Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 14

Support Halt; need a summary that does not de facto support the status quo
Everytype, I'm repeating comments I made above in the jungle of comments to Masem because I think we are missing the central issue here. 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 in favour of 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)
 * Now that I have the floor, I must add that I'm doubtful about the list of projects being invited to vote here. Why UK project and not Germany? If one of the problems is British usage then we need to involve projects that might have a broader international perspective. Throughout Europe the country is known simply as "Ireland" (and the other place is "Northern Ireland"). Sarah777 (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Masden said something on that issue here . - Tfz     10:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And if I required validation of my fears about the predisposition of the current formula, Scolaire above and others provide it. Leaving aside the Admins, those in a hurry to proceed with the current mess appear to be nearly all supporters of the status quo. Sarah777 (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well balanced comments sarah, no POV there at all lmao. First of all ROI is a perfectly acceptable location for the article title and the fact it has remained there for a few years shows its not totally unacceptable in most peoples minds. There is one alternative that is more acceptable, that would be Ireland (state). Sadly some people have refused to allow us to remove the core problem titles which are unacceptable to each side (the country at Republic of Ireland and the country at Ireland, i think the second is FAR worse than the first but i see problems with both). Had we removed those two we could of had a nice sensible debate about a compromise location for the articles, but sadly no.


 * As for the comments about UK wikipedians being informed, the difference between the UK and Germany is the UK shares the island of Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. Does Germany? People who live in Northern Ireland are United Kingdom citizens, there for UK wikipedians and must be informed.
 * As for the final comment that is just crazy, "those in a hurry to proceed with the current mess appear to be nearly all supporters of the status quo.". That would be pretty silly, slowing down the process means the status quo lasts for longer, speeding up this process is far more likely to result in a change to the articles than for it to remain in the same place. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you have hit on something, and I have said this before much earlier on, "keep it simple". The poll has got very complicated with all these options. My preference was that the RoI article be "fixed", and leave Ireland as the island article, status quo. Then there wouldn't be so much debate. Tfz     10:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Both Sarah and BW are missing one vital fact: on English Wikipedia the German, Spanish, Azerbijani and Nepalese WikiProjects are populated by British and American editors in more or less the same proportion as this one; they're just British and American editors who aren't that interested in Ireland! Sarah has also called it wrong on me on two counts:  I am not in a hurry to proceed and I am not in favour of anything that could conceivably be construed as de facto support for the status quo - what I am upset about is the return to the kind of free-for-all that will see the likes of Sarah and Bastun slugging it out for another six months before anything else is done.  Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah. The fact is that you find Republic of Ireland to be unacceptable. Other people find it acceptable. That's a fact. You don't have to like the fact, but it is a fact. I am not saying I find it to be acceptable. I'm saying that it's not true to say that it is unacceptable. You have accused me of favouring the status quo. As it happens I do not favour it. Indeed I have never favoured it. That does not prevent me, however, from working on a set of Pros/Cons and a general intro to the poll which attempts to balance the different views. I DON"T CARE if you can't stand Republic of Ireland being on the poll as a possible name for the article on the state. It's there. I DON'T CARE if someone on the other side can't stand Ireland being on the poll as a possible name for the article on the state. I can express my opinions on the poll. When trying to put the ballot together, however, I and Scoláire and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid have tried to be even-handed not to make Republicans or Unionists happy or unhappy, but because that's how one is supposed to do it. I am willing to allow the ballot to make statements that are true, without trying to make the ballot into a propaganda exercise — and that is what your arguments, and those of Tfz, and Domer48, and BigDunc, seem to me (that's my opinion) be leading toward. You want the ballot to argue for your POV because you're afraid that you'll "lose". Personally I doubt that the status quo will stand. But I agreed, as did you, to let the wider community to decide. That's the risk I agree to take because we have not been able to come to agreement in some other way. -- Evertype·✆ 11:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think some people are still at the Denial phase while most are at Bargaining (to be followed by Anger/Depression and finally Acceptance). Or something like that... --HighKing (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Masem, I don't think delaying is going to make things any better. You have poll wording that appears to have rough consensus, and the reason we're having the poll is that we can't get a clear consensus here. Why do you think we're going to come up with a poll that everyone can live with if we wait a few more days. Go for it and see what the community says.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested that we provide Pro and Con statements which are fully supported by referenced sources in an effort to inform readers. That it should be described as "a propaganda exercise" is very unhelpful. I'd like it to stop. Is there any reasonable or rational suggestions as to why we should not try to have an informed set of statements? -- Domer48 'fenian'  18:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have proposed below (and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid proposed something similar on the ballot Talk) that we allow each voter to link to another location with the uniform phrase "(my rationale here). Then anyone who wants to give an explanation and rationale and referenced sources on the Poll's talk page or below the ballot area can do so -- without the ballot area itself becoming a battleground. -- Evertype·✆ 19:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Method to calculate result
I know this isn't sexy but it *really* has to be sorted. Without agreeing in advance exactly how we are going to decide the result of the vote, we risk wasting our entire efforts. We are going to invite the entire Wikipedia community to participate in a three-week poll using what, to most of them, will look like some super fandangly voting system. If, at the end of those three weeks, we are left arguing over what was the actual outcome was, we will be the laughing stock of Wikipedia.

It is *crucial* that we agree in advance how we are going to do this. So, whatever your opinion, if you don't support, object or comment on the below, you risk your vote counting for nothing.

We currently have two proposed methods. Please cast your !vote below each one. The difference between the two is as follows:
 * Method 1 guarantees a result, but the "winner" may have less than 50% explicit support
 * Method 2, the winner must have >50% explicit support, but risks not giving a "result"

(Masem, I have summarised yours below, reducing mathematical redundancies from your description above. Rockpocket, Scolaire, GoodDay, I have copied-and-pasted your votes from the on-going poll above, which I have moved down here - I hope I am right in doing so.)

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Method 1:
 * The method to be used is instant-runoff voting
 * ArbCom or Masem will adjudicate the vote


 * Fine by me. Rockpock  e  t  23:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. Scolaire (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Tis acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Guarantees a result one-way-or-the-other and discourages "bullet voting". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - This needs resolving once and for all. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support without reservations. -- Evertype·✆ 11:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support A decision is required --HighKing (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Ditto -- Tfz    12:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Fmph (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: we need a result, not "no consensus". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Per my earlier comments. — ras52 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Method 2:
 * The method to be used is instant-runoff voting, with the following proviso:
 * If the number of exhausted ballots exceed 50% of the total vote, the vote is void (i.e. back to the drawing board)


 * ArbCom or Masem will adjudicate the vote


 * Support (also): Encourages consensus and compromise to get a result. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The "Ireland (xxx)" poll was fine; the mistake was deciding without any consultation to forward only the top two options when there were three outstanding. Bad decision by someone which I intend to challange. I have previously asked how/when/where that decision was made and have had no explanation after 2 days. Sarah777 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sarah, the decision was taken to forward only the top option because it had an overwhelming majority compared to the other two options and since that was the case it was decided (by consensus) that it was better to keep the ballot simpler rather than needlessly complex in terms of the options offered. -- Evertype·✆ 11:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sarah, the (xxx) poll resulted in an overwhelming majority for one option, but I agree with you that this has essentially resulted in a sub-election before the main event. Not uncommon though in the real world.  Think of it as an election for the best candidate to stand in the primary.  I have no problem with extending it from 2 to 3, but where would we draw the line?  Why not 4 or 5?  And, I'm puzzled.  The 2nd placed result was Ireland (country), and the 3rd place was Ireland (Republic of).  Is it your intention to include Ireland (Republic of) in the poll??  --HighKing (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah, the discussion of the number of options was at . Per my comments at the bottom of that section, the inclusion of three or even two bracketed options would only result in discarded votes, and the biggest loser would be the anti-ROI side.  Scolaire (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a mathematician but I'd be very slow to buy a formula from the other side. Sarah777 (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I do not want us to go back to the drawing board. -- Evertype·✆ 11:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like not to either, but if, out of 100 votes, 20 provide their preference for various options, but the other 80 leave their ballot blank, stating they don't agree to any of the options. That's not a good situation to accept as a binding result for 2 years. Mind you, I don't think we'll need to take this route, but we need to have some type of "no confidence" aspect to use here. --M ASEM (t) 15:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What about including a "none of the above" option instead? And if "none of the above" gets >50% of 1st pref votes, then it's back to the drawing board.  --HighKing (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that is a credible scenario, Masem. We had no such troubles with the Ireland (xxx) poll. We should not worry ourselves into paralysis. I would also oppose a "none of the above" solution. -- Evertype·✆ 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per my earlier comments. — ras52 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments
I thought the method of calculating votes had already been agreed to above? ive stayed out of that debate, the maths gave me a headache. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Masem made a comment here that was contrary to what seemed to be the consensus above. In any case, it's better that as many people as possible explicity state their agreement that way we can be *certain* what we are doing. Absolute *certainty* is crucial. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "the vote is void" as in we have to come back to the drawing board again? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've put an explanation of the difference above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes up my mind :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes up your mind? Whatca mean? GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That ill vote for method one which gets a result for sure, rather than method two which could lead back to stage one. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A question on Method 1: so that there is no ambiguity: If I vote #1 "Ireland" and #2 "Ireland (something else)" and #3 "Ireland State" - if "Ireland" is eliminated then my vote is added (100%) to  "Ireland (something else)". If "Ireland (something else)" is then eliminated and "Ireland (state) is still in the frame my vote gets added (100%) to "Ireland (state)". But if I don't vote "Ireland (state)" #1 there is a risk that by the time "Ireland (something else)" is eliminated then "Ireland (state)" may also be gone and with it my anti-RoI vote? Sarah777 (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Let the poll begin
Let's take a poll on taking the poll. Do you support the poll starting sooner, rather than after a protracted new argument process? If you do, sign support. If you prefer to wait and work through writing another set of arguments, sign oppose.
 * Support. -- Evertype·✆ 16:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support -- it's not going to get any more agreeable to everyone than it is now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I can not support the current proposed wording of a statement and i dont see it ever getting consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If you don't see any statement getting unanimity (which is different from consensus) then what are you doing? Delaying for a week to improve a statement you don't see ever getting consensus? Because that's just a blocking tactic. If you really don't see a possibility of getting a perfect statement, one option is to say "Frak it, it can't be perfect, but I'll hold my nose and overlook it because it's the poll itself that's important." -- Evertype·✆ 19:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose I can't believe I am voting in a poll on a poll ah sure the wonderful world of wiki. BigDunc  Talk 18:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Dunc. -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither he nor you gave a rationale. -- Evertype·✆ 19:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - as I believe there's a potential for this whole Collaboration (up to now) falling apart (over something insignificant). GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose and object to this petulant act. The delay is not for "protracted argument" its to allow proper statements to be made. We are probably not going to get a much better agreed statement, but we can get statements in support of the different positions that inform other editors.-- Snowded  TALK  19:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A poll to judge whether there is rough or fine consensus is not a petulant act, thanks. -- Evertype·✆ 19:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose because the combination of
 * (1) inviting hordes of uninterested and uninvolved members of "the community" while
 * (2) failing to explain that the dispute centers around the fact that the "RoI" is a political imposition of British pov
 * leads to a de facto argument in favour of the status quo.
 * I accept what Scolaire says re the En:Wiki Germany editors being from the US/UK like all the others; but I'd think the chances of them having a wider perspective is better than on Projects that by their nature attract British nationalists or Anglo-Saxonistas. Short of asking non-English Wiki editors to vote it seems the best chance of getting out of the parochial rut. Sarah777 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake how can you say " fact that the "RoI" is a political imposition of British pov", when it was the Irish government that first introduced the term.. not the British one. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was 1948, this is 2009. And the Irish Government went to some trouble to explain that "RoI" was a dab, not a name. Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ". And the Irish Government went to some trouble to explain that "RoI" was a dab" Thank you Sarah, that is exactly why we use the title Republic of Ireland on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - having a poll about whether to have a poll is silly Fmph (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to determine what needs to be fixed
Yes, I want to push the poll forward, but I want to make sure people are satisfied. The problem is that there is so much noise that it is very difficult to follow (I suspect these are the reasons the other moderators quit).

Please review WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Ballot paper, and I would like to know that, if you have any misgivings on its set up, what those are, whether its in the lead statement or in the instructions, this includes if you are feeling there is a big necessary fact that non-involved editors must be aware of. Please don't respond to others; I need to assess if we're talking wording or procedural fixes that are easy to fix, or if we need a bit more effort (like the pro and con statements), and arguing over specific points won't help to fix it. --M ASEM (t) 18:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Its totally unbalanced if you ask me. The poll notionally has 5 options for how to solve the conflict, yet 80% of the explanatory infobox concentrates on the case for moving the ROI article intact to Ireland (state) or not. MickMacNee (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's as balanced as it can get. Regarding the intro: It isn't a perfect summary of everyone's argument and it doesn't take into account every person's deep-felt feelings. But it can't. It also tries to be fair on all sides, and I think it is clear that there is some unhappiness on both of the sides, which is a sign that we did a good job. Extending the essays isn't going to make any difference at all to the non-involved editors who are going to be asked to make a choice. We've spent the last two or three weeks getting to here. Regarding the poll: One option on the poll offers the status quo. The other options on the poll are other options. I think it was wise to limit the options to one "(xxx)" choice. Regarding the rules: Amazingly it looks as though we have broad consensus on those, apart from the ban on discussions in the poll. I think that should be changed to allow each voter to link to another location with the uniform phrase "(my rationale here). -- Evertype·✆ 19:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a few problems, i wasnt strongly against the text itself though (with the exception of the suggested wording about the troubles, which i strongly oppose)
 * # First this bit " All involve what content will be at the article titled 'Ireland', in addition to other articles that may be affected by it. This impacts what the name of the article on the 26-county state "Ireland" will be," Why is the fact this impacts on the state mentioned but totally ignores to point out it equally impacts on the island?
 * # There is no mention of how long the ROI article has been at Republic of Ireland, ignoring this fact that it has been there for years ever since the birth of wikipedia basically is clearly anti the ROI option.
 * # There is no mention of the fact that the ISLAND of Ireland has had the name IRELAND for alot longer than the Sovereign state which only adopted it just over 70 years ago.
 * # On the section that mentions why it should be at ROI it could point out more clearly it was the IRISH government that introduced the Republic of Ireland Act, some may be confused and think it was the British government. It should be clear Irelands own government created the term Republic of Ireland, not the nasty British.
 * # A mention of the fact the Irish football team plays under the title Republic of Ireland because Ireland is ambiguous, so it isnt "Ireland" in all international organisations shows the Irish government isnt as anti ROI as some of the people here on wikipedia, if they were theyd refuse to field a team under that name.
 * # "in which the article at 'Ireland' would discuss the geographical and political aspects;" - of what? this needs to be more clear.
 * # I also am a bit concerned about the format of it, the summary is not neutral when it clearly promotes a couple of options over others. (in truth options i prefer), but it is unbalanced in that regard. All should be listed in bullet points like ROI and Ireland (state) really.
 * # One other point, I have never been too happy about the way we describe the ROI / Northern Ireland by talking of "26 of 32 counties" and "6 of the remaining counties" because i think describing the two with their capitals (dublin/belfast) along with the share of the island is the simplest method rather than getting into county numbers. However after taking another look at the Names of the Irish State, i see this statement there..
 * "Irish republicans, and other opponents of Partition, often refer to the state as the "Twenty-Six Counties" (with Northern Ireland as the "Six Counties") or even the "Free State" (a reference to the pre-1937 state - see above). These names are pejorative and are intended to call into question the legitimacy of the state."
 * If any such terms about the counties have been used in the past with political motivations, perhaps its best we stay clear of talking about the counties? It really is not needed if we talk about share of the island and names of their capitals, i dont have a big problem with this point, just thought id mention it as u want feedback on everything. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * just my first thoughts on the matter, i do think it would be easier with a pro/con statement for each of the options rather than a single statement which is going to be hard to get agreement on BritishWatcher (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My misgiving is that RoI is being offered at all, but I compromised on that. But secondly, the RoI term is getting preeminence again in the main statement, and even quoting the UK's 1948 Ireland Act. What in hell has the "1948 UK Ireland Act" to do with Wikipedia-2009. It's quite patently there to add legitimacy to the use of RoI term for the name of Ireland. It's pretty offensive stuff, and I'm not afraid to say that. Evertype, an American, may not have the same reservations, and I'll spare everyone the history lesson, only to say the the 1948-UK act is part of that same history. Why should Wikipedia demur to anything else but the Constitution of Ireland.   Tfz     19:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because nobody writing a constitution has to do it from a neutral point of view. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, reference to the 1949 Act (not 1948 Act) was included at the request of HighKing as an argument against ROI. I'm not aware of any pro-ROI editor fighting for its inclusion.  Scolaire (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BW, all of those points could as you say be handled in argument statements for each of the options. Its not going to be possible to get a fully agreed single statement so lets get on with those statements per the moderators proposal of 250 words. Tfz, I think you have to let the pro ROI group make their argument, several editors just feel that it makes more sense to use ROI in part because they don't see a valid reason to object to it.  Others of us feel that the history of use of the term means that it is a POV position.  We just write the statements, link the Balot to them and let it get started.   -- Snowded  TALK  19:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My brain will need fixing, when things are finally settled. Jumpers, ya'll are way ahead of me. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is: User:Rockpocket/Ballot. In short, it does not display any preference for any of the options, but instead describes the dispute and leaves editors to do their own research and make up their own mind. Anything beyond this is going to be POV fodder. Rockpock  e  t  19:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse. -- Evertype·✆ 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse, if it'll help get things moving. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If someone froze Names of the Irish state and all editors were encouraged to read that then I would be sympathetic to Rockpocket's proposal. -- Snowded  TALK  19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with suggestion by Snowded and would endorse RP then. BigDunc  Talk 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Strong Oppose - I can only support this suggestion as a last option if everything else fails. This vote has HUGE implications, people need to be warned about the problems of certain options, the article on the names of the Irish state do not go into detail about such things and we should only go into the vote blind if we can not get agreement on wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse (if) the phrase This impacts what the name of the article on the 26-county state "Ireland" will be is changed to This impacts what the name of the article on the sovereign state "Ireland" will be. Sarah777 (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, make that - This impacts what the name of the article on the sovereign country of Ireland will be. We can argue about what the "country" of Ireland includes but there is clearly only one sovereign country of Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm sure that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of republicans who wiew the 32-county virtual Irish Republic as a sovereign country. Scolaire (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah, the text says the 26-county state as a way of making it clear to Wikipedian editors who really don't know about the issues what the configuration of the entity is. The text does not say this for any nefarious reasons. Your edit makes the text less precise in terms of helping people who are not involved in the dispute. -- Evertype·✆ 12:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sovereign country is much clearer to the average uninvolved person than "26 county state"; Scolaire, there are thousands of people who believe in Utopia too. As an Irish Republican I believe there should be an Irish 32 county sovereign country. That would be the "wouldn't it be great if Utopia existed" position. Very different from thinking it actually does exist. Sarah777 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so, Sarah. "Sovereign country" might be the 32-county United Ireland that some people might want or might fancy exists. (Remember, some people know very little about Ireland". So in the context of the intro to the poll, simply saying 83% and 17% and numbering the counties gives extra information. It's not harmful to anybody. -- Evertype·✆ 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse It is unfortunate that we cannot get agreement on the POV issues, but we can at least get agreement on introducing the poll and it's background to the voters. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

“Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules, which has led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues.” I disagree with this statement, based on standard naming convention rules. The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name per standard naming convention rules. So this contradicts the statement on the section Ireland (state).

“Imprecision in naming may lead to equivocal statements (compare "Belfast is the second-largest city in Ireland" and "Cork is the second-largest city in Ireland", either of which may be true or not depending on how the word "Ireland" is taken).”

This is a red herring! Belfast is the second largest city on the island of Ireland, and is situated in Northern Ireland. Cork is the second largest city in the Irish State, however, Belfast, in Northern Ireland is the second largest city in the island of Ireland. All it takes is a little care with wording and the problem can be over come, we can deal with this if and when the situation arises. A little good faith editing, that’s all it needs, so the statement should be removed.

“As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, the parties have agreed to use the results of a poll to all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter.”

Some editors have agreed to a poll, others would like to use conventional measures i.e. policies so this should be reflected in the statement.

On the comments attached to Ireland (state) and Republic of Ireland, they are currently being discussed re adding statements.

On the other option, it lists China, but does not mention the alternative option I offered?

On the ballot options, the fact that “The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name” per standard naming convention rules raises valid questions as to why there are other options being considered? The fact that option F is still on the ballot paper, also raises questions. RoI is not “the state's internationally-recognized name” runs counter to standard naming convention rules and negates the whole purpose of Wikipedia not to mention going against neutral point of view when we view the number of sources which expressly state that it should not be used in this way.This is an international Encyclopaedia, why is it being reduced to British and Irish politics? -- Domer48 'fenian'  20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem said opening this tread "Please don't respond to others; I need to assess if we're talking wording or procedural fixes that are easy to fix, or if we need a bit more effort (like the pro and con statements), and arguing over specific points won't help to fix it. Can editors not follow simple instructions? -- Domer48 'fenian'  20:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll post my response as bullet points for ease of reading:
 * First, I think it is about as good as we can get. Yes, everyone is unhappy with it, but no matter what we go with, nobody is going to be entirely satisfied. So simply measure the number of people that are unhappy with one or two bits is no good. We have to measure the number of people that are more or less happy with it all, regardless of whether there are one or two bits that get their goat. I think what we have satisfies that.
 * Two, a pro/con summary would be practically impossible to write, never mind get agreement on. What most people have issue with right now is the pro/con summary of "Ireland (state)" vs. "Republic of Ireland". Imagine what it would be like trying to get agreement if it was only that kind of text we were trying to get a consensus on.
 * Three, there are also some good points raised about too great a focus on the state article. Yes, it is to a great extent the name of the article on the state that we are arguing over. But, if it was only the state article that we had to decide on it would be easy - just put it at "Ireland", It would be a non-issue. The real issue we have it how to organise the two articles. There is a very good points, IMHO, that some have made that point needs to be the guts of what we want to get across. Giving too much attention to the names of the Irish states distracts from that.
 * I think Rockpocket hits the nail on the head. Putting the arguments pro/anti the Ireland/Republic of Ireland in there overwhelms the thing with the "controversy" of what to call the Irish state. This does two thing 1) it distracts from the real issue (i.e. how will we organise two pages on Wikipedia, only one of which is about the Irish state) and 2) it is the main focus of our acrimony. Take it out, it will put more balance in there for what we really want to focus on and it will remove what we are now arguing over.
 * Can I also take this moment to remind people to please !vote/comment the method to be used to calculate the result. It's not sexy, but it is *very* important that we get agreement from as wide a number of people as possible. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments
As to keep things separate: I will also note that just now, I considered trying to write down pros and cons for each choice, and each time, I got hung up on how to describe the choice between Ireland (state) and ROI without running into problems and keeping a POV. This keeps telling me that the initial statement of the problem seems to be the best solution and let editors read further if they want more details, as covering the pros/cons of Ireland (state) and ROI in one shot makes a clear statement of why both options are on the ballot. --M ASEM (t) 21:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * MickMacNee: Its totally unbalanced if you ask me. The poll notionally has 5 options for how to solve the conflict, yet 80% of the explanatory infobox concentrates on the case for moving the ROI article intact to Ireland (state) or not. The problem is, I believe this ROI issue to be the core of the entire conflict.  If it were simply that there was never the term ROI, and the decision was between whether the island, the country, or the disambig page was at Ireland, we've been done with this a long time ago. The existence and debate over ROI is core to this issue and pretty much is the monkey wrench in the works.  It needs to be explained in depth why it potentially could be bad but also why it is potentially correct.
 * Domer: on your disagreement with Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules, which has led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues. This is referring to the island and the country, not to Ireland (the country) and Republic of Ireland. In the same vein as I mentioned above, if there was no island Ireland, the clear answer would of course be that "Ireland" would be the country article, ROI probably mentioned somewhere in that, per naming convention. Unfortunately, that's not the situation, so one of the two (or both) have to give on that point.


 * I agree with ur point in response to Domer and Mick about the problems with Republic of Ireland and the fact its a core problem and i dont mind ROI being singled out as very problematic, but the country at Ireland is even worse and far more offensive so must have equal warnings to it if not greater ones.
 * On how to handle the choice between Republic of Ireland and Ireland (state) do you need to? I thought the idea was pros and cons for each option, not getting into a "this one is better than that one because". We simply need to say choose ROI because its.. Dont chose it because... Choose Ireland (state) because... Dont choose it because.. etc like....
 * Pro ROI = Republic of Ireland is the official description of the state as stated in the..
 * Anti ROI = The name of the state is not Republic of Ireland.
 * Pro Ireland (state) = Its a neutral disam and used in other cases like (Georgia)
 * Anti Ireland (state) = People may confuse it with a state like in Australia or Canada.
 * along those lines, rather than "ROI is better than (state) because"BritishWatcher (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BW: I don't agree that the sovereign country located at "Ireland" is 'much more problematic' than having it at RoI. That is why I was under the impression that what we were seeking was a compromise, between two versions unacceptable to a large number of editors. A compromise between my favoured solution and the best fit to WP:COMMONNAME, (Ireland), and the status quo, the British pov (RoI). Sarah777 (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it is possible to write an NPOV statement around the poll. The options all have their own POV, and we shouldn't pretend they haven't. Just list the options and the instructions and leave it at that. Those interested can find their own info or ask for 'guidance' here. Fmph (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to some of Domer48's comments:
 * Standard naming conventions allow "Ireland" to be used for the island article, or "Ireland" to be used for the state article. Either is found in reliable sources and either is easily recognised by English speakers.  "Ireland (state)" gives a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
 * 'Belfast and Cork' is used only as an example, not as an instance of an actual problem. Here is an actual instance from the Rosemary Clooney article: "In later years, Clooney would often appear with Crosby on television...and the two friends made a concert tour of Ireland together."  Was Belfast included in the tour?  The sources don't say.  So which "Ireland" is meant?
 * "Some editors have agreed to a poll, others would like to use conventional measures i.e. policies". Undoubtedly true.  I suggest changing that particular statement to: "..it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter."  No need to argue about how it was decided or how many dissentors there were.
 * "On the other option, it lists China, but does not mention the alternative option I offered." I agree.  There are two options that involve something other than just renaming.  China is a suitable example for the "extra article" option proposed by MickMacNee. For the "merge articles" option I think Cyprus is a far better example.
 * Wikipedia determines the recognisability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. Many verifiable reliable sources call the 26-county state the "Republic of Ireland", therefore it is recognisable, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. If over 50% of all users taking part in the poll favour this name, then it cannot be considered as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts or political or ideological struggle.
 * Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem, it says quite clearly "The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name." Now per Standard naming conventions article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize and should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Optimized for readers with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, Ireland is referring to the name of the Nation, State, and internationally-recognized sovereign country. Editors are not a general audience, and inflating a reasonable minimum of ambiguity over the island is to move the reader from the general to the specialists audience. Ireland can refer to the island in a purely geographical sense, but internationally it’s recognized as referring to the Nation, State, and sovereign country. -- Domer48 'fenian'  10:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What crap, Ireland is equally well known as the name of the island, not just the state. There for its ambiguous, i know u have never accepted this.. its pathetic really because everyone else knows its obviously the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Masem, one of the people you are holding the poll for is Domer48. But look what he is writing. Basically he is arguing for us all to accept his reasoning after all and change the article name because that fits with his interpretation of the "Standard naming conventions". Well, that's not helping you with your mini-essays, is it? And that is what we are on hold for. And Domer's arguments are moot; we have agreed to have a community-wide poll. So what is it you are doing? -- Evertype·✆ 12:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If over 50% of all users taking part in the poll favour this name, then it cannot be considered as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts or political or ideological struggle. What complete tosh Scolaire. You obviously have not been reading up on the problem of systemic cultural bias on En:Wiki. It is precisely what leads to situations like sovereign country being called "RoI" rather than it's actual name. Sarah777 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

When I see Scolaire beating the RoI drum I just get a little speechless. Maybe he should write to the EU and to the Council of Europe to point out their erring ways. There is little hope on this 'collaboration page' for any satisfactory solution at this rate. Fast losing interest(. Tfz     15:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You left once, nobody forced you to come back. You know where the exit is. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BW, WP:CIVIL please. I sometimes think blocking, banning and driving away the opposition is how the British status quo is maintained here. I thought you were one of the more reasonable folk. Sarah777 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment was perfectly civil. TFZ made a big fanfare when he left this project, he then came back almost instantly. Now he is saying hes losing interest, i simply reminded him he chooses to be here and he knows what to do if he doesnt like it.


 * Hello again Sarah by the way, i notice you didnt reply to my comment yesterday in response to your statement that " the Irish Government went to some trouble to explain that "RoI" was a dab, not a name." Can you not see that is exactly why we use the title Republic of Ireland here on wikipedia. You said yourself, the government made the description to act as a dab, we simply use it the way they intended. Im sure the Irish government would be proud =) BritishWatcher (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BW; the fact that Irl Gov supplied a dab in 1948 when the state still claimed the whole island is totally irrelevant. Since 1998 (most of) NI Republicans and the Irish Government have abandoned that claim. It is time we abandoned the "dab" aka "the description". Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If I wanted to "beat the ROI drum" I could make a much louder noise than that ;-) No, I just want to make it clear why it is not against What Wikipedia is for or any other principle to have it as an option on the ballot paper.  BTW, even I don't know which way I'm going to vote yet.  Scolaire (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoopeeeee! Collaboration decends once again into point-scoring. -- Evertype·✆ 17:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You make comments above as if you are an innocent bystander you contribute to what you call point-scoring with your comments above about Domer along with BW. Trying to get Masem to disregard his statements,. Domer has his own style of doing thinks and editors who have been around a while are familiar to it, he uses sources and facts for everything he posts as can be seen by the weighty edits he has made. Domer is a very knowledgeable editor on Irish history and can't just be blown off because his style annoys you. BigDunc  Talk 18:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to score points; I was suggesting that Domer (however knowledgeable assiduous an editor he may be) is not making comments which are within the current goal of this Project, which are to get a ballot out so that a solution to this problem can be found. Since this Project has taken the decision to go to a poll, his arguments have the wrong focus. Those arguments are about coming to consensus about the naming of the article. But members of this project have agreed that they are unable to come to that consensus, so he's beating a dead horse. I even look reasonably favourably on some of his arguments. But that's not relevant now, since the Project has taken a decision to seek a solution through polling. -- Evertype·✆ 18:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but Sarahs comment was a total own goal. When ever there is a chance to mention "the Irish Government went to some trouble to explain that "RoI" was a dab, not a name." i must get it in, even if i get accused of point scoring lol. She basically admitted the Irish government created a description that could be used as a dab, we find ourselves in this problem because Ireland is ambiguous.. thankfully the Irish government thought ahead and gave us a dab, and that is the Republic of Ireland! BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't get too excited BW. The Irish Gov used RoI to distinguish it from the national territory which was to be restored as it was an intrinsic part of the Irish State. The context was that NI was illegally occupied by the British. As part of the settlement of 1998 the Irish State abandoned that claim and said that Ireland (the nation) now consists of only the soverign part until such time (if ever) a majority in NI vote to join Ireland and leave the UK. The 1948 Act is, post Good Friday, utterly irrelevant. Sarah777 (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lordy lordy! It doesnt frakking matter what she was arguing. Or whether she "own goaled". It doesn't get us nearer to a poll. Do you want a poll or not? Some of us have worked like demons to try to get something that can be polled. Now nobody's talking about the poll at all. It's just descended into chaos. -- Evertype·✆ 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * lol but i am waiting to find out what happens next, Masem asked for feedback, i gave quite a few bullet points and got no response so im waiting for the next stage be that the pros/con statements or the attempt to do a single message again. I dont see why we cant all have a little fun to pass the time. In reality my first vote isnt even going to ROI anyway, i just cant stand the way people are obsessed with talking it down and making it out like its an evil British invention to insult the people of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with you. A number of your bullet points were interesting. I would be prepared to try to revisit the points in the intro with respect to them, but as of right now I feel that anything I do will be a waste of time, because we have no idea what it is that Masem is doing. It's two days now since he had is bright idea about the mini-essays. And that's four days on from when he said he hoped we'd get to poll by midnight. I feel really jerked around. I'd like to edit the poll and help to get it out, but there is so little good faith and good will out there it is most disheartening. -- Evertype·✆ 18:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * speak of the devil ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The more reasonable and logical my comments, the more irrational, desperate and personalised are the opinions I get in return. Now Masem asked for comments on WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Ballot paper because they are trying to determine what needs to be fixed. I’ve pointed to a glaring contradiction between the Lead and the statements on the options. In the Lead it says “Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules” however in the statement attached to Ireland (state) it states that “The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name.” Both statements cannot be true, and based on all the available sources, the state's internationally-recognized name is the most common per standard naming convention rules as opposed to the strictly geographical use of the name. I perfectly willing to listen to counter arguments, but to try to establish that the strictly geographical use of the name is the most common per standard naming convention rules above that of the state's internationally-recognized name will require more than just the opinions of Editors because according to ArbCom, "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." -- Domer48 'fenian'  18:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your logic. In the lede it does say "both uses of the name "Ireland" are equally valid". What does this mean? It means that people are justified in calling the state "Ireland", and people are justified in calling the island "Ireland". Both statements are true. The state is named Ireland. And the island is named Ireland. There is nothing wrong with saying that both uses are equally valid. They are. (If they are not, then what are the names, respectively, of the state and of the island?). Now to your secong point. It's true that the international community recognizes the state's name as "Ireland". ISO 639 does. The UN does. Etc. So... Domer... it is incorrect for you to say that both statements cannot be true. Both statements are true. Entirely true.
 * Then you move on to a different plane of argument. You start arguing that on foot of the naming conventions we are obliged to name the state article "Ireland". Well, the logic may lead there. I may even agree with you. But it doesn't matter, because the people who dislike the idea of calling the state "Ireland" are vociferous and will not agree with you. Nothing you can do about it. They're not agreeing with you. Even if they are wrong they are not agreeing with you. And they won't. So we have decided to have a poll. A community-wide poll. So what are you doing to help make that happen? You're just stamping your foot and saying "But my logic is right!" Well, it might be, but that doesn't send out a poll. -- Evertype·✆ 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I personally don't see a contradiction there. "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name.  "Ireland" is also the name of the land-mass that the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize.  Both statements can be and are true.  "Turkey" is the state's internationally-recognized name.  It is also the name of the fowl that the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize.  Scolaire (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Evertype, can I plead with you once again to comment on the edit and not on the editor. Every single time you accuse another editor of "stamping his foot" it retards the process further.  Do you want agreement on holding the poll or do you not?  Scolaire (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, relax, Scoláire. He's just gone and called everyone who disagrees with his logic "irrational, desperate", and beset with "personalized opinions". I was talking to him, in the second person singular, and yes, I want him to know that it looks like foot-stamping to me, and that that isn't doing his case any good and it sure isn't getting us to a poll. I want him to realize that what he's doing is off-target. -- Evertype·✆ 18:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Me relax?? Scolaire (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am already. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 19:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Summing up comment
Ok, based on input (and before this become discussion wars again), here's the biggest thing I see as a problem (plus or minus a few small fixes to the intro text on the ballot). It is the fact that ROI is being proposed as a solution but it's "cons" are not being presented. Now, for sake of simplicity, when you consider every single other solution and name (including disamb names), there's no real "cons" to these - the terms aren't loaded, they're appropriate per WP standards with whatever disamb stubs; the question between all these is just which one seems to be best. What this all comes down to is the fact that ROI is seen as a very negative term by some, while others see it as a completely appropriate term. I'm not going to go into who's right or wrong - there's no answer there, but I do consider my own entire experience with this moderation, at the start having no idea why "ROI" was being contested. After a few months, I know much better, but that's after a few months of getting very involved and reading the backhistories and the like. We're asking voters, who likely will not spend that time or have that time, to do the same.

Thus, what I need needs to be done is, in the summary, to clearly outline that this issue is primarily complicated by the term ROI, explaining that it is a proper descriptor of the country (and thus could be read to be positive in that light) but also brings back a history of UK-nationalism due to it being how the UK called from 1949 up to 1998 (after the Belfest Agreement), despite it not being the internationally recognized name. Here's what I propose changing that text to:

This attempts to cover the ROI issue (which is truly the core of it - without it, either being completely acceptable or completely unacceptable, the solution would have been easy) in "quick readership" depth, enough to point people if they want to know more. This, along with linked-in userspace essays for those that want to supply them, I think will make the ballot as fair as it can ever possibly be. --M ASEM (t) 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok i just feel i must make a quick comment (ive not fully read everything yet) but i totally reject this idea that " Now, for sake of simplicity, when you consider every single other solution and name (including disamb names), there's no real "cons" to these" ... The State at Ireland is totally unacceptable to many people because it disgracefully ignores the fact there is an ISLAND called Ireland and a state called Ireland.. i dont understand how you can think the only problem is the ROI option. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We already know that "the State at Ireland is "totally unacceptable" to some people. We also know that "the State not at Ireland is "totally unacceptable" to some other people. And, indeed, we know that "the State at Republic of Ireland is "totally unacceptable" to some people. That's why we're having a binding poll, asking uninvolved editors to help us since we cannot help ourselves. -- Evertype·✆ 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok i finished reading, can i just check is this statement to go along side the pros and cons? or is that is apart from peoples own links to where they make their own case? Because if this is just the statement (no pros / cons to be added) im sorry but i must oppose this wording. The whole thing simply argues against using the term Republic of Ireland, that is not a balanced intro. It appears certain editors moaning for weeks on end have paid off sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree here. A substantial number of editors believe that ROI is not only acceptable but in common use, even among members of the Irish government (and this can be sourced). If the paragraph on ROI is to be that long it can't present only the negative. Scolaire (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a quickie source to support that? I agree if this is true it needs to be added. --M ASEM  (t) 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase "Republic of Ireland" is used in the Dáil, see. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse. I endorse this text. I would like to request the following editorial changes. I have struck out text I propose for deletion and put additional text in bold with underscoring :
 * The phrase "Republic of Ireland" is an official descriptor for description of the state, as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, though the name of the state by under both this Act and for the international community is "Ireland". However, at the same time, the phrase "Republic of Ireland" was considered to be the name of the state by the United Kingdom in their its 1949 Ireland Act, and remained such until the 1998 Belfast Agreement, upon which the UK recognized the state's name as only "Ireland".
 * I think these editorial changes are improvements in terms of wordsmithing; in particular I think that "Republic of Ireland" should be qualified by "the phrase" or "the term" in each instance. -- Evertype·✆ 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - I do not see how this is at all fair and balanced. It does not seek to explain the different options, the whole thing is an attempt to undermine the ROI option. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Put your money where your mouth is. Scoláire and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid and I spend many hours working on text which we hope is acceptable. You spurn it. Masem does the same. You spurn it. You are gainsaying. "This isn't good" isn't enough. -- Evertype·✆ 18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lmao simply amazing. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evertype, do not invoke my name again to push your POV. I agree with BritishWatcher on this and I have said so above.  Speak for yourself and leave me out of it.  I am not your alter-ego!  Scolaire (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't pushing a POV. I was suggesting to BritishWatcher that a way to criticize text is to work to improve it, not to just say "I don't like it". I named some people who had worked on text. -- Evertype·✆ 19:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I suggest to you that the way to collaborate is to state your opinion once and leave it, not to bitch at everybody that disagrees with you. Whether you act on my advice or not is up to you, but do not cite me to back up your argument, ever.  Scolaire (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can keep yelling at me or you could wonder, as I am, whether some sort of "pro-RoI" sentence could be crafted and attached. -- Evertype·✆ 19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or you could scoll up the page and read the text I suggested! Scolaire (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or you could be more specific 'cause I just went through the whole page and didn't see such a draft. I saw a decent comment about Cyprus rather than China. -- Evertype·✆ 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tant pis pour vous! You are being disruptive and I am not going to engage with you further.  Woof!  Scolaire (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pity I wasted my time in good faith looking for the text you suggested, then. Relax. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 19:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement “Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid” is semantics and a play on words. “The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name” however to attempt to give parity of esteem to its geographical use per Standard naming conventions is disingenuous. To suggest that there has been attempts to determine which is the most common per standard naming convention rules is equally misleading, because there has been no attempts to determine which is most common, however I could be wrong and a diff to the discussion would certainly put me in my place.

The use of the Cork and Belfast analogy is also misleading, and I’ve addressed that above which has not been responded to. It has also been pointed out that this is an international encyclopaedia, and what the UK did and did not call the Irish State is irrelevant as the international community called the State Ireland. The fact that the UK now accept that the Irish State is called Ireland and use the name Ireland makes its relevance even more moot.

It has also been pointed out that the parties did not all agree to use the results of a poll too resolve the matter and this should be reflected in the wording. In addition all references to alternative proposals have now been omitted and why is that? -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Per Domer's statement and my response to his earlier statement above, I think "the parties have agreed to use the results of a poll to all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter." should be changed to "it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter." Scolaire (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Focusing only on the ROI statement, it can be reworded as follows:

''The major component of the issue is the phrase "Republic of Ireland", which is presently the current location of information for the 26-county state. "Republic of Ireland" is an official description of the state, as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, though the name of the state both under this Act and for the international community is "Ireland". However, at the same time, the phrase "Republic of Ireland" was considered to be the name of the state by the United Kingdom in its 1949 Ireland Act, and remained such until the 1998 Belfast Agreement, upon which the UK recognized the state's name as only "Ireland". The political disagreements between the UK and Ireland between 1949 and 1998 have led some to view the term "Republic of Ireland" as supporting UK nationalism and a negative term upon the state of Ireland. However the term "Republic of Ireland" is also commonly used today in a non-derogatory way within the state of Ireland's government and elsewhere (source to be supplied). The history of the term "Republic of Ireland" has led to lengthy debates with both wikilawyering and politically-charged discussion about the use of the term as the state's article name on Wikipedia. (For more information see Names of the Irish state.)''

Scolaire suggested that there's a source to show the ROI term use today; this should help balance the fact that some see the term as negative, some see it as positive. --M ASEM (t) 19:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a document written 11 June 2009 by the Northern Ireland Executive (one of three devolved governments in the United Kingdom), which uses the term in a neutral fashion. -- Evertype·✆ 19:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition to that I endorse your modified paragraph. -- Evertype·✆ 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The example I used last year was this: On 17 September 2008, asked about plans for Fianna Fáil to organise in Northern Ireland, An Taoiseach, Brian Cowen said, "I am concentrating...on the strategic review of our own organisation within the Republic." -Irish Times, September 17, 2008 Scolaire (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Worth remembering from an earlier discussion, that the use of "the Republic" or "The South" was acceptable to many editors within the text when the meaning of "Ireland" was ambiguous. Use of the "the Republic" is not the same as "Republic of Ireland" as a name, although its use does persist but not in official documents that I can see. -- Snowded  TALK  20:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree Snowded. That the term Republic of Ireland is used to distinguish between Ireland and Northern Ireland in given circumstances is not the same as Republic of Ireland being used for the name of the state when no distinction is required. For example, it would be unacceptable to say Dublin is in the Republic of Ireland according to the international community. The only ones who would insist on this phraseology are definitely pushing an old outdated POV, which even the UK has now rejected. Examples of Republic of Ireland being used to differentiate between Ireland and Northern Ireland, would include, , , , , , etc, etc… but to suggest that this equates to international recognition of the term for the name of the Irish state is unsupportable. The European Union which includes the UK note that the names of the Member States of the European Union must always be written and abbreviated according to the Interinstitutional Style Guide rules and that neither “Republic of Ireland” nor “Irish Republic” should be used when referring to the Irish State. This is also noted in Constitutional Law of 15 EU Member States (edition 6), by L. Prakke, C. A. J. M. Kortmann, Hans van den Brandhof, J. C. E. van den Brandhof, Kluwer, 2004, ISBN 9013012558, Pg.430. In addition, I would suggest adding this essay/article alongside the Names of the Irish state to help inform the opinions of readers.-- Domer48 'fenian'  20:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr Stephen above has provided a link showing over 2000 examples of ROI being used by Republic of Ireland politicians in the Republic of Irelands own parliament. Im actually stunned at how many examples there are in his link and it shows even the Irish Government ministers have used the term. This nonsense that has been pushed for months here that ROI is just used by POV British editors is clearly wrong.


 * Considering that source, and others like it that show Republic of Ireland is mainstream, i still oppose a intro to the vote being overwhelmingly against the Republic of Ireland option.. it must be neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an utter fabrication of some editors here that "Republic of Ireland" has a bias of any kind. The "evidence" for this is the fact that "Ireland" is the states official name - a name that is internationally recognised and is its common name. So what? We all know that. We also all know that "Republic of Ireland" is commonly used name too. It serves a very practical purpose: it differentiates one "Ireland" from the other. That's how we are using it here on Wikipedia also. The EU, like Domer48 has pointed out, had a style guide for this - it needs it, the practical usefulness of "Republic of Ireland" is overwhelming.
 * "This is also noted in Constitutional Law of 15 EU Member States (edition 6), by L. Prakke, C. A. J. M. Kortmann..." What is noted? Can you provide a quotation? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

! "Republic of Ireland" used ! "Ireland" used exclusively, no mention of RoI
 * 8,070
 * 905,000 [
 * }
 * Lies damn lies and statistics. You fail to produce a balanced argument again. Tfz     23:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that republic with a "small r", or a "capital R". It's a pathetic argument, there are millions or references to Britain, in parliament, and out of parliament, on TV, and in the news columns, but that doesn't make 'Britain' the proper name for the "UK". I say, "so?". Tfz     21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Capital R. Let's be clear: "Ireland" is the proper name of the state. "Republic of Ireland" is not a UK-biased slur. It's a term of great practical use of Irish legislative origin. The proper name of the Irish state is a non-issue: it is Ireland. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussion how to organise two pages in an encyclopedia. A technical constraint means that they cannot both be at their proper names. We can have one, or the other, or neither. Currently we have one at it's proper name. And one at a name that is commonly used to disambiguate it from the other. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I have said yesterday, and why is everyone trying to lawyer for the real world about "RoI v Ireland". It's a non issue, and the problem is here on Wikipedia, not out 'there'. Neither have I ever said the use of RoI is a British slur, that's surely making up a false argument indeed, and I pretty much resent people putting words in my mouth. Commonly used you claim, Google OR of course. Tfz     22:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I have said yesterday, and why is everyone trying to lawyer for the real world about "RoI v Ireland". It's a non issue, and the problem is here on Wikipedia, not out 'there'. Neither have I ever said the use of RoI is a British slur, that's surely making up a false argument indeed, and I pretty much resent people putting words in my mouth. Commonly used you claim, Google OR of course. Tfz     22:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Per my comment above. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  21:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Masem, could you respond to the suggestions I've made above. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  21:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy to respond to. I already did, though you ignored my response.
 * 1. Ireland is a state comprising 26 counties and having its capital in Dublin. True or false? True.
 * 2. Ireland is an island off the west coast of Europe. True or false? True.
 * Note that both statements are true. It is therefore also true to say that "both uses of the name "Ireland" are equally valid". If you dispute that either statement (1) or (2) is true, please state so now and explain your reasoning. -- Evertype·✆ 21:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this phrase and remained such until the 1998 Belfast Agreement, upon which UK recognized the state's name as only "Ireland". is incorrect. The UK has not officially changed anything, and the 1949 Ireland Act is still in force. For me, this is a BIG reason not to use RoI, as it promulgates the official UK position. Unofficially, the UK will now accept the name of the sovereign country as Ireland - but this is more of a relaxing of an official position, than an actual new official position. --HighKing (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Masem, my bulleted replies to your latest proposal:


 * '"Republic of Ireland" is an official description of the state, as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, though the name of the state both under this Act and for the international community is "Ireland" though the constitutional name of the sate remained unchanged.' The Republic of Ireland Act did not make any statement on the name (that would have required a referendum, which the government of the day could have lost - a *very* embarrassing if it had happened).
 * '... until the 1998 Belfast Agreement, upon which the UK recognized the state's name as only "Ireland".' If we are going to go into the Belfast Agreement we need to mention the horse-trading involded. The issue the UK had with the name "Ireland" was that it was ambigious with the entire island, which the Irish state claimed sovereignty over. That encroached on the UK's national territory. With the Belfast Agreement the Irish state resigned its territory claim over Northern Ireland and the UK recognised the name of the Irish sate as "Ireland".
 * 'The political disagreements between the UK and Ireland between 1949 and 1998 have led some to view the term "Republic of Ireland" as supporting UK nationalism and a negative term upon the state of Ireland.' We need a citation for this. I have never seen it except here on Wikipedia.
 * 'However the term "Republic of Ireland" is also commonly used today in a non-derogatory way within the state of Ireland's government and elsewhere (source to be supplied).' The sources are too overwhelming: Google Books, Google Scholar, Amazon, etc. There will be no source that say that "Republic of Ireland is non-derogatory" because that question simply does arise except - apparently - here on Wikipedia.
 * --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd like to add that the new draft goes down the road of focusing even more on the "controversy" of what to call the Irish state. And further away from the actual issue: how do we organise two topics of the same title on this encyclopedia? That question is what we should be focusing on. Not on some made-up "controversy". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize that there's a point this starts to get into the weeds, but if ROI was universally acceptable as the name, or if ROI was universally unacceptable as the name, there would never have been this much effort the naming done; in the first case, the solution would be obvious, while the second case would still need some debate between certain options, but the ROI would not be acting as the elephant in the room on the matter. But let's see here...I could see taking out the second para about ROI altogether and having a reasonable summary of the issue still. --M ASEM (t) 22:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe section the ROI part of as a "backgrounder". The problem I see with it now is that the question seems to be: what do we call the Irish state? The answer to that it simple: it is Ireland. The question we have instead is: how do we organise these two articles. Info on the phrase "Republic of Ireland" is important background information for anyone to decide on that - but it needs to be clear that the questions is not "To 'ROI' or not to 'ROI'?". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary attempt #2
Update to include some of the points and references above. --M ASEM (t) 21:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you had a chance to read my comments above, Masem. I think most of the still apply here, particuly my last comment about focusing in on the Republic of Ireland "controversy" and losing sight of what the real question should be: how to organise *two* topic of the name name on this encyclopedia. If it was only the state article we had to organise the solution would be simple: it's name is "Ireland". The problem is that there are two things called "Ireland" and the vote is how we are to organise those *two* things. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did catch some of it, and still offer the suggestion of completely dropping the second para from the above, but still allowing for user essay links in the options. --M ASEM (t) 22:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replid above suggestion that the "ROI" bit be sectioned off to make it clear that "what to call the Irish state" is not the question. And to return focus to "how to organise these two pages". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are links to the essays please let them be linked uniformly in the ballotting area with (my rationale here). I can live with trying to improve the second paragraph or with deleting it altogether. -- Evertype·✆ 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary attempt #3
If we nix mention of ROI... --M ASEM (t) 22:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * edit conflict If there are links to the essays please let them be linked uniformly in the ballotting area with (my rationale here). I can live with trying to improve the second paragraph or with deleting it altogether. -- Evertype·✆ 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Masem, that plus the 250 word summary statements per option (supporters only) would work, I assume that is what you mean by links to essays?  If so can we get 2/3 people to sign up for each to get it ready?  -- Snowded  TALK  22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I remain opposed to the 250-word summary statements. Who will write them? Who will vet them? What if people dislike them? I don't want to see a formal set of arguments linked. I think that if voters want to explain their rationale that is fine, that;'s what the Talk page is for and a nice neutral link from the ballot area should do that. Actually I'm sure that the Talk page would be fairly interesting to some of the uninvolved editors. But Masem's idea of these mini-essays is not a good one, in my view. It can only lead to more antagonism and contention. -- Evertype·✆ 22:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think shorter (like this) is better. If people want to read more, they can click on the "my rationale here" links.  --HighKing (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Masem, could you respond to the suggestions I've made above.-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  23:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First, just because the country's name is the internationally recognized name for it, does not make that use of that term the most common english use, otherwise, Georgia would point to the country. Second, it needs to be taken as common sense, both recognizing the volume of words generated in the years of debate here and what one can find externally, that the island and country name are comparatively equal in their claim to the name "Ireland" and that it makes no sense to try to objectively determine this as there's really no good place to start. Given that ArbCom's identified this as the core of the dispute, trying to further figure out which is most common is a wasted effort. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Belfast/Cork example, particularly as I've reworded it: asking "what is the second-largest city in Ireland" will require some disambiguation to get the right answer and thus the naming affects how we write Ireland-related articles. And while it shouldn't matter what the UK considers the name, the fact that the UK considers the name to be one thing seems to cause some editors to disagree with the use of that name, which is why its necessary to consider that - at least in the version before I removed the whole ROI section. --M ASEM  (t) 00:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When people talk about cities they almost always invariably talk about them in relation to sovereign states. Dormer is quite correct, it's one big red herring. But that's not what we are discussing here. That contrived disingenuous "problem" can easily be ameliorated by saying, "Belfast is the second largest city on the island of Ireland". Actually it's a bit of an insult to peoples' intelligence to push that silly gawking example, imo. And in BW's words it's the sort of "crap" that fuels this page, and blinds the real issues at hand. We had a poll 2 weeks ago, and "Ireland state" topped the poll. Why was the 'page move' not made, when obviously most editors want "Ireland state". It's just more of the nonsense that goes on around here, and it's really a question of "too many cooks spoiling the broth". You will never get so called consensus on this proposed poll, just as it was never attained on the naming issue either. We have had the poll, let's implement the changes, and end this debacle.  Tfz     00:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You talk about disingenuous! We balloted on what word or words should go in brackets if there were to be options with brackets in them.  We will ballot shortly on what we want the article names to be.  If any one option gets a 50%+1 majority under STV, it will be closer to a consensus than anything we've had before, or are ever likely to get any other way.  Sit back and enjoy the ride!  Scolaire (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Per my response to his Domer's earlier statement above, an example does not have to be an instance of an actual problem. Here is an actual instance from the Rosemary Clooney article: "In later years, Clooney would often appear with Crosby on television...and the two friends made a concert tour of Ireland together." Was Belfast included in the tour? The sources don't say. So which "Ireland" is meant? Scolaire (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I support this version, it is the only one that lacks a POV. As others have suggestion, personal opinions or rationale should be made in their own userspage and piped behind "my rationale here" next to their vote. Rockpock  e  t  23:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally Oppose - I'd support the version #1 (with one minor adjustment). This version is right back to the core problem Masem described when he presented #1 - no context as to why ROI is objectionable. If (1) we are going to invite the entire disinterested "community" and then (2) give no explanation as to why RoI is the problem then this is merely a farce to defend the status quo. Sarah777 (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also totally opposed to the use of the term "26 county" rather than sovereign state (the only bit of #1 I had a problem with). There is only one single sovereign state called Ireland on Earth - why use a demeaning phrase like "26 counties"? Sarah777 (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you walk into a bar in Uzbekistan which is more likely to generate an understanding of your identity: "I come from the sovereign State of Ireland" or "I come from the 26 counties"? Sarah777 (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

MASEM thanks for the responce. Because the country's/States/Nations name is the internationally recognized name for it, does make that use of that term the most common english use, above and beyond the geograpicial use of the name. It is very disingenous to talk about "common sense", that the island and country name are comparatively equal in their claim to the name "Ireland" when one is clearly being used in a singular geograpicial sense while the other use covers the Nation, State, and country. I offered you the oppertunity to put me in my place by providing a diff for the discussion were this comparatively equal claim was discussed, with you yourself self saying "recognizing the volume of words generated in the years of debate here and what one can find externally, that the island and country name are comparatively equal" so were are the discussions? On ARBCom, you are again being very very disingenous, they outlined what the issue was, but did not pass comment on the validity of any claim. On the Belfast and Cork analogy this is also misleading, as this situation is not and never was a problem and could and was addressed in articles. It was the insistance of a hand full of editors to use RoI which caused the problem. There is no need for it. That the UK don't use RoI is very relevent, that they once did is not. That a hand full of editors want to use this as an excuse is of no concern to us. I also asked about the removal of the alternative options to the poll being removed, and saying that editors agreed to a poll and you have not addressed that, could you do so now? The diff on the discussion would also help a lot thanks. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  07:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)