Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 13

Confirmation of method to calculate votes
I don't think this was ever nailed down precisely, but can we please get community sign-off on the method we are going to use to calculate the vote. There were a couple of debates that veered towards consensus but I don't recall anyone every saying exactly, "Yip, that's what we're doing."

Can we please confirm that what we are doing is:


 * a) Winner will be calculated using instant-runoff voting
 * In the off-chance that no options reaches 50%+1 the option with a plurality will be declared the winner
 * b) No additional requirements for a binding decision

Is that right? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest 50%+1 be used to select the winner. We'll still process all the STVs to see how options are eliminated. --M ASEM  (t) 11:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Id still like to see a system that does take into account if a certain option has strong opposition to ensure we get a moderate option that the majority of people can live with. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If we attached a rider saying that the winner had to exceed a certain minimum then "not voting for something" would be a vote against it winning. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it was going to be STV? 50%+1 sits uncomfortably with consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, and the point with STV is that you keep transferring votes via preference until one option hits the "win" threshold. We're saying that's 50%+1. --M ASEM (t) 11:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that wasn't made clear. Under STV, the "win" threshold (i.e. the quota) is the total number of votes divided by the total number of seats plus one. Why should this be any different (except for "seats" substitute "solution")? Mooretwin (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this "fun with maths"? Please could someone explain (simply) what the differences are, and whether or how this differs from the poll we just took, so we can understand what is being asked? I understand that we just took a poll without specifying in advance which method would be used. I thought that in some sense the en result would be the same. Can't STV can yield a winner (with a majority) even though 50%+1 might not be achieved? -- Evertype·✆ 11:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The exact method of STV doesn't matter because we will only have on winner. Therefore, we are using instant-runoff voting. That's a no brainer - there is *nothing* to argue about there. The only question remaining is this:
 * There is a slim chance that the "winner" according to STV (or technically IRV) could be elected without exceeding 50%+1 of the vote (after all transfers have been made). In such a circumstance, are we going to accept the result as binding?
 * The percent of first preferences (or the percent at any time before all transfers have not been made) should *not* be taken into consideration because that defeats the purpose of having an STV in the first place. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand now. Thank you. If we do NOT accept the result as binding (if 50%+1 is not achieved) then I think the only alternative would be to run a second poll with losing options removed. -- Evertype·✆ 12:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From President_of_the_French_Republic:
 * "French presidential elections are conducted via run-off voting which ensures that the elected President always obtains a majority: if no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round of voting, the two highest-scoring candidates arrive at a run-off. After the president is elected, he goes through a solemn investiture ceremony called a 'passation des pouvoirs' ('handing over of powers')."
 * So they use run-off voting. -- Evertype·✆ 12:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There would be no point except to artificially create the appearance of 50%+1 support.
 * When there's only on candidate to be elected, STV becomes " instant run-off voting". It "simulates" the process holding multiple rounds but you only have to vote the once. If no candidate achieved 50%+1 in a IRV poll then holding another round with just the top two candidates, and asking the same people to vote on them, would produce the same result as just taking the candidate with the plurlity from the IRV vote. Example:
 * IRV ends with Apple 40%, Pear:35%, Orange: 25% (i.e. there are no transfers between them). Another round of voting is held with just Apple and Pear. Apple people vote for Apple. Pear people vote for Pear. Orange people don't vote at all because they don't want or care which of Apple or Pear wins. The result of the second round will then be: Apple: 54%, Pear 46%. Meanwhile 55% of people (i.e. Pear voters and Orange voters) still didn't vote for Apple.
 * Normal IRV is that if all transfers are exhausted then the person with the most votes wins, but that may not be 50%+1. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wisdom of including arguments/proposal they be removed
In my draft ballot I first included a summaries of arguments for or against each proposal. It was pointed out to me that doing so ay not be wise. It was said that editors here would get bogged down in arguing over the minor details of them. At the time I agreed and removed them.

When I saw that Evertype had included again, I said nothing because I think that it is important for those who have not participated in this page to see a summary of arguments before casting their vote. Edits like this however have convinced me again of the earlier warning against them. Surely the purpose of presenting the arguments is to present fairly both sides for the benefit of the community - and not an opportunity to water down arguments we don't agree with?

I propose that all of the pro/anti arguments be removed unless editors stop bickering over them and stop trying to sabotage arguments they don't find appealing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank you for saying this. When I posted the Draft Poll I asked people NOT TO FLAME ME for doing it. Mostly I would say that editors have been fairly mature about what was offered; I am in particular grateful to Scoláire for taking my draft and revising it thoroughly, making the arguments both more accurate and more useful to the voters. From mid-day today things took a decided downturn. I think that what Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid says, the controversy has centred on editors "trying to sabotage arguments they don't find appealing" is spot-on, though the arguments have ended up being about "ownership" of the Draft document and ones "right" to edit whatever or wherever one pleases without regard to actual quality or consensus. (I make a lot of edits to the Draft Poll, and I have asked people to try to respect the need to be careful with it. Other editors have also edited there—but only a few editors have done so out of a desire to push their POV.


 * I believe that we've got a good set of reasonably accurate arguments on the Draft Poll now. I don't believe that any of the entries are trying to either downplay or give undue weight to the arguments. I hope that we can proceed to keep this section and move forward to the actual poll. For my part I am sure I am impatient to have it start, so it can be over! With hand on heart I don't believe that anything in the draft poll genuinely disadvantages any of the factions in this long-standing dispute. I hope the Pros and Cons stay in the polling document.


 * I am, however, willing to axe the section entirely. It comes down to this: we can have the poll without this material (which gets us a poll soon!), or we can try to behave like a mature and sensible community and agree that arguments which we dislike are the genuine arguments of those with whom we disagree, and their arguments deserve to be summarized just as fairly as our arguments do.


 * I'd like to see everybody give their opinion here. Do you support the attempt to put Pros/Cons on the ballot or do you oppose the attempt? -- Evertype·✆ 18:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rannpháirtí, I don't know if it's your intention, but you sound as though you're threatening to take away our sweets unless we agree to share them. Personally, I'm not in favour of a parent-child approach to conflict resolution. I think that it is not just important, but essential for those who have not participated in this page to see a summary of arguments before casting their vote. I also think the arguments should be the best they can be, and that can only be arrived at by collaboration (remember that word) between participants, whether through BRD or through discussion on this page.  If the discussion gets too heated, it's up to the cooler heads to try to take the heat out of the situation.  We won't get agreement on anything by bandying words like "bickering".  At the end of the day, everybody has to feel they have been listened to, or there is no chance on agreement on procedures.  Scolaire (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion: A definition statement for each of the choices
Remember that most people that we expect to respond to the poll will likely not care or want to know the history of the arguments, but will want a quick understanding of the debate. I will suggest a slightly different approach:

Then there need not be any other position statements - this covers everything for all practical matters in a nice soundbite. --M ASEM (t) 19:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm good with this and will be happy to put it in the Draft Poll. Shall I, Masem? -- Evertype·✆ 19:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm offering it as a suggestion, let's make sure no one has any major qualms (I feel I hit all the major talking points without necessarily negating any option from another, which is important here). --M ASEM (t) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I think this does the job nicely.  Rockpock  e  t  20:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - This works - and avoids what could be a very long drawn out process otherwise (especially if editors who despite saying they're not participating here come along and make surreptitious edits to the pros and cons, as pointed out above). It does need some copyediting, though ;-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this certainly doesn't expose my arguments to the wider audience. I really feel that while there may only be 6 different options, there are actually thousands of reasons for choosing one over another. What is being attempted here is to coalesce all these reasons into a community conventional wisdom. It can only end in tears, and I'm not sure that it passes WP:NPOV. If it did, then we wouldn't need a poll. I also don't believe that Masem can possibly write these arguments, given his role as a neutral. Arguments in favour of a Option X should have a POV, otherwise they won't be good arguments. I still believe that we should allow a multitude of "Arguments in favour of Option X" in userspace, all linked from the ballot page, all written by people who really believe in that particular option. Fmph (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I largely agree. If we could get the summary pro/anti statement on the draft pages agreed to then I think they should accompany a "backgrounder" like this. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will tell you right now that the average person drawn to this poll from outside the project is not going to want to read reams of arguments; they want to know what they are voting for and be done with it. That's not to see that a person may want to know more, and linking to this project, to the previous statements, or the like, will be helpful, but the point is, by having this poll with these limited options, we've reduced the problem down that we don't need to reopen the discussions discourse at this time.  Again, the talk page should be left open for vote comment. --M ASEM  (t) 21:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We could move what's on the Draft Poll now to the Summary arguments page I made today, where there are also other, less "well-edited" statements. -- Evertype·✆ 21:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "I will tell you right now that..." Too true, but I thought the pro/anti statements for each options here are pretty succinct. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So do I. I can support that text (without sabotaging edits) or Masem's text above. -- Evertype·✆ 21:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support but... I would remove the sentence beginning "There is also conflict with the United Kingdom country of Northern Ireland..." Foremost because while everything else sounds entirely accurate, that statement sounds more speculative. I also think it is redundant: everything it tries to say has already been said. If it is to stay there are some issues I have with it:
 * "...the United Kingdom country of Northern Ireland..." To avoid the consternation of calling NI a "country", could we have it changed to "Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, ..." if we are going to keep that sentence in there.
 * "...impreciseness in naming may lead to misstatements..." I think "impreciseness" should be changed to "ambiguity" and I don't know what to change "misstatements" to.
 * To repeat though, I think the whole thing could happily survive without that sentence. Aside form that sentence a minor bugbear I would have is "...the country that occupies the majority of it..." Could we change "country" to "state". Though it is only a minor bugbear of mine.
 * Otherwise, it sounds good. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Propose: "There is also conflict with Northern Ireland, a constituent country of the United Kingdom", which occupies the northern part of the island, and imprecision in naming may lead to equivocal statements (such as "Lough Neagh is in Ireland", which may be true or not depending on how the word "Ireland" is taken)." -- Evertype·✆ 21:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think too that the Lough Neagh example is weak. To me at least "Lough Neagh is in Ireland" doesn't sound truly equivocal. Would a statement like "Dublin is the capital of Ireland" or "Ireland has been independent of the United Kingdom since 1922" cut more to the heart of the matter? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Dublin is the capital of Ireland" is what most voters will understand (few of them will know about 1922). -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your "could we change 'country' to 'state', I'd say, either to that or to 'political entity'. -- Evertype·✆ 21:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - either is better than "country", which can have different meanings... "state" would be my preference. Also agree that the Lough Neagh statement is possibly not the best example.  Maybe "There are thirty-two counties in Ireland"?  (Even though, being a pedant, I know there are 35 ;-) ) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ireland owns 85% of the island, so the island and the state are "85% mutally inclusive". Unfortunately, the moderator is convulsed in the mish-mash too, and who can blame him with so many pov-pushing elements bearing down.   Tfz     01:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What does "mutually inclusive" matter to anything? It's considered as one of the options, if you are getting at what I think you are. --M ASEM (t) 02:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because this whole page is placating an Anti-Irish agenda, fair and square. Ireland isn't ambiguous, no more than England (disambiguation) is. Tfz     02:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rubbish! Utter rubbish, Tfz. Are you accusing me (for instance) of supporting an "anti-Irish agenda"? I remember being in court one morning nearly a decade ago, swearing loyalty to the Nation and fidelity to the State. Agus do rinne mé é sin inár dteanga náisiúnta. Kindly keep such childish accusations to yourself. This endless dispute is not serving anything but people's egos. It doesn't serve Ireland. It doesn't serve Northern Ireland or Her Majesty the Queen either. It sure as sugar doesn't serve the Wikipedia. Have you anything constructive and collaborative to offer, or are you just here to exercise your passions by decrying "No! No! I might not get my way!"? We're up for a vote. There are three propositions:
 * Have no explanatory text at the top of the ballot — in my judgement the majority of rational editors does not support this, as it fails to offer guidance to the voters who have not rolled around in this muck for years as some of us have. Nor does our moderator think that an unadorned ballot is the best option.
 * Have a careful and neutrally redacted set of individual arguments such as is on the current Draft Poll. Attentive readers will observe that rational contributions to that redaction have been taken on board, in an attempt to refine the arguments fairly. In my judgement a number of editors on both "sides" have attempted to make positive contribution to the text there, and it is suitable for ordinary voters to understand.
 * Have a single definitive statement based on text which Masem has proposed — while it needs a little bit of editing (possibly to include a mention of "85%", lest you in your passion think nobody tries to parse your accusations for content) it is also something that can be considered useful to the Wikipedia Community of voters.
 * It is difficult to assess your comment above as anything but a statement that you want your own POV to prevail at the end of the vote, and that you don't want the other "side"'s arguments to be put forward because you fear you might "lose". Scoláire and Rannṗáirtí and I have tried to set out each of the pro and con arguments; we have taken serious input on board and yet been faced with unhelpful edits from two editors (you being one of them; the arguments are is/is not not can be). Here we see Masem trying a different tack, and you oppose—why? Because the text says "the majority" rather than "85%"? Because Masem is "placating" (how?) an "anti-Irish agenda"? It will be "Conspiracy! Conspiracy!" next. Rubbish. -- Evertype·✆ 08:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to apply some of the discussed edits to Masem's draft here; the diff is here. -- Evertype·✆ 08:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - The idea of a comprehensive summary makes sense, and this one seems balanced. Few prospective voters will have the stomach for wading through the archives. If editors feel strongly that (minor) additional info. needs to be included to assist the uninitiated, thats fine by me too. RashersTierney (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support but I think there needs to be a reference to alert editors to the multiple controversies over the name, not only on WIkipedia but at Government level.  There is no need to go into them, but this should not be portrayed as some minor issue.  The fact that it went to Arbcom following multiple edit wars should at least be mentioned  -- Snowded  TALK  10:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Surely whatever "controversy" there may be on Government level is outside the scope of our activity, as we (and this poll) can have no affect on it. As always, if you have suggestions for text, please offer it. -- Evertype·✆ 11:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Sounds good, although a few sentences could be improved. ie, Lough Neagh, Northern Ireland and I agree with Snowded that edit warring took place should be mentioned.  M I T H  11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Zounds, people, saying "it could be improved" doesn't get it improved! I have attempted to apply some of the discussed edits to Masem's draft here; the diff is here. -- Evertype·✆ 11:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I can accept this method of explaining the situation although i do have some concerns about how clear such a huge block of text is going to be, some people just skip such text where as a bullet point for pro / against for each other isnt heavy on reading. I agree with the above comments about the UK and Northern Ireland bit. Under no circumstances should we describe Northern Ireland as a country in the description because it will just lead to alot of confusion for people who dont understand the make up of the United Kingdom. Saying "Northern Ireland that is part of the United Kingdom" seems the simplest solution. I also think some people will be concerned about the statement pushing for certain arguments where as all 6 no matter how silly some of them are should be treated equally.
 * Where it is talking of the article name it should be put in bold not "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" / "Republic of Ireland". Only place where i think ""s should be used is for bits like "Lough Neagh is in Ireland". I dont know if the fact there has been edit wars needs to be included in this description, wont there already be a general intro to the poll itself where we can say there has been endless edit wars so this was set up to resolve the dispute?
 * Also this bit "Two other options consider a solution like China, in which the article at "Ireland" would discuss the geographical and political aspects; " doesnt say of what, it needs to say of the whole island or something like that covering both NI/ROI - BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You saying you don't like "Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom"? I thought that was the precise version, and that the link could educate the teeming millions who think that Wales is in England.... The intent of Masem's text is that it be the general intro. -- Evertype·✆ 08:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought there would be a general intro before that statement, if there isnt going to be then it first needs to explain there is a actual vote and edit wars have taken place etc. Constituent country is less of a problem and i dont object to it but lets try to avoid the complicated make up of the United Kingdom here, this is about the island of Ireland and NI being called a province, country etc doesnt really make any diference, as long as it doesnt just say country im ok with it because that would confuse alot of people. BritishWatcher (talk)


 * Strong Oppose - this summary does not give any indication of why  using a "description" rather than a name is objectionable. The fact that in modern times "RoI" is essentially a British usage while in Ireland and internationally "Ireland" is the overwhelming usage. This summary is a travesty; if this is the only guidance the vast "community" of uninvolved and uninterested voters that supporters of the status quo wish to attract then they are being informed that there is not problem at all with the "RoI". Why, they will wonder, has this been continuously contested since the beginning of the article? Sarah777 (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just Brits who use "the Republic" or "the Republic of Ireland". As I've noted before, within the six-counties I've never heard/seen the twentysix-counties being referred to as "Ireland". It's the same no matter who I've talked to, the papers I've read, the news programmes I've watched, or the radio stations I've listened to. It's the same whether they be republican, nationalist, unionist or loyalist. If someone said "I'm going to Ireland tomorrow" there'd be confused faces all round. ~Asarlaí 16:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, in Irish it was traditional for islanders (on Clear Island for instance) to say "Táim ag dul go hÉireann amárach" 'I'm going to Ireland tomorrow'. An island-to-island thing. -- Evertype·✆ 17:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter a whole lot what names local people use, whether it be 'pet names', or colloquialisms. For example, the people in Germany use the word Deutschland, and in the United States of America, "States" was used quite lot in my time there. Neither do we see any debate about the United Kingdom of "Great Britain" and Northern Ireland not including the Isle of Wight, because the 'IoW' is a different island than the island of Great Britain. Ireland is being subjected to a higher standard of 'proof' than any of its neighbours, and it's quite extraordinary.  Tfz     20:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ireland is being subjected to a higher standard of 'proof' than any of its neighbours..." Proof of what? One or two people posted comments (a long time ago) initially believing that 'Republic of Ireland' was the official name of the state. When it was pointed out to them that in fact 'Ireland' is the official name (as well as being the common name) of the state, they very quickly agreed and admitted their error.
 * The matter is how do we handle the two entities commonly called Ireland. While it's true that extremists of both colours (Irish and British) have reason to deny that the 26-county state is called Ireland, reasonably-minded people from time-to-time have reason to call it by a different name also. For that reason, 'Republic of Ireland' is a very common name used to distinguish one 'Ireland' from the other. On the other hand, I never before encountered people that so vehemently demanded that the state be called 'Ireland' - and nothing else. (Correction: Actually, I have. Some unionist commentators from Northern Ireland - none I've met on WP - insist on it as means to reinforce that "Ireland" and "Irish" is what is south of the border, while "Britain" and "British" is what is north of it.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, well see Tfz's inappropriate accusations above. This isn't the crucible in which The Truth will be handed down. SEVEN YEARS of argument we've had about this, the worst of it from people who simply don't wish to exercise their ability to be "reasonably-minded".
 * I see more support for a version of Masem's more generic explanative proposal than I do for the proposal to put specific arguments on the Poll. -- Evertype·✆ 21:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agressive again ET? No need to 'shout'. And it is not 'well' in that context, it is "we'll".)  I never us the term RoI, and none of my circle use it either. Rannpháirtíit, it is not "common" as you claim it is, unless you reside in the UK of course. It's quite extraordinary the the 'Republic of Ireland' is being presented again, when Verifiability, reliable source, No original research, reliability and Neutral point of view would suggest that it should not be presented at all.  Tfz     21:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Undoubtedly we travel in different circles. News reports: Irish and non-Irish (filtering out the British of course!). Books. Scholarly publication. ... Anyway, this is why we have to have a vote. There's really is no point in discussing it any more. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 123 hits and most about soccer. Sounds though you move in UK circles since you disagree with me so strongly, but that's OR. Flat Earth Society got many more hits with Google-Scholar. Tfz     22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing the soccer related, using ""Republic of Ireland" location:ireland -football -soccer -"Premier League" -"league of Ireland" -"world cup" -site:eleven-a-side.com -uefa -Trapattoni -goalkeeper", gets it down to 34. And looking at what's left, a lot of the time "Republic of Ireland" appears as part of a quote.  Not sure what significance, if any, to the google search.  Interestingly, or not, removing using -"northern ireland" as well (crude attempt to see where it might have been used as a disambig" gets it down to 24. --HighKing (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested info box - if there is to be one
Sarah777 (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no way to know what diffs you made from Masem's original. Nor did you address my attempt to take comments into account. -- Evertype·✆ 10:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And when/how was the decision taken to being forward just one option from the sub-vote to the main vote taken? I strongly oppose that too. Sarah777 (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Masem made that recommendation based on the numbers in the (xxx) poll, and everyone who has weighed in has agreed. Discussion is here. Ireland (state) got 3 times more votes than Ireland (country) and Ireland (Republic of). You're the only one who has complained (without giving a reason). Masem says that the STV is complex enough without adding six more configurations and consensus seems to be to go with that. -- Evertype·✆ 10:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah, your insertion of the dab is formally incorrect in terms of the text as presented. It says that if the article about the State is not moved to "Ireland" it will be either at "Ireland (state)" or "Republic of Ireland". The article about the State would not be moved to the dab page, so it's not correct to put it in the bulleted list. -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a diff between Sarah's and Masem's drafts. Here is a diff between Sarah's and my drafts.
 * I like most of the changes you made Evertype, mentioning sovereign country or whose capital is dublin is far better than "26 counties". However i do think its important we say that the "Republic of Ireland" is an official description given by the Irish government, ignoring this fact is unacceptable because some people would like to have others believe this whole ROI was dreamed up by the British, when it clearly was not. The Irish government saw a need for a description for obvious reasons.


 * I also dont like this bit from the original ". This primarily impacts what the article about the country of "Ireland" will be called"  That is wrong, it impacts equally of the island of Ireland article, and by suggesting the country article is impacted most, we are saying it is more important than the island.. again unacceptable in my view. This impacts on the country / island articles equally.  The island has the prime position right now, it has the most to lose from this process. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is everyone ignoring the elephant in the room that is the 1949 Ireland Act (UK)? That is the main reason we are called RoI, and it has nothing to do with the 1948 act (Ireland).  Trying to blow smoke in everyone's eyes about the reasons why the British use RoI is not acceptable.  Using the 1948 act as justification is a red herring, especially since the 1949 act is still in force.  --HighKing (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not ignoring it. It is now part of the current infobox. -- Evertype·✆ 15:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm editing some more, trying to balance. So we're saying both 26/6 counties, we're saying both 83/17% of the island, I've made article names bold as you requested. I don't want to belabour it with "sovereign" anything at this stage; that's not a battle we are fighting. So I'm saying "26-county state named 'Ireland'" because this is precise (and the voters will know what we are talking about), not because it is "perfect" or "POV" or anything. Should I keep my draft in my sandbox or move it here? -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like not to get stuck on "primarily" here. Yes, if the article State gets moved to Ireland it will impact on the position of the island, but "losing" is not really applicable as the articles are not people and cannot win or lose. The question is, "Can you live with the infobox going out, warts and all?" I have tried to accommodate every comment made. It cannot be made "perfect" and need not be, since most people will move on quickly enough to the ballot. -- Evertype·✆ 11:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopeful we are making progress, I have updated the Draft Poll on Ireland article names. -- Evertype·✆ 21:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Country
Hate to be a pain, but Ireland (island) is a country too. It is not a sovereign state, which is the meaning I presume these boxes intend to convey, but "country" has a broader meaning. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Amazingly, "country" is ambiguous. So are "state" and "nation". We're trying to strike the right balance.... will look at it again. -- Evertype·✆ 15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot moving "Date in Ireland" to "Date in Republic of Ireland"
Please see this and this. Surely this is proscribed by this project? -- Evertype·✆ 18:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The proscription is against moving article pagenames, but that's certainly a breach of the spirit of the Arbcom ruling (however, it may be an unwitting breach - I haven't checked). Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked the person responsible, here, what's up. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes such things should not of been changed until, he probably wasnt aware of this project. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had no idea, so I will wait till whatever poll you're going to hold before creating the rest of the years. Tim! (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Final agreement on ballot page?
Evertype has moved a version of the summary into the draft ballot page. I've made one edit, which I hope will be OK. The only other issue I have is with the line, "The use of this description has been a source of controversy for seven years." Whilst true, I think it tips the balance of fairness slightly.

If we agreed to this draft then are we all set to go ahead with the vote? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved the "source of controversy" to a more generic position, though part of me feels that this masks the core issue somewhat. Nevertheless, we'll have to assume that voters will try to do some homework. Since your edit I took some more comments from you and Scoláire and Tfz into account as you can see and also did a close copy-edit, here. At this stage I think we should really go ahead. It's been a fair number of days since the (xxx) poll closed, and the 50 voters who took part have certainly had time to take a look at the results. -- Evertype·✆ 08:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support the ballot text to go out -- I think that the best should not be the enemy of the good, and what we have is better than just good in terms of balance. (The only change I might make is to push for a note at the ROI option in the intro text to say "(This, the status quo, has long been a source of contention.)" but otherwise I would let it go as-is. As I said last week, I think that the Poll on Ireland (xxx) went well, and I am willing to do the same work (including notifying the communities) to finalize and launch the Big Poll, if you are willing to have me do it. (I don't see much point in saddling Masem with the task as he is here to moderate, not to draft and process documents.). I could start the poll tonight at 18:00 to 20:00 UTC, if that is acceptable. -- Evertype·✆ 08:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support the ballot text to go out - I think a lot of good work - from all sides and none - has gone into making this happen. The ballot page looks good to me now too. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only change I might make is for a note at the ROI option to say "This, the status quo, has long been a stable compromise." Fmph (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A weeping and gnashing of teeth. "Unstable compromise" is more like it. That's why we're in this process! -- Evertype·✆ 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd remove that part altogether (but I wouldn't be a show stopper for me as it stands). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, this is the diff from your version. -- Evertype·✆ 10:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm behind the text as it stands now. (And support Scolaire's comments below.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support with proviso: I don't see any need to lock the text until the moment the poll begins. Constructive suggestions are still being made and it's pointless not to edit for improvement while we still can.  If an edit-war develops we simply revert to the last stable version.  NB the last stable version is the one before the controversial edit, no matter how reasonable or even necessary we believe that edit to be.  Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On a technical point, we plan to 1. move the current "ballot page" to somewhere else, 2. lock that page, 3. pull that page in as a template to where ever the real ballot is taking place? That sounds good to me. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Can you help me set up the template? And who will do the locking? I can do other prep, but haven't that power. -- Evertype·✆ 12:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done this in preparation. I've moved the "draft" out of "draft" and into a template at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Ballot paper. I've created an actual voting page at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. I've put notices in the voting area to "Wait!". Is it OK? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a comment for you on the Ballot paper's Talk page. Other than that it looks good. Are you getting the unchangeable template sorted? We didn't have that on the (xxx) poll but then the poll was not community wide and did not attract any vandalism. -- Evertype·✆ 13:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave a message on Masem's talk. Might as well have him do all adminy stuff as anyone. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I made one edit to reword the piece about the UK legislation. The previous revision could be interpreted to mean that Republic of Ireland has some legal standing outside of the UK IMHO.  --HighKing (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted that edit. Should be discussed here. I think certainly that saying it is "THE legal name in the UK" rather than "A legal name in the UK" is probably wrong. I tried to reword it though. -- Evertype·✆ 15:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with HighKing, why should the UK legislation be mentioned at all? Why not introduce French legislation? Bizarre and perplexing. Tfz     16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose The statement is in need of a rewrite. I find it difficult to understand, and unless an editor has prior knowledge of the facts, it will be completely lost. No disrespect to the original author, but many of these types of texts have to be rewritten and reviewed several times just to get them right. Tfz     17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support ballot text as it stands. Tfz's objections do not seem to me strong enough to be grounds for another rewrite.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons stated. Sarah777 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm withdrawing my opposition but not with any great enthusiasm. The latest version is much better but still skirts the reason so many feel "RoI" is a political imposition. Sarah777 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Final agreement on method used to select the winner?
Another issue was the exact method for calculating the result of the final vote. There was discussion of this above. What I think was agreed there was the following:


 * The method to be used is instant-runoff voting
 * In order to be binding the "winner" must get greater than 50% the vote (after all but the final two options have been eliminated)
 * ArbCom or Masem will adjudicate the vote

This means the vote will be decided as follows:


 * 1. We will count the vote using instant-runoff voting (a simple version of STV used when there is only one winner).
 * 2. We will count the ballot, eliminating options and transferring their preferences, until only two options remain.
 * 3. At that stage we will have:
 * a) a stack of votes for option X
 * b) a stack of vote for option Y
 * c) a stack of "exhausted" ballots.
 * (The total number of a), b) and c) will add up to 100% of the vote.)
 * 4. If X or Y is to be elected then it must have >50% of the vote. In the unlikely event that neither do then we have stalemate once again.

Are we in agreement? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're actually looking for votes, then I'll agree. Scolaire (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is what I'm looking for :) Also, as a note, the above can be calculated unambiguously using OpenSTV software - but counting by hand is also straightforward, and other software would do exactly the same thing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While I can certainly support this, I do question whether we should require the winner to get greater than 50% of the vote for it to be accepted. Supposing I feel passionately that one option is far more better than all that others.  With a 50%+1 requirement, I can exert the most influence by voting for that one option and only that option.  This means that as soon as my chosen option has been removed, my vote is added to the exhausted pile where it will stay threatening to veto any compromise solutions.  By contrast, without the 50%+1 requirement, I'm strongly encouraged to order all possible choices as the only way for me to try to veto a truly unpalatable choice is by prefering a less unpalatable choice.  In this situation, I'm implicitly supporting compromise solutions by listing them ahead of the last choices.  In other words, removing the 50%+1 requirement encourages voters to compromise, and I feel that can only be a good thing.  —ras52 (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a correct analysis. The advantage, to give the other side of the coin, is that the requirement would safeguard against the possibility of >50% of voters disagreeing with the result. (In honesty though, all of this is unlikely as we saw with the "xxx" vote where the final count was 73% to 27% with no exhausted ballots.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So AIUI, if we have the most popular with 55 votes, second with 45, and 10 votes in the junk pile, the whole process stalls? Mr Stephen (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No: 55/(55+45+10) = 50.9%. But add another three votes to the junk pile and/or for the second place option and what you say is true according to what Rannṗáirtí has actually written. D'oh. I can't add up.  Yes, you're right.  However, while not wanting to put words into his mouth, I suspect that what he has written isn't quite what he meant.  I was assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that what he actually meant was that you would continue to do remove the least popular options until only one option remained, plus a pile of exhausted votes.  Assuming the unexhausted votes exceeds 50%, you declare that option a winner.  The effect here is that for X to be a winner, more than 50% of voters have to have ranked X somewhere albeit perhaps in last place.  While this could certainly result in a draw too, I think it is far less likely to than the procedure was written by Rannṗáirtí above.  However, I would be like to know from Rannṗáirtí whether he really did intend the procedure as he has written it.  —ras52 (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant the procedure as Mr Stephen understood it. So, X with 55 votes, Y with 45 and 10 in the junk pile means the process stalls. Carrying on the "Ras52 way" (i.e. making the last transfers from Y, some of which would go to the junk pile and some of which would go to X) is an another way we could do it.
 * The "Rannpháirtí way" increases the odds of a stalemate. Stopping at that point simulates an ordinary two candiate poll, where the winning candidate must have 50% support of the vote (i.e. explicit approval by 50% of all those who voted). A reason you not want to continue making the last transfer is because there is a sense of unfairness if one option gets elected at the expense of another only because it "sucked up" every last preferences. The "Rannpháirtí way" doesn't punish a person for filling out preferences and so may discourage "bullet voting". It comes down to the question of, when there are only two options remaining, whether a "preference" is meaningful: since if Y is eliminated then the preference can only go to only X at that point. This is why stopping at that point may discourage "bullet voting" - because a supporter of Y may feel disheartened at the thought that they might end up being "forced" to vote for X and so not fill in any preferences just to make sure their vote would fall into the junk pile at that point. In all, it's purpose is to increase a sense of "fairness" and to discourage bullet voting.
 * The reason I put in any "50%+1 clause" was because Masem is particularly in favour of it. (I can see the advantage of it.) Are you particularly against it, Ras52? (I'm agnostic at this stage.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In general I think that the less possibility there is that the vote will stalemate, the better. This is for two reasons.  First, I don't think we have any clear idea what we will do in the event that the vote doesn't produce an answer.  We've tried and failed to build a consensus through reasoned debate.  Now we're trying a vote, and if that fails, I don't see what options we have left.  It seems clear the ArbCom won't make a decision for us, and I would be surprised if Masem were willing to unilaterally impose one (though I would support such an action as a last resort if he felt it appropriate).  So what options are left?  Yet another vote?  If we want input from the wider community (and I think we're all in agreement that we do), outside people are, I think, unlikely to devote time to more than one vote, RFC or similar process.  After all, we're hoping that people will turn up and take their time reading about the options and their advantages and disadvantages rather than jumping in with the first thing that comes to mind.  If I had devoted time to doing this and a month later there was another vote, I would probably decide the whole exercise was futile and ignore it.  I don't think that's what we want.
 * So while I will support any of these proposals, I would prefer to drop the 50%+1 clause in toto; failing that, I'd rather see it interpreted with as I suggested with the final level of run-offs so that a 55/43/10 split still had a very good chance of yielding a result. But I'm certainly not going to dig my heels in and be awkward if the consensus is against me.  —ras52 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, let's see if we can drop the 50%+1 clause first. See below. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support this means of counting - What Ras52 says is true enough, but most people will find more than one alternative to vote for; very few in the (xxx) poll voted for only one (5 out of 52) and as did those who voted for only two (5 out of 52). So I agree. -- Evertype·✆ 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not continuing your preferences is a valid and honest way of voting, and is used effectively by many people in elections in Ireland (both parts). I was one of the five that did it in the preliminary poll.  Personally, if my own first choice failed because users who opposed it had used this tactic, I wouldn't want it to be adopted because I wouldn't feel it had a clear consensus.  Scolaire (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but honestly, we are crystal-balling here. There is no way to predict what the vote will yield, so there is no way to decide what to do if one choice does not get 50%+1. Is there? -- Evertype·✆ 11:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely why we have to decide now. I do believe there will be one clear winner, but if there is not there are two options: (1) change the method of counting to produce an "unclear" winner, on the basis that anything is better than nothing; or (2) admit that the poll has failed despite our best efforts and start again.  Which we do will have to be decided in advance, and I believ (2) to be the more honest option.  Scolaire (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, hell. I can't help you decide "what method of counting" should be chosen. So recommend something. Either support Rannṗáirtí's recommendation or propose something else. -- Evertype·✆ 11:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have supported Rannṗáirtí's recommendation. In fact I was the first! I'm only saying that we can't support it, and then say "there is no way to decide what to do if one choice does not get 50%+1". We support it 100% or not at all.  You're barking at me again.  I'm going to go away now.  Scolaire (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Woof? -- Evertype·✆ 12:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support method above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

50%+1 requirement
The possibility of tacking on a rider of the necessity for 50%+1 support for an option in order for it to be binding has been brought up many times. I proposed it above mainly because Masem is for it - or at least was. There is a (slim) possibility that the outcome of a STV vote will result in the winner having less that 50% of votes. If we attach a rider saying that 50%+1 is required then we may end up with no outcome to the vote. If we don't attach this rider then we are guaranteed to get a result ... one way or the other. In all probability the result winner will get >50% but there is an outside chance.

Can we have a show of hand expressing For or Against attaching a "50%+1 rider" to the ballot? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Against --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Against per Ras52. -- Evertype·✆ 16:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Against: we need an outcome of some sort here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For per my comments above, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. Scolaire (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Final agreement on method used to select the winner? (redux)
This has been moved down in order to attract more attention. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How long is the poll to be?
I think previous consensus was for 21 days. Support or Oppose please, with rationale if the latter. -- Evertype·✆ 10:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support 21 days. -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support 21 days. (But I think this has been well agreed to already.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but let's just make sure the t's are crossed. -- Evertype·✆ 11:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the ts be crossed (and the is dotted) before the 21 days begin? Scolaire (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I asked this question. -- Evertype·✆ 11:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. --HighKing (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. As we're into the summer holiday period, we should have more than a fortnight. —ras52 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support 21 days --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support -- GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland article names (Text for the ballot announcement)
A poll has been set up at WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Non-trivial sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will be applied. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 27 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST).
 * How is that for a draft? -- Evertype·✆ 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Surprisingly good actually. At least we can't say you aren't trying. I'm collecting the toys and putting them back in the pram. (In case I need to toss them out again). Sarah777 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lordy. -- Evertype·✆ 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My 2¢: After the sentence beginning "This is a formal..." say a) the result will be binding, b) it arose from b1) the ArbCom process and b2) WP:IECOLL. Then put a line break before the sentence beginning "The order that..." Finally move the sentence about the closing date up to be the last sentence in the (new) first paragraph. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thus:
 * A poll has been set up at WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project.


 * The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Non-trivial sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will be applied.


 * Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 27 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST).


 * Says everything. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd hold on for the green light from Masem before announcing anything. Let's not have a false start.--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Waitin'. Waitin'. -- Evertype·✆ 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The ballot page has gone more than an hour without being edited.... -- Evertype·✆ 19:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm obssessively refreshing or anything.... -- Evertype·✆ 19:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I made one change to balance it, as currently phrased the ROI option is unbalanced, suggesting that the term is official in both Ireland and the UK. Personally I think both options should be a simple statement without elaboration.  However another editor has reversed that simplification so I have expanded it.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try to make a case for this here. -- [[User:Evertype|Evertype]·✆ 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted this hours ago, and then I seem to have removed it again with what was supposed to be a minor edit, but I think it's impotant, so:
 * Do we absolutely have to include "non-trivial sanctions for being naughty"? All the naughty boys and girls are following this page, and they know there will be non-trivial sanctions. It's also written on the ballot paper in case some new mischief-makers come along. The announcement should be "selling" the poll to the masses. Chrysler don't advertise their latest model by saying "driving under the influence will result in imprisonment or a fine. Scolaire (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a point. But that would make your minor edit important.... ;-) Good night. Woof! -- Evertype·✆ 23:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid my sense of humour is far, far less when there's only 30 minutes to the opening of the poll! Are you proposing to threaten voters with hell-fire or not?  Scolaire (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not opening the poll tonight, Some time tomorrow. But the text is fixed. No, no hellfire in the announcement. -- Evertype·✆ 23:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not against scaring folk off in any fundamentalist sense. I'm a pragmatist; if you are scaring off the people who support the status quo, that's OK with me:) Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Scare off the neutrals, you mean - yes, that would make sense from your point of view ;-) Evertype, thank you for your prompt response.  I can sleep easy tonight.  Sweet dreams, all.  Scolaire (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is the following sentence included in the intro text? This seems completely unnecessary and, if it is to be included, should be balanced by the equivalent statement that Many editors are satisfied with the current location of the article on the state. Mooretwin (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Many editors are in particular dissatisfied with the current location of the article on the state.
 * I Agree with ur concerns on that bit of the wording, it is very one sided. Rather than saying something like many editors are satisied with the current location, i think it should be balanced out by also mentioning that the country article being at Ireland is strongly opposed by many editors as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the naming of that article which has been the source of this years-long dispute. That is why the text is there. -- Evertype·✆ 13:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The text should be balanced by noting that many editors are satisfied with the current location of the article. As drafted, the text is unbalanced. Please either remove the offending sentence or add in the suggested additional sentence. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mooretwin the text really should be balanced either as Mooretwin suggests by saying many are satisfied with the current location or at the very least, mentioning others strongly oppose some of the other options.. especially the Ireland at Ireland one because that is far far worse than the current setup of the articles and people need to know many have a problem with that change. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Masem deleted that sentence. -- Evertype·✆ 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Masem. Mooretwin (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archiving
I just archived the first 200K of text here. I hope that I didn't archive any active discussions: if I did, my apologies. This only brought it down from 800K to 600K -- any objection to losing another 200K or so? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you archived all those summaries. -- Evertype·✆ 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, saw them go by, but I figured they were safe, since we were most of the way to the final ballot. I can put a link to the archive page right in the text here, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just moved another 100K. After that, we're starting to get into discussion of the final poll, so I don't think I'll be moving anything else until afterward.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll starting tonight?
Since everything seems to be in order, to the point we know how the poll will be executed, etc., I recommend we open the poll tonight (at least, after GMT 0:00). I have no problem if others want to announce the poll to the talk pages previously agreed to. --M ASEM (t) 19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we just hold a minute please. The current description of the ROI option is unbalanced.  As worded its says the the term is the law in the UK and quotes in full the 1948 act.  In fact the Irish state does not use the name and the UK government agreed to cease using it in the Good Friday Agreement. Both descriptions should be short and not provide selective presentation of facts.  I would hope we can resolve this quickly but it is important  -- Snowded  TALK  19:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've waited this long, I suppose another few minutes won't hurt. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've posted a longer explanation why on the talk page. I agree with your edit by and large. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unhappy about this being sprung on us by Snowded as though we'd done something wrong. We've been trying to balance this section ALL DAY and I would like that acknowledged. Anyway further discussion on the Ballot talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 20:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Snowded. BigDunc  Talk 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowded's edit is correct and should be inserted.  M I T H  20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evertype some of us have been working all day and have only just got home with a chance to review. Please don't use phrases like "Sprung on" or suggest that you are being accused of doing anything wrong. Its a simple proposal to improve things -- Snowded  TALK  20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We are trying to balance YOUR valid concerns with the valid concerns of OTHERS. Not react to a posse. :-) Please assume good faith on my part. -- Evertype·✆ 20:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith Evertype, please do the same and stop accusing me of springing things on you and leading a posse. I've raised a legitimate concern at the first available time.  If other editors agree with me then I'm happy, but I haven't walked into the bar, stuck stars on them and ridden off in to the sunset -- Snowded  TALK  20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In agreement ... but we really need sign off on the method for calculating the results (above), just a few "yeses" will do. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am happy with that -- Snowded TALK  20:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will note that the method of calculating the results need not be determined prior to the start of the poll (that 1) should not influence how people vote 2) nor interfere with how people vote) but should be determined before the poll goes for too long to have the initial results of the poll available to skew the discussion. But at the same time, I offer the possibilty of leaving the method of determining the results until all is said and done, running the various scenarios to determine what the outcomes would be for various cases up through full elimination of all but 2 options, and then discussion from there. --M ASEM  (t) 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It has moved forward with frenetic haste, and that's when things can go wrong. It needs the 'long look over' at this stage. Agree with Snowded's concerns. Tfz     20:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, I am still concerned, despite the improvement in the summary it is not as good as my version and this "clueless" Wiki editor we are seeking to attract to the vote will be presented with a summary that says that (a) RoI is defined in Irish legislation as a "description" and (b) it is what the UK legally calls it; this still  misses the key point, that "RoI" is essentially a British usage; and "Ireland" is both the Irish and international usage and the WP:COMMONNAME as well as the legal name of the country. Why not point that out? It misses the political implications of calling the State "RoI" - essentially an endorsement of the British position by Wiki, contra normal modern global usage. Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The current statement does make these points without adding the biased statement that endorsing ROI is endorsing a British POV. The statement does explain there are political issues behind this enough issue, and does point out that ROI is only recognized as the official name from the UK, but stating any further biases the statement. --M ASEM  (t) 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Masem, obviously you are a lot more intelligent person than I am, for I think those parts are a load of rubbish. Tfz     00:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should start it in the morning UTC when we are fresh. Good night, all. -- Evertype·✆ 00:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What time zone are you in? I'm fresh as a daisy. Sarah777 (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But I think that not determining how the results of vote are to be counted before the vote begins is an exceptionally bad idea. How people vote will often depend on the mechanism for counting the votes.  By all means take another day or two over it, but please make a decision before starting.  To do otherwise is not fair on uninvolved people who come in early to vote, and it leaves those who eventually decide on the mechanism open to charges of bias depending on what outcome the selected process favours.  Let's not go there.  —ras52 (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me propose this as a starting point:
 * If, during any round of voting, an option gets 50%+1 of all votes (including those that may have been discounted for not specifying more options), it will be considered the winner.
 * If, during any round of voting, the total number of discounted votes due to be eliminated in subsequent rounds exceeds 50%+1 of the total number of votes, we go back to the drawing board. (this number we may want to consider a notch lower, no lower than 33%, implying there's a significant fraction of people that don't like any of winning options. However, I don't believe this solution will be reached given the options we've got).
 * Otherwise, considering only all non-eliminated votes, once one option gets 50%+1 of those, it is considered the winner. --M ASEM (t) 00:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, Masem. If all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed, perhaps the poll can begin today. -- Evertype·✆ 08:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose this urgency in starting the poll today or even tomorrow, The text has only just been agreed to by some editors, we should not rush into this so quickly. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At the top of this thread you will see that yesterday at 19:44 UTC Masem recommended that the poll begin today after 00:01 UTC. It's now 10:15 UTC. I'd like the poll to begin no later than 21:00 UTC tonight, frankly. The text has been agreed; what is it you want to wait for? -- Evertype·✆ 10:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Im ok with the wording of the statement and the poll itself, but it seems there is still debate below about the wording of the advert for it and is the final list of locations that will be canvassed the one made some time ago on this talk page which some peopled were adding and removing things from? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording of the advert has been wordsmithed; there is no debate there, I think. As far as I know the list of locations to be canvassed has not changed since the (xxx) poll went out. The list of locations to be polled is a superset of the list which was polled on (xxx). -- Evertype·✆ 10:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think we need to publish the list of all locations that will be sent the message first, its still just a proposal in the section above and i am unsure about Masems comments relating to Europe/Western european countries in response to concerns about the USA being listed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See below. It omits needlessly informing all the European and Western European countries and omits the USA. -- Evertype·✆ 10:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, what Evertype wants is irrelevant. The poll will be published when it is good and ready. It is not up to any of the participants to start setting artificial deadlines. On the substantial points, the advert proposed by Scolaire was welcomed by 2 editors (which around here seems to count as 'consensus'). I see no reason to change it. It is actually Evertype who has proposed a change, which no one else has responded to. So IMHO, it is Evertype who is delaying things by suggesting changes instead of accepting the 'consensus' view. Personally I prefer Scolaire's version. But now we need to get consensus again. WRT the venues for advertising, it seems that a few extraneous locations have slipped onto the new venue list, again proposed by Evertype, so we will need to agree if that represents the consensus view or not. And given that 2100 tonight is an artificial deadline, and that some of us have lives to lead and work to do, I'd suggest that the poll won't be ready to go today. Fmph (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain your assertion that I "slipped in" anything. I pasted that text down from the previous one (to which the (xxx) poll was announced). Kindly note, as well, that Masem suggested that we try to get the poll out last night at midnight. -- Evertype·✆ 11:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

'''Masem/ras52, the method for counting votes is being discussed above. Masem, ras52 has pointed out some very good reasons not to reject a solution if it does not reach 50%. Please let's keep discussion all in one place. The *exact* method to be used is *very* important. If we are not agreed to it then there is no point in beginning the vote. The consequence of running a vote for three weeks and then realsing that we are not agreed on how to calculate the result is too great to even consider risking.''' --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. The way the vote is to be counted and its consequences must be decided before it starts.  We vote like on this like this; the votes will be counted like this; then this will happen.  Mr Stephen (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Last-minute thoughts on the announcements
Unless I'm much mistaken, this poll is unique (apart from the last one, obviously) in that it's not being run under the standard (e.g. RM or AfD) format: (a) it's real voting not !voting and (b) it's STV. I think it's worth saying this clearly in the announcements, so that we don't get a "WTF" reaction from newbies when they see the procedure. It might even pique people's curiosity enough to get them to look at the ballot, and thus vote. The most recent version of the announcement (I think) goes:
 * A poll has been set up at WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project.
 * The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Non-trivial sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will be applied.
 * Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 27 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST).

It was agreed subsequently (I think) that the "sanctions" sentence is unnecessary and potentially off-putting. I am proposing the following:
 * A poll has been set up at WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project.
 * This poll differs from normal polls such as RMs and AfDs in that (a) it is a popular vote, and thus an exception to WP:POLLS; and (b) there are multiple options, from which the winner will be chosen using the Single transferable vote system. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly.
 * Voting will end at XX:00 (UTC) on 28 July 2009 (that is YY:00 IST and BST).

Scolaire (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is very, very good. Well done! Fmph (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I like it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thus:
 * A poll has been set up at WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project.
 * This poll differs from normal polls such as those for requested moves and articles for deletion in that
 * it is a popular vote, and thus an exception to the usual Wikipedia guideline on polling; and
 * there are multiple options, from which the winner will be chosen using the Single transferable vote system.
 * The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at XX:00 (UTC) on 28 July 2009 (that is YY:00 IST and BST).

I think that's slightly friendlier as it avoids WP:ACRONYM. ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 08:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fmph, please explain why you prefer the acronyms RMs and AfDs to the clearer plain-text requested moves and articles for deletion. Please explain why you think that [WP:POLLS]] is superior to guideline on polling. In my view the acronyms should not be used in a community-wide poll as not all editors may be familar with them. -- Evertype·✆ 11:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's possible that Fmph is objecting, not to the expansion of the acronyms, but to the extra line-breaks and/or the changing of (a) and (b) to 1 and 2. I myself am neutral between the two.  I want the one that most people think looks best.  Scolaire (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On second glance, one change I would revert is the introduction of the word "usual". It is an exception to the guideline, not the one that is usually used out of a selection of guidelines.  Scolaire (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about "usual". I think that since the poll is unusual it is better to call them out with a numbered (or bulleted) list, to emphasize that. -- Evertype·✆ 12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason that I prefer Scolaire's original to Evertype's changed version is purely and simply that the original has what could legitimately be described as a consensus and so moves the project forwards. By contributing the slightly revised version, which to me made no discernable difference, Evertype was actually delaying agreement. In the end the further delay in agreeing the statements means that we can agree any number of changes we like. Personally I see no need to change Scolaire's version, but if others feel they want to agree 'improvements' I am quite happy for them to do so. Fmph (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed locations for advertising of poll.
I believe we must notify everyone who was notified of the "Ireland (xxx)". I also believe that the other locations listed above should be notified. -- Evertype·✆ 10:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Projects
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish Republicanism
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Ireland
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unionism
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom
 * Articles
 * Talk:British Isles - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
 * Talk:Ireland - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
 * Talk:Ireland (disambiguation) - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
 * Talk:Irish Free State  - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
 * Talk:Northern Ireland - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
 * Talk:Republic of Ireland - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
 * Talk:United Kingdom - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
 * Noticeboards
 * Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
 * Wikipedia talk:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
 * Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
 * Miscellaneous
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
 * WP:Village pump
 * Centralized discussion
 * Users
 * All those users cited in the ArbCom case - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
 * All those users cited in the WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration - notified of Ireland (xxx) poll
 * Comments
 * Thanks if that's the final list then its ok with me, need to make sure its put on all the talk pages of the projects because it wasnt originally put there on the ireland project talk page, just the project page itself which could lead to some people missing the notification. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get the right talk pages linked. I am not sure where to post it at the Village Pump or Centralized discussion. Any thoughts on the matter? -- Evertype·✆ 11:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know about the village pump, but what about WikiProject Europe as well as the EU wikiproject already listed or just like the Europe one rather than EU? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * {ec} Talk pages linked. Still would like advice on Village Pump and Centralized Discussion. -- Evertype·✆ 11:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pointers to discussion on the Pump and CENT go on their respective main page (their talk pages is used for other details). --M ASEM (t) 12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the point is where will the Poll anouncement be pasted on those two pages? -- Evertype·✆ 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All the individual talk:WikiProject pages of all the countries of the EU, have direct interest. Tfz     13:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that this is true. Malta has a "direct interest" in this dispute? I doubt it. Feel free to make a case, though. -- Evertype·✆ 13:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe should be added to the list rather than just the EU one, but i certainly oppose advertising on other country articles. This matter only involves the UK and the Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On WP:VPP, you just add it to the main page like another talk section. For CENT, it needs to be added to the template as a one-sentence summary.  As for adding other countries, it's a slippery slope to add any other countries besides Ireland and UK, and becomes too much troulbe to include.  We should include all general European Union and Europe-region WP and noticeboards, but no other countries. --M ASEM  (t) 15:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the Europe project per you. -- Evertype·✆ 17:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Placing things on pause to think this out a bit more
Given some good points raised on the ballot page, let's pause a second. After rereading what the current text states on the poll (after edits were done after I drafted the above) there's some points that are almost impossible discuss without biasing it. There still needs to be an introductory text, and some of what's there is fine, but given what has been suggested, let me propose the following:

For each of the six options, one editor that believes that's the best option should write a short, 250-word-ish opinion statement to explain the rationale of why this option is best. This should be focused on only that opinion, not in comparison to others, though I think the ROI issue is one factor. We can then review these and make sure there's nothing glaringly out of line with the piece (it should be POV-ish, but not over the top POV). Once these pieces are reviewed, then we can rewrite the ballot page and go from there.

This gives the advantage that there's not too many hands trying to manipulate text that really is a POV (eg detractors of option X should not be fighting on the wording for the statement of option X which was happening before). --M ASEM (t) 19:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Only read your reply to my earlier objection just now. My objections remain intact. The fact is that "RoI" is unacceptable but there are several alternatives more acceptable - not because of any intrinsic merit but because they avoid the political POV that makes "RoI" unacceptable. This formula, like the proposed text misses that and hence overwhealmingly biases this process towards the status quo. It needs to be explained to the community that several of the solutions on offer (and some of those arbitrarily dropped) address the core cause of the conflict and that "RoI" does not. Sarah777 (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with this suggestion, especially the fact we are slowing down and taking more time on sorting everything before the vote starts. I dont know about others but i still would like to see Arguments AGAINST for each of the options, which could be written by those who feel strongly against it and go through the same sort of review as the pro statements. Should a list be drawn up where editors can sign next to the option if they want to try and make a statement so we can choose which is the best statement for that option rather than all the pressure just being on one editor from the start?BritishWatcher (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Masem for reasons stated here-- Snowded TALK  19:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If people are strongly against an option (that is, if by choice, they would not be able to live with that option, as opposed, "I don't want this option because I rather have this other option"), then I think that's appropriate too. It may be there may not be an anti- statement for some options, simply because it's not disagreeable as great a degree.  --M ASEM  (t) 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this suggestion. How many more weeks and months is this going to go on? People have known for a long time that a poll was coming. No one was worried about this then; no one was prepping their POV arguments. Rannṗáirtí and I worked hard to try to write a set of Pros and Cons out that fairly represented both POVs. You, Masem, came in and suggested we switch to a generic intro. That was fine too; we worked on that and polished it and polished it. Imperfect? Sure. So is a presidential debate. So is the pamphlet on the Lisbon treaty. Now you're going to open it up to not two short sentences pro and con for each of the six options, but to a mini essay for each instead? Who is going to choose the six (or is it twelve) editors who will work on each mini-essay? What if some of them write well, and others write badly? What happens when Snowded writes something and Scoláire objects to it? Because that's where we are now with the generic intro. It's only going to be worse if we go this route here. Masem, please do not let the best be the enemy of the good. There's no perfect way of prepping this poll that will satisfy everyone. I don't think there are any real deal-breakers in what we have; we have dealt with all the deal-breakers as they have come up. Now the only argument is "My POV isn't captured on the ballot" and that ought to be out of scope. I urge you to call for the poll to begin. -- Evertype·✆ 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's more than a couple people shouting "wait!" and have brought up a valid point for discussion. Given the severity of the results, a short pause to catch our breaths and figure out any last minute issues is better than racing ahead. --M ASEM (t) 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the giant point? Can you explain this? You saw all the work that went into trying to make the Pro/Con discussions acceptable. They were acceptable to most, but not some who held a strong POV. You proposed generic text, and you saw all the work that went into trying to make that text acceptable. Last night we saw a bloc of strong POV-holders yell about that too. Now what? Are you really going to hold an essay contest for more POV statements to be attached to the ballot? For me, I would consider that to be a deal-breaker, because there is no way of guaranteeing a balanced presentation of the arguments, and that will prejudice the poll. -- Evertype·✆ 20:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote up my lede summary when I saw that there was editing warring on the pros and cons. Now, someone (Snowded I believe) suggested a slightly better approach to remove the editing warring but still provide these and in a reasonable time frame but in a way that strips out edit warning. It makes sense to pursue those for a few days particularly in light of the issues of trying to balance the overall lede edited since my version. --M ASEM  (t) 21:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that, but removing the addition of any balancing comments is POV. For each of the six options, one editor that believes that it's not the best option should write a short, 250-word-ish opinion statement to explain the rationale of why this option is not the best. That would be informative IMHO. -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Look on the bright side. When this 'final vote' is finally held? there'll be peace in the Middle-East. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * edit conflict And what happens when people object to what they have written? We can't even get agreement on the wording of a generic intro. This is a dark hole we don't want to go down. -- Evertype·✆ 19:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Press the pause button, agree with the Moderator. BigDunc  Talk 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Calm down Evertype, we just want to get this right. There are only a few things to sort out, the options are now defined we just need to summarise positions then it can open up.  The different parties know their positions and there is agreement within the advocates of different positions so getting those statements will not be hard.  Saying that only argument is "My POV ...." is harmful, it does not assume good faith.  Pushing forward on partial or incomplete or disputed statements without an attempt to properly summarise would lead to the result being questioned.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What is it you want to sort out? Above, you linked to text expressing your unhappiness that text didn't say "the law has not been repealed" but that is outside our scope -- it is unacceptably POV to imply that it should be or will be repealed because that is a matter for a sovereign legislature. So what is it that's wrong? I don't understand it. There's no way that Masem's mini-essays of 250 words are going to be uncontroversial. You think they won't be POV? Come on! We've got Tfz accusing "this whole page is placating an Anti-Irish agenda". What if he decides not to like one of the essays? What if I do? What if you do? You say the Pro/Con statements (an earlier version here). A lot of good-faith work went in to trying to put forward the arguments fairly and soberly. That didn't make everyone happy. I can promise that a whole set of POV mini-essays (position arguments if you will) on the ballot is going to be controversial. Or do you expect moderates like me to just take what's given, and not to propose improvements to that text too? I'm calm, Snowded. I have tried about as hard as anybody could to act in good faith and to assume good faith. Haven't had a lot of positive feedback for the work either. But I am rapidly losing confidence in this Project. -- Evertype·✆ 21:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pushing pov into an intro to a poll is not making for a 'level playing field'. Trying to give priority to RoI is and anti_Irish agenda IMO, it's a bit like calling the UK the 'Kingdom of Britain' here on WP, and Evertype you choose to admonish me when I spelt your name wrong, remember. It's one of the highest insults to give anyone is to get their name deliberately wrong, and Wikipedia is insulting to Ireland by giving preeminence to RoI in the lede of the poll page. In your eyes I'm one of the biggest pov-pushers on Wikipedia because I want the name of Ireland to be handled properly here at Wikipedia. I'm sure I would like your essay. Tfz     21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * TFZ didnt u leave this process at one stage? Why did u come back if all u are going to do is make rubbish claims like that. FACT: The IRISH government chose to make REPUBLIC OF IRELAND the description of their state BEFORE the British Act which used that as their title. If ROI is soooooooo hated by everyone in the republic of Ireland WHY does the Republic of Irelands football team play under the name REPUBLIC OF IRELAND? ROI is a reasonable title although i dont think its the best one. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I love the description 'Republic of Ireland', because it means all people and their privileges are equal in the eyes of the state. No lords or barons to push their weight hither and thither. It describes the system that is used in the country of Ireland. That's all. Tfz     22:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are so proud of a Republic (bucket please), u should celebrate the fact its in the article title. As for no lords and barons, so u just have a rich elites without titles? does it make that much difference lol? If ROI is so unacceptable and just the description of the type of government u have, why does the Republic of Irelands football team play under that title? People wonder why many British people use the term Republic of Ireland when talking about the state, im sure its because they all read the 1949 Ireland Act by the British government where it recognized the name of the state as ROI or see it as a way of annoying Irish people and its not because they hear "Republic of Ireland", every time the football results are announced. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See the link for more information on the football team. There is a book that goes into more detail that I read some time back, but the title now eludes me. And I do celebrate the fact that there will be a proper 'Republic of Ireland' article here on Wikipedia very shortly, and I look forward to that, and may even crack open a bottle of champaigne. Hope you join the celebrations.) Tfz     23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * lol " The current name was adopted after a FIFA ruling to disambiguate it from the Ireland team run by the IFA, which is now commonly known asNorthern Ireland." - Hmm so it appears that FIFA do what wikipedia currently does, using the term ROI to disambiguate it from the island of Ireland, do you send in complaints to them all the time about this outrageous attack on the Irish people? lol. As for the celebrations im pretty sure the outcome will be something we can both accept so maybe we can share? :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I'll correct the article.  Don't understand how I missed that - I'd corrected the text below to (correctly) read FIFA decreed that the FAI team be officially called the Republic of Ireland while the IFA team was to be named Northern Ireland.  --HighKing (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll drink to that.) Tfz     23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent] Snowded, with all due respect, before we put in the generic text, we had worked on this evaluation of pros and cons. Can you say what's wrong with that, and what's wrong with the current introductory text, and how you see these problems fixed in a way which will also find (for instance) me being able to support it? -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some advise, its never good to start a request with "all due request" but I won't take offence. The problem with that statement is that it completely fails to provide the political context which made the use of ROI controversial.  I have been around conflict resolution cases for long enough to know that there will not be an agreed neutral statement that is not biased.  You've done a great job of making progress here, but you have also been an antagonist in the debates and it shows in what you consider to be neutral.  Its far better for a simple 250 word statement to be prepared by the different groups so that editors can look at the arguments in summary form.   I'm not sure that is for each of the voting options, it may be better for one on For-ROU and another Anti-ROI and then a series of smaller ones on IF-NOT-ROI-then-XXX but I don't feel strongly on that and suggest we leave it to the moderator. -- Snowded  TALK  21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some history: The controversy, to the extent that one existed, was not "Republic of Ireland", it was "Ireland". The substance of the controversy was that the UK (in the main) would not call the Irish state by that name (and was alone in the world in doing so). The reason why is fairly obvious, "Ireland" was ambigious with another entity that overlapped with the UK's territory - a part of the UK's territory that the Irish state also claimed sovereignty over. With the Good Friday Agreement, the Irish state relinquished it's claim over that territory and the UK accepcted "Ireland" as the Irish states name. "Republic of Ireland" didn't enter into it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good summary up to your statement that ROI did not come into it -- Snowded TALK  22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then to what extent did it enter into it, would you say?--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wait" is fine. The sudden rush of discussion is to be expected. Despite the fact that we have been collaborating on the poll for weeks now, when people realise, "OMG! It's really going to happen!", then suddenly things they never mentioned before become VERY important. But if we are going to pause, we need to an hard date for go live of the vote - otherwise we will be "pausing" for ever. With regard to the "250-word" proposal, I think that is a *bad idea*. It was bullet points before, then it was an itroduction text, now it's 250 words, next time it will be something else. What we have now is fine. Of course it could always be better. Of course some will always say we could do something else. But scrapping what we have for something else and starting all over again together would be craziness. Remember, the reason we are having a vote is because we cannot agree in the first place. So, I suggest we leave the intro text as is, and deal with suggestions for edits as they come. I also suggest that we begin the poll at 21:00 UTC on the 9th of July. (00:00 UTC is an impractical time, I think, for most editors here since it is 01:00 in Ireland and the UK.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Id be prepared to try for the intro text to be made as neutral as possible but its going to be very difficult, i think pros/cons statement for each of the options is going to be easier to get agreement on that a single text, which both sides seem to have problems with. I also oppose any attempt to put a deadline on when we must start the vote, such a rush is just going to create more problems. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "... i think pros/cons statement for each of the options is going to be easier to get agreement..." Given the historical fantasy land that some editors live in with regards to the names of the Irish states, I don't think so.
 * "I also oppose any attempt to put a deadline on when we must start the vote..." Then you must accept that we will never have a vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well i am still not quite sure why the process of pros and cons was changed and we went down the path of the single statement. If there is meant to be a statement that is PRO an option then its not going to be opposed by people for the sake of it, where as any sentence in the single statement that isnt totally neutral causes problems. On the time scale, i agree this cant go on for ever, but id rather we just say if this attempt fails the vote goes live without any statements or pros / cons, rather than setting a date in a couple of days we all must rush to meet. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "... a statement that is PRO an option then its not going to be opposed by people for the sake of it..." What? Have you not been here for the past six months? That's exactly what going to happen. A list of pro/cons will descend into a POV fest. It's an insane road to go down. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If all the statements were referenced and supported by sources it should cut down the POV. Anyone trying to push a POV would have to back it up. If the Pro and Anti statements have conflicting views all the better, because the reader will be able to balance the quality and quantity of the sources for themselves. This might just lend some credibility to the process. -- Domer48 'fenian'  21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh god not again, sources would be helpful and certainly help make the case but lets not demand such things (with the exception of allowing mods to remove clear POV). Otherwise we are going to get into a dispute where certain editors challange the source or claim and seek its removal. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Two statements, Pro and Anti, both sources and the reader makes up their mind! If one statement wants to rely on unreferenced POV that's fine by me.-- Domer48 'fenian'  21:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with that BritishWatcher (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, its not going to be possible to get a fully non-POC summary so lets have a couple of short partisan positions that other editors can read and decide. Much simpler and allows us to make progress.  As I said earlier those are clearly for and against ROI (which has always been the contention).  There is a case for some statements on the alternatives, but that is the main debate -- Snowded  TALK  22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a recurring issue with sources during this whole debate: people citing sources that they believe back up their statement, but that, in fact, don't even refer to it. In particular (but by no means limited to this) are sources produced that purportedly show that "Republic of Ireland" has a UK bias, but when examined these sources only refer to the UK's issue with "Ireland" as a name for the Irish state, and no don't demonstrate that "Republic of Ireland" has a UK bias. Throwing sources at an argument doesn't make it true, those sources have to actually support the argument being made.
 * But ultimately, there is little *need* for sources. We all know the facts: "Ireland" is the name of the state, "Republic of Ireland" is the official description. That's is not the question. There is no source in the world that can answer where two articles on Wikipedia should be located. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - for Masem's suggestion Fmph (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer one single introductory statement, and I think the one already drafted does the job just fine. I can also see the advantages of writing short statements in support of each of the options. There are good reasons in policy why each of these are suitable potential options, and these reasons can be explained relatively neutrally. There is not, however, good reasons why any of these are invalid (If they were invalid then they should not be on the ballot for polling in the first place). So an anti- statement is going to reflect the particular biases and preferences of the statement writer, which may or may not be reasonable, and may not be shared with others who dislike that particular option. I therefore strongly disagree with writing both pro- and anti-POV statements for each options for the simple reason that it gives undue weight to one lucky editor's personal opinion. Rockpock e  t  23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That you think that there are good reasons in policy why each of these are suitable potential options, is a matter of opinion, namely yours. Likewise there are good reasons in policy why each of these are not suitable potential options. Each statement should provide a rational to support the reasons, and let the reader decide based on the points raised. That you only see advantages of writing short statements in support of each of the options can not be explained relatively neutrally, as it gives undue weight to only one lucky editor's personal opinion and in this case yours. Who could possibly object to balanced statements? -- Domer48 'fenian'  00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only way they could be balanced would be if all significant opinions are offered, not just the lucky one or two. The reason why you oppose one option is not necessarily the same reason I - or anyone else - opposes it. This is why a single, neutral introductory statement is my preference (and not one written by me, as you imply, but one written by the Moderator). I have no desire to impose my personal opinion as a guide for others, and I don't believe we should represent anyone else's personal opinion as such either. If you wish to write a critique of each option, then I suggest you do so in your own user space and we allow editors to provide a link to their rationale along with their vote. That way if someone wants to read your reasoning they can, without it being presented as anything more than your personal opinion.  Rockpock  e  t  01:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rock, if we are to have pro statements for each of the options we must atleast display the negative reasons as well for the ones people have a real problem with, not trival reasons. For example i cant think of any real reason why Ireland (state) is going to be strongly opposed unless u have concerns about people thinking state is like a US or American state. But on keeping the country at Republic of Ireland or moving it to Ireland there are very big problems with those options. I would say the country article being at Ireland is an invalid option becayse it totally ignores the fact there is an island called Ireland which has more right to the Ireland spot. We cant just allow people to see the pros so they are convinced into voting for something without knowing the true implications. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

For editors to write a concise, focussed, fact-based (and indeed sourced) statement in favour of each option is an excellent idea. I proposed that very thing—on 18 October 2008!! We all know how much water has gone under the bridge since then, and still very, very few people have shown either the will or the ability to write such a statement. The probability of a few hand-picked editors being able to do it in a week is infinitessimal. God knows, the probability of even being able to agree which editors are picked is infinitessimal! I have great admiration for Masem and the way he has kept the thing together until now. Like Evertype, I bit my tongue each time something I had broken my back on for two or three days was unceremoniously flushed down the toilet. But this current proposal is just a very bad idea. It can only lead to complete anarchy (again!). Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Scoláire. I have had great admiration for Masem as well. I did not complain when he proposed not to use the Pro/Con statements that Rannṗáirtí and Scoláire and I worked so very hard on. Masem proposed a single intro, and a number of us worked very hard on that. Even the last day, when a bloc of (evidently) anti-RoI editors complained about some of the text in it, we worked very hard and we ended up with something that succeeded (the one that added Belfast Agreement to both clauses). There was agreement on that text. Then Masem comes in and on foot of a lot of POV bleating from four editors, he has jettisoned all of that work in order to begin some sort of as-yet undefined process for writing POV mini-essays. Masem, I guarantee you I will oppose putting such essays on the ballot paper. So where are you going to put them? What is your plan for selecting editors to write each one? What are you going to do when other editors want to redact those mini-essays? I regret to say, as a moderate who has tried to toe the line and tried to accommodate everyone as much as is possible, that you are in danger of scuppering this entire project with your new plan. Scoláire is right: some of us have "broken our backs" working on text to get this process moving on, and we had your support as of 21:00 two days ago, when you hoped we could start a poll by midnight that day. Now I feel that the efforts we made no longer have your support and that you are supporting some of the more shrill and obviously POV voices here. That is unbalanced, and not behaviour worthy of an effective moderator. Please reconsider your recent decisions. -- Evertype·✆ 10:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that none of the vociferous voices are drafting and proposing text which is focussed on the goal here (which is to get a ballot that is mature enough for the entire Wikipedia community to review and act upon -- which, one hopes, will not make us all look like a troop of baboons. -- Evertype·✆ 10:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You also have to realise that editors were being totally dismissed and it looked like a qwango running the operation. I think these editors were not as vociferous as is claimed, and there is more support than is realised. But any problems have to be looked upon as challenges, and that's OK. A suggestion, why not keep all POVs away from the ballot paper/page and set up links from each option to a discussion page, and allow editors here (all, none, or one, whoever wants to), to start them off with inputs of no more than 250 words as proposed. Tfz     11:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to make it clear that I agree with Tfz about editors "being totally dismissed". I may have been seen as part of a "quango", but I never approved of edits and reverts that came across as controlling behaviour, and I said so privately on a number of occasions.  However, I don't see that as a reason to throw everything up in the air again.  We should be working towards a solution based on one of the mechanisms we already had.  Scolaire (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)On the surface, Masem's idea to produce mini-essays is a good one. But it's unworkable, and I believe if Masem thinks about the reality of implementing it, he'll reach the same conclusion. How do we select the authors for each essay? How do we approve each essay? (Wow - think of the fighting that'll create!) And the fundamental question - are the essays really necessary? I believe not. We should create a simple section with some links for "More reading". Anybody who is interested enough to want to read more on the debate should be given some links to debates on this page, or the relevant Talk pages or the naming dispute, or editors can write a private essay on their Talk page and include the link, etc. I don't see why this process needs to be delayed any longer though - God knows there's been enough discussions and debates over the years... --HighKing (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me restate what I see happening here and why a brief pause to catch our breath is necessary: I stress the need that this poll needs on its page appropriate statements as other editors are not going to go fishing to read about the history of the dispute - some might but most won't. Also, I think that in light of other comments, I think it's fair that under each pro or con, that we can provide links to other users' stances or a more detailed thought, but we want to keep what is shown on the polling page simple. This should not take much time to complete: for at least four of the options, I'm pretty sure there are editors that are willing to write a short summary of the pro position and few on the con side. This would then be in addition to a portion of the original introductory text to explain why this poll is being held. This is the best way I think that we can present the poll and a quick position statement for each argument without endless edit warring and get us to actually doing the poll faster. We could do it now, but there's enough people a bit distressed on the current language that they may not accept the final results unless we get it right first. --M ASEM (t) 15:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The poll options have all been fixed with the completion of the "Ireland (xxx)" poll.
 * It is apparent that we need some statement to familiarize outside editors to the nature and background of this poll without making them read volumes of works.
 * It was first envisioned to have pros/cons for each of the options, but this quickly descending into edit wars because editors against a certain option were trying to influence the writing of its pros, and vice versa.
 * This led me to suggest a single summary paragraph (eliminating the pros/cons), which my initial version maybe not word-perfect but acceptable.
 * This then began to be edit warred over because some felt it wasn't addressing every point correctly or with all the details one needs to understand it (namely issues with the UK Ireland Act and the Belfast Agreement)
 * It was suggested by one editor that it might be good to have pros/cons but written only by a single editor to help fix this. This is a point I agree with because trying to address the details without slipping in a POV-like statement is very difficult.


 * There's nothing unreasonable in what you say, but I don't think it answers any of the questions we have raised:
 * Who are these "editors that are willing to write a short summary of the pro position and few on the con side"?
 * Why do you think their summaries will not "be edit warred over because some feel it isn't addressing every point correctly"?
 * How will this "not take much time to complete", when none of the three previous attempts were able to be completed?
 * and most importantly:
 * What is the logic in saying that taking time out to get the current (or either of the previous) wording right is more difficult than taking time out to do something completely different?
 * Scolaire (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The very fact that there are a number of choices indicates that with each option there are both pro’s and con’s. This is common sense really, and that is why there should be statements which address what they are. My preference is for fact based and informed statements, which do not conflict with our long standing policies, that are free from personal comment, opinion and POV. Readers should be provided with the opportunity to reach an informed opinion, and be enabled to evaluate the options based on the strength of the arguments, and not the strength of numbers. -- Domer48 'fenian'  18:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Masem, in general I agree with what you stated. Let me pick up on one or two things.  I stress the need that this poll needs on its page appropriate statements as other editors are not going to go fishing to read about the history of the dispute - some might but most won't - mega agree.  that under each pro or con, that we can provide links to other users' stances or a more detailed thought - what about the idea that the poll contains a section of links where each editor who writes a private essay can also provide a link here (and could also provide the link when they vote).  That way, each essay can be viewed as a single POV, can be as long or as short as individual editors like, and can chose to highlight any issue they like rather than be dependent on an individual editor (with, in all probability, different ideas and issues).  --HighKing (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant; even if we don't use pros/cons, links to user essays couldn't hurt being included here, they'd be like position statements in a normal election. As long as the ballot page itself is not weighted down on POV arguments, that's important. --M ASEM (t) 21:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that something similar has been suggested below as well. Perhaps this is the way forward.  Allow a number of days for people to construct their private essay, and agree a simply was for voters to access the various arguments and rationale.  It would be lightweight, and give each POV an opportunity to be heard, unedited and uncensored.  More importantly, it would prevent any future arguments that the voting public wasn't properly informed or that certain arguments were censored.  --HighKing (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)