Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence

Observations presented by Steve Summit
[These aren't really evidence-backed assertions, so I'm putting them here on this discussion page instead. In the interests of full disclosure, I'll point out that I am (a) a lifelong American, (b) not of Irish descent, and (c) uninvolved in this debate. If you asked me what I thought of when you said "Ireland", I'd say the country first, and the island second.]

On Compromise
I'm no fan of "share the misery" compromises, but I'm afraid I must agree with Evertype that one "which satisfies neither group A nor group B, and which disappoints both equally" is the best we can hope for. But for that to work, the proposed compromise really does have to disappoint both sides perfectly equally. Does it? Is 1&amp;2 a good balance for 3&amp;4? I'm afraid that 2 might be particularly galling to the Ireland -as-the-state camp, and I'm afraid that 4 might be no disappointment at all to the Ireland -not-as-the-state camp, especially if part of their motive is simply to ensure that the Ireland -as-the-state camp doesn't get what they want.
 * 1) The people who want to see the 83%-of-the-island state at Ireland don't get what they want.
 * 2) The people who don't like using Republic of Ireland for the state, who want to see it at Ireland, have to settle for it at Ireland (state) , which might be even worse.
 * 3) The people who want to see the island at Ireland don't get what they want.
 * 4) The people who think that Republic of Ireland is the right name for the 83%-of-the-island state don't get what they want.

On Nationalism, and the appropriate battleground(s) therefor
I'd like to suggest to the people who are arguing most vociferously in this debate that the name of a Wikipedia article (or two) is really inconsequential to your debate. You don't win (or lose) anything at all if the name of an article on this Encyclopedia is "wrong" from the point of view of your particular argument. Nobody is going to claim (or accept as persuasive evidence a claim) that "Wikipedia has chosen name A for thing B, so obviously side C is Right and side D loses."

On the purpose of this project
Most importantly, I'd like to remind everybody what the purpose of this project is, and who it serves: our readers. Even if, to some involved editor's argument or point of pride, it matters what the name of a particular Wikipedia article is, that would still not be a valid argument for retaining or changing to that name. The most important criterion for naming an article is: what would make the most sense for our readers; what would make the encyclopedia easier to use for them. We are properly their servants; we shouldn't distract or inconvenience them by insisting on shoving our own petty predilections into their faces.

—Steve Summit (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Has the case actually even been made that Wikipedia is actually divided into two camps, one that wants Ireland to be the (modern) state, and one to be the lump of rock? Has it even been shown that these are the only content targets of readers typing in Ireland? This assumption has some massive holes in it, such as pre-1922 history for a start. Every time that it is pointed out that there are editors who don't believe this idea that there are two competing camps, it is ignored, in favour of keeping up this perception of the existence of an irreconcileable divide, so that we can get arbcom to decide which one is 'right'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC).
 * P.S I just noticed User:UKPhoenix79's evidence (although it also should probably be in here). That is the example I am talking about. These are the real voices of compromise that are being ignored, for a compromise that helps the reader by actually providing an article at Ireland, who would not be helped by a two choice dab page solution. The last implementation of a dab page at Ireland rapidly turned into an attempt to create a very brief article, and not a dab page, this can still be seen at Ireland (disambiguation). One prominent supporter of the 'upset everybody' dab page solution actually intened to leave article links permanently linking to the Ireland dab page, as some sort of Ireland Nation 'home' article. If people don't understand the fundementals of the dab page policy, then how strong is the actual support for it in the end? MickMacNee (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with UK Phoenix79 that Ireland should be a dab page. I agree with UK Phoenix79 that Ireland (island) should be an article about the island as a whole. I disagree with UK Phoenix79 that Republic of Ireland should be used to distinguish the sovereign state like currently done with China, but instead I believe that Ireland (state) is the better name for such an article. Recent discussion on the Task Force pages suggests that there is growing consensus on this last point. -- Evertype·✆ 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He is not suggesting a dab page as you think of it, i.e. a list of articles, he is suggesting an article that acts as a dab page with proper sentences and references etc. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If that solution for a sort of expanded dab page were allowed and accepted, then so long as the contents that would normally be in a "standard" dab page were at the top of such an article, then I can see why such a solution might be advantageous, speaking for myself.  DDStretch    (talk)  16:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He uses China as the example, so without qualification, that is what I presume he means it would look like. i.e. an article. I don't think he is suggesting a new kind of hybrid article/dab page. On basic principle a dab page has no references, it is a simple 'go to' page. Nothing should be disputable on a dab page to the point of needing references. (And China lists the dab entires as it were, below the lead. Moving them to the top would just look odd imo. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties
Presumably there is a reason for including or omitting people from a list of involved parties. Perhaps there is a certain methodology or policy I am not aware of. What ever the case may be, I find the list odd. For example, I have been involved in discussions about this particular issue, and other related or semi-related issues for a number of years on Wikipedia and I am not familiar with the following editors: User:Ddstretch, User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim, User:Tariqabjotu, User:Waggers, User:Guliolopez and User:Una Smith. I happen to know that Mooretwin is a relatively new editor (at least in terms of registration and identification by that name).

On the other hand, I am quite familiar with User:Evertype, User:angusmclellan, User:Djegan, User:HighKing, User:Matt Lewis, User:Sarah777, User:Scolaire and User:Snowded, all of whom are reasonably prolific commentators on this issue and the other surrounding issues.

A similar thing has happened on other occasions - notably the Arbitration Enforcement discussions regarding 'Troubles-related' articles - I was not notified about that until after it had been passed and only found out about its existence after I had become subject to its rules (which were then enforced against me).

Sadly, I do not have as much faith in Wikipedia as I had when I started editing it. This, combined with changes in my personal life, have meant that I do not have half as much time to contribute. I am even less interested in debating than I had been before, given the level of intransigence and the difficulty with making even the most simple of edits to an article that relates in any way to a British and/or Irish theme has persuaded me that editing and attempting to improve this encyclopaedia is more of a waste of time than anything else.

Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias. This is evidenced by the very fact that I created a WikiProject for Northern Ireland, which hasn't attracted very much help to date (there are a couple of editors who pound away at project categorisation.. and hopefully this may turn out to be very useful, as intended), in contrast with the WikiProject for the IRA (since renamed), and the WP:IRELAND projects - both of which are clones, with many subsequent modifications, of the Northern Ireland project. The WikiProject on Ireland was set up in reaction to the Northern Ireland one and everyone knows why the IRA WikiProject was set up by the divisive editor that created it. Of course, in answer to the IRA project, we now also have the WikiProject Unionism.

One might care to note the membership and membership numbers of each of these projects. The Northern Ireland one currently has around twenty members, though very few of them seem to be active in it - including myself these days. The Unionism project has twelve members, at least five of which are, ostensibly, of a nationalist persuasion. I'm not sure as to the activity level of that project. The Ireland project is cites forty-nine members and they are, overwhelmingly, nationalist - including those whose contributions may be considered relatively unbiased. The IRA project cites forty members and they are also overwhelmingly nationalist (with one editor even going so far as to exclaim, "Love Irish Republicansim, [sic] hate Unionism"). -- Setanta 07:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't understand this: It was me who put forward the semi-official proposal that led to discussion which resulted in the reverted page moves. I have also commented on the discussions as well at times, though I withdrew because of the style in which many contributions were being made involved (I contend) personal comemnts and assumptions about motives, and so on. Is this just some minor slip-up, or what? Perhaps it is that you are not familiar with my i.d. being given without the formatting I have done for my sig?  DDStretch    (talk)  08:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * DDStretch, please do not misunderstand me - by listing those editors that I am not familiar with, or less than familiar with, I was not attempting to disparage them in any way. Sometimes really good or effective edits or discussions or conflict solutions are made or proposed by editors who have not been particularly prolific with a particular topic area. Also, bear in mind that just because I haven't seen you (or any of the other editors), this is probably not an indication that you (or the other editors) are necessarily uninvolved or non-prolific on this subject. It could very well be that I simply haven't noticed you (them), or have forgotten them, or haven't been involved in the discussions or editing of articles that they have. No offence was intended. :) -- Setanta 14:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * On my own Talk page, RashersTierney asked: "I know you're busy right now so take your time, but what are the criteria for being considered an Involved Party?" My response to him was "What I did was go to the Ireland Disambiguation Task Force page and took what I thought to be a fair sampling of vocal participants from either side. I did not count them and did not try to stack the deck." I believe, Setanta, if you want to give Evidence in this case, that the rules permit you to do so. -- Evertype·✆ 10:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Evertype - although I had no doubt of that, thank you for saying it anyway. Again, my intention wasn't to slight you in particular, or even generally. I was simply making an observation and asking the same question that Rashers had apparently asked. I will note that I think the list of users 'involved' seems to include more of the pro-nationalist editors (for want of a better description, and I include more, in my view, unbiased editors such as Scolaire and angusmclellan in that) than pro-union editors. To be clear though Evertype, I am not accusing you of making that the case by design.
 * I may well weigh in with my own 'evidence' on this matter. Presumably this process will run for a matter of weeks at least, before moving to another stage? Cheers, -- Setanta 14:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For my part I took no offence, Setanta. In my judgement however I do not find Scolaire or Angus McLellan to be particularly unbiased. Frankly anybody who insists that Ireland be anything other than the disambiguation page is biased, because the arguments that the word means the State are all true, and the arguments that the word means the Island are all true. Those editors who agree that Ireland should be a disambiguation age are, in my opinion, the only editors who understand that negotiations of this sort cannot have either winners or losers. -- Evertype·✆ 16:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anybody who insists that Ireland be anything other than the disambiguation page is biased, and anybody who insists that Ireland should be a disambiguation page is biased - they're each biased towards their own POV, but it's not necessarily a political POV. Scolaire (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My POV is that this is the only solution which avoids "winners" and "losers". I consider this to be more NPOV than any of the other solutions on offer. -- Evertype·✆ 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely! Everybody considers their POV to be more neutral than any other. But by definition one POV is not more NPOV than the opposite POV. Scolaire (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * False logic. The two main POVs here are "Ireland is the island" and "Ireland is the state". The proposal to use Ireland as the dab page is more NPOV than either of those. -- Evertype·✆ 12:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Untrue. The two main POVs are "Republic of Ireland" is a good article name and "Ireland or "Ireland (state) is the only allowable name".  The proposal supports one POV over the other.  Scolaire (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the dab page.

I propose that the following, who have all contributed to the debate (and all or nearly all on IDTF) be added to the list of involved parties and duly notified: Scolaire (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * User:ww2censor
 * User:Bastun
 * User:Nuclare
 * User:Gnevin
 * User:RashersTierney
 * User:Traditional unionist
 * I am not sure what you expect me to do. Anyone who wishes to give evidence may do so, if I understand the rules. -- Evertype·✆ 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But they can only give evidence if they know it's on. I think they should be added as parties and get the same formal notice the rest of us did.  They all fit the criterion you say you used for deciding who was a party.  Scolaire (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I named some people in the Request for Arbitration. The case was accepted and here we are. It is Daniel who sent out the notices about the Evidence page, and I did specifically mention this on the Task force page. Is it proper for me to send out notices as Daniel did? He did it on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, and I am not a member of that committee. I don't know what the procedure is. Would you like to ask Daniel? -- Evertype·✆ 20:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Any Editor can contribute, so rather than propose Editors just invite them? -- Domer48  'fenian'  20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As Domer says, just leave them a note scolaire. Not like only involved can take part or be notified (Notice, I'm not an involved party and got a nice little note as I'd made a statement thingy). As this is mostly not about editors, involved parties is a bit of a red herring. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * D'fhágas féin teachtaireachtaí ar a gcuid leathanaigh. -- Evertype·✆ 21:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat impolite to break into foreign languages without offering a translation there, Evertype. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He said, "I have left notices on their talk pages." Thanks for that, Evertype.  Scolaire (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Scolaire ;) I'm afraid gaelic hasn't been spoken in the family for a couple of generations at least. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It annoys me that Scoláire writes his name Scolaire. And that the Irish Times calls the parliament the Dail. -- Evertype·✆ 02:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just a matter of not wanting to break the flow of my typing with Ctrl-Alt-A, or make others do it when addressing me or refering to me. The Irish Times doesn't have the same excuse. Scolaire (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence so far
I see most of the evidence given so far is nothing of the sort, instead it is arguments relating to the content issue. You folks do realise that ArbCom is not going to resolve the content issue for you, don't you? &mdash;Ashley Y 09:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, to an extent. Some of the 'evidence' at least seems to be commentary on the behaviour (either past or present) of one or more editors. I cite User:SirFozzie's entire entry as an example:

User:Mooretwin edit wars on numerous articles

User:Mooretwin has been sanctioned in the past for edit-warring

User:Mooretwin has a history of uncivil comments

Surely we should be concentrating on the question at hand. -- Setanta 15:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Setanta. The question at hand, at least to ArbCom, is not what the article should be, it's regulating people's behaviour so that the people can come to a decision themselves. THEY DO NOT AND WILL NOT DECIDE CONTENT. SirFozzie (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * SirFozzie, ArbCom can decide on content if they want. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they have seemed to have said they will not be focusing on what the content will be here in their statements to accept. SirFozzie (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There was some disagreement about whether they "can" - i.e. ought to - rule on content. Stephen Bain and Matthew Brown state they "cannot" (i.e. ought not) to with FT2 stating explicitly that they "can" (i.e. should), while Kirill followed by NYB said what could amount to the same thing. The others gave no clue. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. My own evidence is not evidence in the traditional sense (I'm happy to move it to the talk page if it would help). However, its not entirely clear what ArbCom are considering here. It would be easy to pull out diffs from specific editors and use them to show how political this debate has been, or show how personal attacks have derailed discussion in the past. But to what end? Sanctioning individuals will only result in further bitterness. I have tried to provide "evidence" about what the locus of the despite is, and what needs to be addressed to resolve it. We don't need ArbCom to make the decision for us, what we really need is guidance about how this decision should be made within our policies, and some remedies to deal with those who deviate from that going forward. Rockpock  e  t  23:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * SirFozzie, please accept my apologies if I have misunderstood the purpose of this arbitration. Also, please forgive me for singling you out specifically - I'm sure there are other editors who have perhaps presented evidence against (or for) certain editors methods. I have not, as yet, read through the whole page of evidence and your evidence stuck out due to the headings you used.
 * It was my assumption that, due to the fact that there is some disagreement with regard to which article(s) own(s) the name 'Ireland', this procedure was going to be used in some way to perhaps suggesting a solution. The introductory text on the page doesn't specify the intention. As an involved editor (ie., someone who has edited relevant articles in one particular way and who has voted on several occasions on the issue each time it resurfaces) I came across this page by reading through the comments on an article's talk page.
 * I am sure that you, SirFozzie (for example), could find evidence with regard to many, many editors who have been involved to greater or lesser extents in making edits pertinent to the case - either negative or positive. To me, it would certainly require a large amount of work to provide a balanced collection of evidence, for and/or against a list of editors involved.
 * For me, I would certainly prefer to be considered uninvolved if this were going to be the case - not because I am necessarily embarrassed in any way with regard to my editing history.. but certainly in regard to the possibility that one or more editors might like to provide evidence against me with undue weight or perhaps even out of context with regard to a bigger picture. I know that from my own perspective, my position on the issue with regard to naming comes from a purely logical standpoint. Yet there may have been times, I don't know, that I have responded to politically-charged comments in relation to this specific issue.
 * Given that there has been conflicts for years regarding this and other, related, issues (and a raised level of this since around January of 2007), there is a massive wealth of editors' histories that could be gone through and analysed.
 * This is a tall order.
 * Rockpocket asks, "to what end?", and I am absolutely with him on that. What is hoped to be achieved by presenting evidence against individuals? Will they be dealt with in terms of groups or political ideology? Will there be sanctions against one group, or against individuals? I point you to my earlier comments regarding the systematic bias and suggest that any such sanctions may well end up completely unbalancing the bias Wikipedia already suffers, in favour of that inherent bias.
 * On the other hand, if the evidence is restricted to merely the perceived problem with regard to the naming of articles, then this arbitration might be of some use. I'm not convinced, but I'm certainly willing to go along with it to see if some solution can be reached in which all parties are satisfied.
 * Personally, I have not attempted to change any articles that include "Ireland"/"Republic of Ireland"/"Ireland (state)" etc, though I have recently noticed that there has been a huge increase, from what I can tell, of articles which now link to the redirect Ireland (state) where before they had linked directly to the article Republic of Ireland. Was this done in anticipation? Was it a collaborative effort? How (and when) did this situation come into being? I seem to remember being 'warned' for changing an article so that it read "Republic of Ireland" even before this arbitration process began. Yet there now seem to be in increase in the instances in articles whereby links to "Ireland" in the text point to the Ireland (state) redirect. -- Setanta 15:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This "huge increase", Setanta, is it the number of articles in What links here that you're referring to? I looked at one at random, You're A Star, and there was no link to Ireland (state) in the article text - the link seems to be in the transcluded Template:Country data Ireland, where it's included as an "alias".  On the other hand, if you have diffs to show that somebody has actually been changing links, that would be evidence.
 * As far as the likely outcome is concerned, I can't see any reason why there should be sanctions on the basis of groups or idealogies. I think it's likely that there won't even be sanctions against individuals, but at the same time, evidence of individual editors' behaviour might be a model for behaviour that is to be discouraged in the future.  On content, it seems highly unlikely that the arbitrators are going to say 'this is the right name for that article', so 'evidence' regarding the suitability of one name or another is likely to be ignored; they are more likely to come up with a strategy for reaching a consensus in the appropriate forum.  Scolaire (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, as far as I'm aware, (the latest bout of) discussion on this issue has been ongoing since the end of July. I seem to have become aware of the latest round of discussion just under a month later. Some two months later, an unregistered editor expressed his concern that articles were being changed and suggested that editors stop doing this. While I had not been made aware of any community agreement with regard to this at that point, I decided to stop making edits relating to this specific issue, as a wide discussion was taking place on it. That was the end of October.


 * Since then, there seems to have been a number of changes specifically in favour of those who appear to object to the usage of "Republic of Ireland".


 * The Country Data template for the Republic of Ireland was changed and frozen in a state favouring a change (Revision as of 18:54, 1 December 2008), as you have pointed out above. This article affects many, many other articles on Wikipedia as it (currently) seems to display "Ireland" together with the flag of the Republic of Ireland, and links to Ireland (state). This is a global template affecting a "huge" number of articles throughout Wikipedia.
 * A change was made (30 Nov - 2 Dec) to the disambig article Irish which also favours a change.
 * The article European Union was changed, also to suit the aforementioned idea of change (22 November 2008).


 * I'm not sure I can find any instances of edits in Wikipedia since the beginning of November which specifically change "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland" (and that also link to Ireland (state)), save the examples above, but I'm not going to bother looking through the list of over 2,500 articles to find some, few or many. I may have spoken too soon with regard to the very last sentence of my previous comment, but the fact is that the template is cause for concern enough. I would suggest that the template (which is currently protected) be changed back until and if there is a change made to this article's name. It's functionality had previously included the ability to change between displaying "Republic of Ireland" and "Ireland", and I'm not sure whether this functionality has now been disabled.


 * What you suggest with regard to the likely outcome is that some policy or guidelines might be the result of this process. This policy, or guidelines, will affect therefore, what editors will and will not be able to do with regard to the naming of the Republic of Ireland throughout the encyclopaedia. Presumably this will restrict, even further, editors' ability to contribute without getting involved in some kind of arbitration process and will presumably also be very general.


 * As I said elsewhere recently, we'll not be able to so much as fart without being subjected to a public enquiry, which will either go on for ages and consume many man-hours, or will ignore valid protests and possible 'special cases' depending on the whim of an admin. Editors will have to be increasingly good at researching and trawling (read: trolling) through others' contributions and wiki-lawyering.


 * With regard to the wider picture, it's not likely to solve anything in my opinion. I was recently reported to Arbcom with regard to a fairly simple edit which I hadn't thought would cause any controversy or objection, at the whim of an editor who happened to disagree in some way with the edit I had made (even though my own edit hadn't contradicted other relevant facts in the article). So far, all this has done is made me even less willing to participate in this project, and even less willing to try to improve the project so that it might be taken even slightly seriously by scholars and academics. It seems that every time I make an edit to articles which in any way relate to notions of country, nationality, religion, ethnicity or politics of Northern Ireland, the UK in general, or the Republic of Ireland, my edits are either reverted and/or reported. I must say that I feel stalked when it is not merely one of my edits, but often several of them at a time which are reverted - with no prior discussion, and sometimes without even any kind of satisfactory edit comment. Nor does it seem to necessarily matter if my edits include a cited source. Some editors appear to trawl (read: troll) through my edit history specifically to find reason to revert. I wonder if this kind of hassle is considered reasonable behaviour.


 * Of course, certain Wikipedia guidelines or essays may suggest that if one is confronted with this kind of hassle then one is at fault themselves. After all, there is no such thing as a 'cabal'. It must therefore all be in my mind. -- Setanta 22:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns with regard to the outcome. All we can do is wait and see - que sera sera.  What you have said there about the template, the "Irish" article etc. definitely is evidence, and I would urge you to put it on the evidence page proper.  It needs to be seen.  That is the kind of evidence that the arbitrators will weigh, rather than the "I would like the article to be called 'Ireland' because..." kind.  Scolaire (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong - has the case been closed over the Christmas period? -- Setanta 08:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears so. There was no resolution, no recommendation beyond "keep talking about it amongst yourselves" that I could see. I didn't even know there was a proposal to close it. -- Evertype·✆ 09:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. --Una Smith (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest ending all discussion here and removing to Talk:Ireland? --Una Smith (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)