Merging was something that, as you say, was mentioned in this discussion and that certain people - whether you think they are of good faith or not - might have budged on, whereas Evertype's famous "compromise" has not been mentioned and we all know that nobody will ever budge on it. If somebody is going to talk about "grasping the nettle" and "having the will", he ought at least to be honest. Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So what state does "Ireland (state)" refer to... The Irish Free State? the Irish Republic?, the Republic of Ireland, or the pre-Act of Union 1801 Ireland, or maybe even the Lordship of Ireland? All can be classified as states so its far too vague a title. Republic of Ireland works well enough and is the official state description for the state. Mabuska (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For which state? Do you mean Ireland? Fmph (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Starting to confuse you with GoodDay. Mabuska (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Have to say, I've been steering well clear of these topics recently for pretty much exactly the reasons you've outlined above. Well said. That posting should be preserved. --HighKing (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Worst of best worlds?

Ireland (Republic of Ireland)?

I'm not actually advocating this, but it caught by eye as an undiscussed approach. --RA (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nay, it should be Ireland or Republic of Ireland. Wowsers, there's been way too many sections opened on this topic in the last few weeks. I can't keep up anymore, as it's become confusing. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to the nettle

Nice to be yelled at for having said "bad faith" even after I changed it to "bitterness". Nice too to be called dishonest. What I notice, though, is that the people who talked about those things didn't address the point. The point is not the truth-value of the article titles. The truth is that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state interferes with WikiProject Ireland from successfully growing and expanding and improving articles because energy is perpetually attracted to the problem of a number of editors being deeply dissatisfied with the article titles as they are.

I put it to you, that WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is simply unable to come to consensus, and that we need, again, to poll the wider community of the English Wikipedia, as this is a matter which affects everyone, not just people in Britain and Ireland who wish to be involved with articles about Ireland. -- Evertype·✆ 15:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look above you'll see that last RfC kept being extended to wider and wider communities, people started complaining about that, and it made no difference. If anything it increased the support for the status quo. As to your other point I see nothing in WP:5P about changing the contents of Wikipedia to give a warm fuzzy feel to the contributors. As to the bad-feeling etc, so you make a mistake, okay then just take it on the chin. Apologize perhaps but don't complain about how other people react, that just prolongs it. Dmcq (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I've no probs with polling the wider community. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Evertype, there have been several polls recently, and - not that you'll like hearing me say it - the consensus is to retain the status quo. "The truth is that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state interferes with WikiProject Ireland from successfully growing and expanding and improving articles because energy is perpetually attracted to the problem of a number of editors being deeply dissatisfied with the article titles as they are." Yes, agreed. I hope you would also concede that the vocal opposition to the RoI title comes from a relatively small minority of editors (not all of whom contribute to Irish articles in any case), and that they may just have to accept (based on the 2009 vote and the polls above) that "Republic of Ireland" is by far the preferred title among the vast majority, and put up with it.

I will therefore propose the following:

  1. Give us a rest. No new poll until xmas shenanigans are well and truly over. Say, second week in January.
  2. Use the time to come up with a limited number of new poll options.
  3. One of those options must be "Keep the status quo."
  4. No other option should appear in the poll unless it can attract significant support (I'm completely open as to what that support threshold should be). This will allow us to kill off problematic/no-hoper proposals such as "Move 'Republic of Ireland' to 'Ireland (country)'".
  5. When options, if any, have been chosen, and a method of counting the votes has been agreed (PR-STV, IRV, Concordet, first-past-the-post, whatever):
    1. Arbcom sanction is sought to hold it and make the result binding;
    2. Arbcom are requested to appoint administrator/overseers/moderators for it;
    3. Anyone that wishes to may contribute a statement, same as in 2009, and the index of statements will be linked prominently from the poll page.
  6. The poll gets advertised as widely as possible (if I have to put up with hearing about a women-only wikimeet in Scunthorpe, or see a picture of Jimmy Wales seeking donations every time I check my watchlist, they can put up with hearing about the new poll).
  7. The poll result is binding for a period of at least four years. (And yes, eight years for the poll after that...)

Thoughts? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and #8 - GoodDay may not particpate on any poll discussions with any contribution shorter than five lines on a monitor using a resolution of 1920x1080... ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I find it acceptable. Who wants to wager on the four year stay of execution? Mabuska (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a better idea. Is Evertype willing to concede that a simple move of ROI to Ireland (state) is more likely to get agreement over time than any other move proposal to date, new or old? If so (and assuming nobody else in the move lobby disagrees), we can avoid another divisive and bitter multi-option poll, move on to a discussion of what he correctly identifies as the key problem - the dissatisfaction of some editors with the article title - and develop a collaborative approach which takes all the stats, ghits, statutes etc. as read and avoids drama, snide comments and accusations of any sort. Scolaire (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That probably has the best hope but it almost certainly would still fail at the moment. You really need to wait a while. I really do wish the page move people the best chance for their attempt rather than wanting to destroy their chances just because they can't get the strategy right. I'm getting more and more the feeling though this is like telling somebody not to scratch their measles or they'll get marks. Dmcq (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I support Bastun's proposal, although I have no problem with having as many different options on the ballot paper as possible. I personally think trying to restrict the possibilities will lead to endless debate and disruption as to what is acceptable and what is not. Put them all on there and let the editors choose. This idea that some sort of star chamber of WP:IECOLL regulars can choose the options that the whole community will vote for is just nonsense. What about filtering out the 3 options with the lowest number of first preferences last time? I'd go with that. Fmph (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Part of the problem though is that some of those had very few first preferences but a huge number of second preferences. STV/AV is a system where your second preference is meaningless until your first has been eliminated and thus not very good if the aim is acceptability rather than popularity. Borda is probably the best system that allows later preferences to be considered but is also easy to explain. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
@Fmph - I'm suggesting restricting the options to (probably) one to three plus the status quo to minimise or eliminate the "Dammit, you pesky kids fooled us again! Our vote got split because we had too many options!" reaction that was present last time and may resurface again should the status quo win again. This, admittedly, buys in to the fallacy that there are/were only two camps, and you were either a committed status quo-er or anything but the status quo-er - which isn't reflected in the poll results. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I still think that an 'every-option-plus-the-kitchen-sink' approach is better than a resticted choice. I understand where you're coming from but I think your are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Fmph (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that the topic is being taken more seriously. I am dismayed a bit by the use of the word "concede" by Scoláire, but perhaps he didn't mean it to chafe. I am still travelling and will not be home till 15 November. I agree to beginning a new poll in January. I would not like to see an endless weeks-long hand-wringing about the options and about wordsmithing the options on a new Wiki-wide poll. I agree there ought to be fewer options in the poll. I think that the island and the state and the disambiguation titles (all three) should be listed even if in some options all three are changed from status quo the present configuration and in others only one or two are. I'd like to suggest that we all think privately about the options we consider sensible for for a time rather than laying them out here (if for no reason but that I would like to work constructively and won't be able to follow the topic very effectively till 15 November). I volunteer to work with RA as editor of the poll document, which work he and I did effectively previously. Is this acceptable? -- Evertype·✆ 17:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What will you do if the result is not what you want? Dmcq (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That kind of question is exactly the kind of thing that is an example of the malaise that bedevils the WikiProject Ireland and the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. -- Evertype·✆ 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The word "concede" was not meant to provoke. I personally think that another poll, now or in two months time, would be pointless and would only rachet up the tension again. I think, as I have thought since August, that the only way to make progress on the basis of respect for each other's opinion is to identify one single option that people on both sides are most likely to be able to live with, and then discuss - in a genuinely conciliatory atmosphere - whether an end to this perennial row is worth the cost of giving up what we've clung to for all these years. But to do that you - and Fmph - would need to...accept...that even raising the other options is going to entrench people on the other side. I thought long and hard and decided that the best word to express that was "concede". I repeat that this is only my opinion, and I'm not trying to dictate to anybody. Scolaire (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you really ask "whether an end to this perennial row is worth the cost of giving up what we've clung to for all these years"? It is the clinging that has kept this row going on for a decade. Is it not? -- Evertype·✆ 22:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Only on one side? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it stood for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence. At last the Dodo said, “Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.” -- Evertype·✆ 01:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC) (with apologies to Lewis Carroll)

Oppose any new poll, we have just had one, it was clear 2.4:1 for keeping the status quo, this new poll is a waste of time, lets leave it for six months and review it then. Mtking (edits) 20:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It is my view that a poll within this project will achieve little. However, I expect we may also leave a link for members of the Project who wish to record their opposition to a poll altogether. -- Evertype·✆ 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Shame on you. (Sorry I shouldn't have started on a bad note like that). We're going to have a genuinely conciliatory discussion and come to a consensus decision and nobody will need to concede anything and we need not contemplate not having our requirements satisfied. That sounds like a good recipe for a fruitful discussion. Horray for rationality! I feel I should provide some cakes and tea. Dmcq (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is my final statement. After having spent several weeks stating a good case for continued discussion and final movement of the title "Republic of Ireland", I have no recourse but to respond to this diff, a table pounding lies-and-misrepresentations-filled rant that typifies the current membership here. "By far the preferred title among the vast majority"? Bastun, are you hiring BritishWatcher as a ghost writer? Thirty-four total voters in a semi-obscure follow-on poll, with practically no participation from many who actually oppose your stance but don't want to take your abuse? People who like me have no reason to want to continue to have good work and rational discussion met with vitriol and dismissal? What an utter joke.

My recommendation is that this project be abolished. It is a safe haven of "status quo" opinion inhabited by the "victors" of the 2009 poll and its continued presence has absolutely destroyed the reputation of fairness that I once assumed Wikipedia deserved. That is not because Bastun, RA, Scolaire and newer "participants" continue to hang out here and hold court here; it's how they got to this point and the "power" they claim. The problem is, Wikipedia in its official capacity, exemplified by policy makers and the arbitration committee, have sanctioned this idiocy as the only place to discuss the unsound, myopic and biased article structure and titling that was adopted in 2002. As of this writing they, and by extension en.wikipedia.org's oligarchical management, continue to funnel all reasonable objections into this forum, in essence sending differing opinions straight off to slaughter. This forum is not neutral. The only way for fairness to prevail at this point would be to abolish this "WikiProject Ireland Collaboration" (actual title) project and seek an impartial panel of a few highly respected editors to set up a mechanism that fairly reviews and rates previous discussions and works toward final restructuring of the Ireland articles. Any continued discussion at this forum, peopled with the current biased and intransigent membership, is nothing short of mental masturbation. Sswonk (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sswonk, if you have read what I have written, you will see that I am simply not taking to heart the POV statements of, for instance, BritishWatcher, who tried to belittle "the small minority" as though his "winning" made the WikiProject Ireland in any way a pleasant place where people who love our island and live there can help to educate the world about it. BritishWatcher's remark (above) deserved a chiding, because it was not collaborative, and that's what I gave him. Do not yet give up. -- Evertype·✆ 04:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
An emotional outburst isn't gonna do much in the way of building a consensus for your argument. You can't force editors to agree with you. I've tried that before in other areas of Wikipedia & it doesn't work that way. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Recognition of the deeply held feelings of frustration which has inspired Sswonk to "an emotional outburst" would go a long way to improving things, GoodDay. As I said above, and will say again, it is the emotive and social dysfunctionality of WikiProject Ireland and WikiProject Ireland Collaboration which drives editors away from Ireland articles, and which makes us all look like idiots. -- Evertype·✆ 04:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is not possible when so many of the most active participants have their ears plugged. I'm done, GoodDay. This is rubbish. My recommendations are sincere and not simple emotional outbursts. This forum should be done away with and an impartial panel should be created, nothing other than that will end the unsound practices currently favored by mob rule. Sswonk (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Sswonk, that is why a community-wide poll is being considered. In large part what you have written over the last while has inspired me to make another attempt at making WIkiProject Ireland a good place to work, in friendship and fellowship. But we must grasp the nettle and settle on a naming scheme for three articles that does not simply attract aggression and argument. -- Evertype·✆ 04:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
So take the situation out of the hands of the community in which everyone can contribute, and hand it to a small group of elites? That is in no way fair or a good way of resolving this matter, because if the outcome is decided by several people instead of a clear majority, you can be very sure there will be far more anger and hostility at the result. Some form of panel should only be needed if the result and arguments were close and therefore a judgement had to be made. That is not the situation here. And as for this page, its meant to handle other matters too, not just the article titles, sadly that will always just consume the debate until people accept the outcome or the pages are locked again. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I reject your prophecy. It is possible for us to behave like grown-ups and to choose something that will not draw unto itself endless debate. And you can choose to help do that, or remain stuck in posturing and lawyering and doom-saying about how impossible it is. If you really think there is no possibility of collaboration, what on earth are you doing here? -- Evertype·✆ 04:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a new full poll. We got a very clear result two years ago from a community wide poll, it has been stable during the two year period of the page move ban. That ban came to an end, people were asked if they wanted to go to arbcom for an extension, that vote failed with many saying it needs to be discussed again. There was then a second poll, which showed very clear support for the status quo along with massive debate below regarding these matters. There is no justification for another "wikipedia wide" poll, just because a minority oppose something still. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your minority report has been recorded. You do not, however, have a veto. -- Evertype·✆ 04:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The second community-wide poll will, as I have said, include a facility for people to record their objection to their being a poll at all. I can't do anything more than that. This WikiProject has, as Sswonk has said, failed to achieve collaboration, and the bitterness just gets worse and worse. I am going to try to ask the wider community to help us, as we have been unable to help ourselves. I will be happy to accept private e-mail from people who would like to outline what they want to see happen in confidence rather than here out in the open. I would like to hear what people really think they could support. -- Evertype·✆ 04:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't want a new poll so soon after the last one. Lets just see how small this opposition to a new poll so soon after the last one is. Dmcq (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
There has been no community-wide poll since 2009.

Sswonk, in composing your "final statement" rant above (which proved, unsurprisingly, not be all that final) in which you accuse me of ranting, you seem to have (deliberately?) misread what I actually wrote. '"By far the preferred title among the vast majority"?...Thirty-four total voters in a semi-obscure follow-on poll' This was a 2.4-1 "semi-obscure follow-on poll" which was advertised widely and took place in the only venue such discussions can take place, which will presumably be on the watchlist of the huge numbers you obviously feel are opposed to the current titles, whether that be nationalistic reasons or reasons of "incorrectness". But you seem to have missed "based on the 2009 vote". Using HighKing's tally:

  • 44.26% of 235 first preference votes were for Option F;
  • the next most popular option (Option E) attracted only 17.02% of first preference votes;
  • 178/235 votes - 75.74% included Option F somewhere in their list of preferences. So yes, a vast majority would definitely appear to have no problem with the status quo.

You know I support it. I have done since joining WP. But my proposal to Evertype above, which you object so strongly to, is absolutely genuine. I've proposed a poll advertised as widely as possible. I've proposed that it take place after a "time out", following the three recent polls here. I've proposed that it be limited to options that actually stand a chance, rather than include the likes of Option A from 2009, which attracted a miserable 3.4% of first preferences. Taken together, I think most people would accept that as being a reasonable compromise or concession from someone whose "side" has the status quo in place. All I'm really asking in return is that the other "side" concede that the status quo is a valid position that may well remain in place. There is no bad faith there. Please, therefore, stop with the personal attacks. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you got it. I was wondering since I hadn't heard back. And sounds like a reasonable approach to me above. --HighKing (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yup - see my reply of the 3rd November under 'Temporary move', above. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It would be great if you would drop this "vast majority" crap. Vastness does not apply in a poll with 235 participants. Moreover, it ignores the real problem, which is that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state is a source of perpetual argument which does nothing but undermine every Ireland-related article on the encyclopaedia. -- Evertype·✆ 17:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The status quo does nothing but perpetuate the problem, no matter how much some of you like it. We had a vote two years ago. The status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state won. We had a two-year moritorium on discussion. That should have been enough to see whether that status quo useage was stable, should it not? Well, now the moritorium is over. The problem has not gone away. It is not difficult to recognize that if, even after two years of stability based on that poll, the problem has not gone away, then it is probable that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state is and will remain problematic for some people, whether in the minority or in the majority. To address the problem (and the problem is an unstable project beset with adversarial argument and brinksmanship and abuse and bad feelings and passive-aggressiveness and on and on and on), it seems sensible to do something else than fight to perpetuate the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state. Bastun may have a preference, but has not responded to my thesis, that if the articles were named other than the status quo Republic of Ireland, we might get out of the hole we are all in. And we are all in it together. Accordingly, I propose that the next poll does not contain the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state as an option, but instead explore the optimal use of other options. Because we know that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland is nothing but a source of bad-feelings and discord. We're all grown-ups. We can settle on another name-configuration that doesn't undermine Irish articles on the Wikipedia, can we not? -- Evertype·✆ 13:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Joining discussion regarding Ireland.

May others join in the discussion regarding Ireland or is the discussion restricted to registered users with similar views? 58.7.244.17 (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Troublesome editors (registered or not) aren't welcomed here. You've been a troublesom editor these last few days, by continuously posting non-sense. Furthermore, you've been evading your blocks, which is another sign that you're only here to be annoying. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Who is actually annoyed by the title?

I asked before if anyone would identify themselves as being personally annoyed by the title 'Republic of Ireland' and Sswonk said no and now we have Evertype saying they are just arguing about it because of it causing problems to other people. Could I please ask again - does anyone here actually feel personally offended or distrustful or aggravated or whatever by the title 'Republic of Ireland'? Or is everyone going to say oh no I'm only concerned about getting the trouble solved for everyone else? Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Me. But only at the article title. Using it to dab between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is fine, etc, etc. As per normal everyday use. --HighKing (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And p.s. here Talk:Sega Genesis and Mega Drive is a really bloody conflict over the name of an article. Do you feel as strong as these people that your preferred title should be the one used? Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And I'm asking because I haven't seen any problems elsewhere caused by this disagreement whereas there's another matter which every so often does cause actual trouble and resentment and I'd prefer it be dealt with instead. Dmcq (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Given there are over 100 1st preference votes in the last poll for moving it somewhere else, I'd guess that in amongst those you'd find one or two. Why not go through the list of votes and ask each one in turn? Fmph (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
If they're that annoyed I'd have thought they'd have responded to my last request never mind waiting for this one. People talk about solving the problem here, and I'd like to see exactly how much of a problem there is here or are they just talking on behalf of what in their view others think? Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Changing the Ireland articles on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, isn't a good. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I see no relevance. What's relevant is whether people are discussing their own point of view or their imaginings of what other people think. Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, at least three times in the last few days I've found that when I address a direct question to the "change" camp either nobody answers except people like yourself and Britishwatcher from the "status quo" camp, or somebody latches on to what they consider a negative word or phrase and ignores the substantive question or point. It doesn't bode well for dialogue.
Talk:Sega Genesis and Mega Drive really is food for thought! There we have an equally furious war going back to 2005 and yet in all my time here I was unaware of the article, never mind the controversy. Given that there are probably as many WP readers worldwide interested in Sega as in Ireland, it makes you wonder whether our little war here has caused so much as a ripple in the community generally, never mind the doomsday scenario that some people like to paint. Scolaire (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Guarenteed, the discussion/arguments on this topic barely registers on the whole community. Wikipedia is a big place, a very big place. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Archive_29&oldid=1090458201"