Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 16

A section for linked statements
I have opened a new section on the Ballot paper talk page to allow participants to add links to their statements. Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Im rather confused about what the current plan is on these things? are there just going to be user statements for people to read which are linked in the intro or are there still to be the general statements for / against aswell?


 * I really do think its important there are a set of pros / cons for each of the options which is put in the intro or linked on the ballot itself, rather than just a huge list of peoples statements, many of which are probably going to be very very long and could be misleading. People need the basic key facts, and to avoid having to fit that all into a single intro i thought we were going to have statements. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You would appear to be close to me and to Masem on this. Other editors who I have respect for would appear to disagree, and are saying so vociferously in various sections and subsections.  TBH I'm not seeing a lot of collaborating at the moment, just a lot of noise.  It might be time for another short break for some.  Scolaire (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At any rate, if everybody continues to argue and nobody bothers to link to anything, the whole question is going to be moot! Scolaire (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be a bit of a turnabout for the editors who didn't support the poll idea, to be now writing summaries to help with that same polling. Dunno if I'd write anything yet, will think on it. Also editors can only be truly pro "one-proposition", so there may be some areas uncovered. Tfz     16:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not necessarily anti the pro/anti statements, but I am concerned that the ballot paper is now full of stuff. It's got the seven actual options ... each with bullet list of a short-hand showing what each option means ... and a table showing what the moved articles would be like ... and a bullet list of pro, anti and general statements ... Just glancing at the seven options take three page scrolls. That's a lot of stuff to just to look at, never mind read and consider.
 * My preference for having separate "general" position statements is because 1) I think they will be easier digest and 2) I think they will present the issue in the round. Some people have very strong opinions on particular options. That's cool, and I support the individual pro/anti statements for that reason too.
 * I too think we should take a pause. For the reason you stated above (because there is a whole lot of noise but little collaboration). But also to consider how we are going to present the ballot - and particularly the whole lot of information now on it - in a digestible way. I think a space for overall statements should be a part of that also. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Scoláire, may I suggest that we use this page for the position statements? -- Evertype·✆ 17:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)-


 * Sure, I only put it where I did so that you could put it somewhere else ;-) Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's likely that voters will go onto a second page to read position statements. Unless they are presented up front, on the ballot page, I doubt they will get much traffic. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Voters who WANT to will do so. -- Evertype·✆ 08:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up ballot paper
As I wrote before, I'm afraid that the ballot page is getting full of stuff and is difficult to read. I also don't think that voters are likely to navigate lots of pages to get an overall background on the topic. Therefore, I'm proposing some (relatively) small changes to the design of the ballot page. A mock-up can be see in my 4th sandbox. The changes I'm proposing are as follows: I think that these are relatively small and sensible changes but I am mainly presenting them for discussion. Like Scoláire said, there has been a lot of "noise" and little over the past few days and little genuine collaboration. So I don't mean these as a proposal that is set in stone but as a starting point for a discussion on making the presentation of all of the various parts of the ballot page clearer and more voter-friendly. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tidied the details on each option into a "hidden" template. I know that this is (literally) hides the details from the reader but I think it makes it improves the overall readability and effectiveness of this information by 1) making it easier to see all of the options 2) making it easier to actually read each one and compare individual options.
 * I've added a "Member statements" section at the very bottom just above the Comments area. In this area I would see "main" statements by members of the project. (Specific statements on individual options can still go in the same place, beneath the respective option. I'm not arguing for one or the other.) I don't think that having these statements - or any of the statements - on a different page will be very effective. I don't think that it is likely that voters will from where ever, to the ballot page, to an index page, to an individual statement and back again. If we put member statements (of any kind on a separate page), I think they will end up being lost.
 * The only link to the "main" statements is a link in the intro box, like Evertype proposed.


 * Also, I'd suggest using a single format for position statements (like here), with endorsement sections and links to other positions statements as I think that would make things easier for the reader too. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The more you overtick the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. Rannṗáirtí, your newest suggestions not only make the poll more complicated, but turn it (with all the links to supports and opposes and opinions about the supports and opposes) into a Great Big Feuding Ground. -- Evertype·✆ 08:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Masem has already explicitly stated that the pro/anti links will appear has I have them on the mock up in my sandbox. (I asked him to show exactly, that is exactly how he showed they would appear.) He has also said that there will be place to endorse, etc. the "essays". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose rather strongly. Sorry, but I dislike this immensely. I don't like the descriptions of the polling options to be hidden at all. That's a recipe for mistakes. And I maintain my fierce opposition to putting any editor's name on the ballot in a link to his statement. It is inappropriate and a form of popularity-contest pseudo-canvassing. If voters WANT to see the articles, the fact that we have a whole section heading about Position Statements with the sentence "A number of the Ireland Collaboration Project's editors have made position statements available here to help explain their viewpoints on the choices in the ballot below" following should be more than enough. Sorry, but I don't approve of what's in your sandbox now. -- Evertype·✆ 08:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe have just one link from each option to a separate comment page, where a voter, if they wish, can give their rationale. The comment page could have an general intro on top, like "this is the comment page for "option B".... etc etc etc ..  .. .  Tfz     09:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Try to see the wood from the trees, Evertype. The major point is that the ballot page is HUGE. It takes three page scrolls of tables, bullet points, bold text, links and underlines for a person unfamiliar with the seven option just to know what they can vote for - never mind what they should vote for.
 * You don't want individuals names appearing on the ballot page, cool. What I am more interested in is organising the information into a readable package. We've been tacking bits onto a simple ballot page for weeks and we now have a monster. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm i thought hiding the options to make the ballot more clear was a rather good idea, the main information about each option is still presented and a link to the pro/con statements could be put next to it for people to read if we are having those still, im still not sure whats happening. Although i agreee i do not want to see peoples usernames linking to the statements given prime place. the links to peoples private statements should just be after they vote with (my rationale). Pros and Cons link must take prime spot on the ballot or in the intro. We will have to have a few months off for our summer holidays if this isnt sorted soon. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) C)


 * Changed my mind after looking again at what content is hidden, i oppose hiding the information it is vital the full details are read or seen by everyone. The basic outline of the change does not state the future location of all articles, and the table description is needed so people are clear what that article content is meant to be about. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On a point of information, Rannpháirtí: what is the seventh option? Is it hidden too?  Scolaire (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rannṗáirtí, the ballot is not "HUGE". It prints on two sides of A4. That's pure hyperbole on your part. You're over-designing for a problem that isn't a problem. Please. -- Evertype·✆ 11:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Two sides of A4! I get four A4 sheets for the lot. Two A4 just to read the six (thanks Scoláire!) options and another two between the intro text and the "terms and condidtions". The latter two, I don't mind. But two pages of text just to read the six option on a vote is crazy. That's longer than most articles! By the time most people have finished, they won't remember what the first option on the list was. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I get two sides of A4 plus the section on "how to vote" is on a third sheet (browsing in Safari under Leopard). I'm sorry, I can't agree with you that it makes sense to hide those example boxes. They give the context needed to understand what the implications to the text of the articles will be. This is a serious matter. I simply don't believe that you are right to say that people will get confused by the example boxes. What worries me far more is the danger that people will be voting without "un-hiding" that information, and that that will make many votes uninformed. We need to take this seriously, and we need to make sure that voters know what they are voting for. "Hiding" the parts of the ballot you want to hide is a very bad idea. -- Evertype·✆ 12:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We are using the exact same OS and browser. Printing it out is irreverent, people will be view this on screen.
 * I know it's important. That's why I want people to be able to read the options. If people can't see all of the options at once, what I suspect will happen is:
 * a) many people will be turned off voting (because there will be just too much work involved);
 * b) many of those who do vote will not read the text (because it will be just too difficult);
 * c) many of those who do read the text will not read/consider all of the options, but rather go with their gut feeling (because it will be too difficult to see/read the entire ballot - either in the whole or to compare individual options).
 * You are concerned that people read the text. I am concerned that they will be able to read the text. We are not at odds with each other. I'm not saying that the only way to make it more readable is by hiding or cutting anything out. That was just one way that I mocked up to start a discussion. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, I really think that trying to second guess (a)-type voters and (b)-type voters and (c)-type voters is just getting us off the wrong track. We don't need to be doing re-design, or re-re-design. We'll never get to our deadline that way. I am convinced that the "hiding" option (the "show"/"hide" toggle) is GUARANTEED to be missed by some voters, and that will mean they don't have access to the text. I really don't believe that having the page be a little bit long (and it is really not very long; your saying it is "HUGE" was unsubstantiated hyperbole) is going to be the curse of death to voter's ability to read the material and to make their choice.
 * This material is a different kind of material than the individual editors' Position Statements. I very much believe that this material must remain on the ballot; I do not believe that editor-named links to Position Statements should be. -- Evertype·✆ 15:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
Alternatively, we could have a minimalist front page that says "these are the options - off you go", linking to a page for each option with all the implications and the arguments. Voters who know what they want can just vote; voters who want to know more can just click. There is the added advantage of NO MORE SMALL TYPE. Yes there is a proliferation of pages but I think it is more elegant than the above. A couple of notes: (1) the options are in the wrong order - that's because I was editing my own sandbox; (2) I'm not good with "div"'s and "hr"'s so if the formatting is crap feel free to edit it; and (3) I haven't included Evertype's 'general general' statement, not because I'm ignoring it, but because I'm perfectly neutral as to where it should go. Scolaire (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm I like the link position to Implications / arguments and thats the sort of thing i was imagining for the pros / cons statement, although id like to see that placed on the previous suggested ballot with those "show" options which when clicked lay out in more detail the changes, rather than just the simplified wording. On second thoughts, i oppose hiding any of the current information on the ballot. It is vital that all the details are displayed, but that link thing should be placed on there.  BritishWatcher (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose the minimalist front page. Come on guys, the ballot has been stable for a long time. I object to it going back to the drawing board every two days. -- Evertype·✆ 11:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the simplified bit, but what do u think about having the link to the agreed pros/cons statements like that next to the option on the ballot. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Scoláire, I honestly think that your proposal hamstrings any hope we have of getting mature, intelligent Wikipedia editors to take the time to become informed about the issues we face. I know that as a voter I will NOT want to click six different "un-hide" options or go to six different pages to see all of the bits of the ballot. I can't believe that you and Rannṗáirtí are engaging in this kind of re-design six days before the poll is supposed to start. What the bejesus were we doing for the last month? -- Evertype·✆ 12:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can near guarantee that people will not go onto another page. If you want people to not read text, the easiest way is to put it on a different page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Then we need the agreed statements (pros/cons) to be placed on the ballot paper itself above each of the options, theres a wording limit so it wont take up huge amount of space. then just need one other location for peoples own essays or comments linked by their {see my rationale)BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want people to read text or to not read text. I only want information to be available to anybody who wants it.  I believe that the people who come to vote will be mature adults capable of having an opinion on something without being force-fed with other people's.  But if you don't want to split pages then let's leave the thing alone, as Evertype says.  Hiding things is not de-cluttering - it is as close as you can get in this virtual world to literally sweeping things under the carpet.
 * Evertype, don't get too self righteous about this. The ballot has not been stable for a long time, it has been protected for a long time.  Before that it was not stable because a certain editor reverted every edit to it.  You talk as if you are disinterested, but if you are honest you have a major interest in having the last word.  And you won't, in the end - if it's done at all it will be by agreement and there will be bits that aren't the way you wanted them.  Scolaire (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My interest is in seeing the opening of this ballot succeed without it descending into farce, as has nearly happened more than once. Kindly do not assume that your interpretation of my motivations reflects my actual motivations. "If I'm honest," I have to say that joint editorial projects like this don't succeed if issues don't ever get closed. I have a lot of experience in preparing formal ballot text, as it happens. I have seen processes like these collapse under the weight of too-many-cooks wanting to start afresh over and over again. And in this process we are now two weeks on from the close of the (xxx) ballot, and every time I log in it seems as though there's another bright idea that overturns everything we've done previously. -- Evertype·✆ 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "...it is as close as you can get in this virtual world to literally sweeping things under the carpet." I don't believe so - thought it is a very emotive argument that you make. Being able to see something does not equate with being able to comprehend it. Too much stimulus (in the cognitive sense) adversely affects comprehension. Being able to show/hide items of information allows people to give attention to each one in turn. Being able to reveal two or three items side by side allows people to to compare individual items. This is in contrast with moving from one page to another on the internet, where we tend to dump our short-term memory when moving from one to the other (with all of the consequences that that has for comprehension).
 * Anyway, that's just my professional opinion. How about this:
 * A list of the six options underneath the "info" box.
 * The full ballot - with all of the options, details, etc. as we have them now - below that
 * In-page links leading from the list of the six options do the details of each one
 * An in-page link leading back up from the "details" of each option to the list of options
 * Scrap the "member statements section" that I added and use a standard "(My rationale is here.)" link leading out from a vote in the balloting section (optional obviously).
 * --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. You know "being able to see something does not equate with being able to comprehend it" does not make much sense. This is the Wikipedia. It is populated by people who can read. Intelligent editors make the Wikipedia worth putting any effort at all into, and those are our audience. I don't agree with your "stimulus" argument. I don't believe that people will be able to use the show/hide toggle as an effective means of getting an overview. Readers see things all at once. The show/hide toggle's intrinsic nature is to hide things that aren't relevant. But this material is highly relevant. -- Evertype·✆ 15:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a matter of intelligence, it a matter of cognition. "Readers see things all at once." Then our readers must not be human. We're getting off topic, but you'll enjoy this and I think it's a good example. As an example, tell me how many times the the woman in the white T-shirt catches a ball in watch this video (she is on the right hand side of the screen at the start). Respond here when you're done. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * Just by itself, as a summary. An executive summary.
 * Repeating the summary items in toto, and then giving all the boxes showing what the text changes would be.
 * Unnecessary given the repetition in 2 here.
 * Likewise unnecessary.
 * I can live with either the member statements section (with no editors names but linking here, or with a standard (see my rationale)—but remember, then any voter could make any rationale at any time during the balloting process, including vandalizing other editors' contributions. So maybe that second choice isn't so good. Rather we should link to WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements and each of the Position Summary pages there (as your or Scoláire I think suggested above) be given and protected. -- Evertype·✆ 15:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But as I understand the latest idea, the show/hide toggle is gone, right? What we actually have is a slightly longer but more navigable page.  I quite like that idea!  Except for the (my rationale) bit, of course.  You see, with the members statements, all the arguments are presented for the first voter; with (my rationale), all the arguments are not presented until the last vote is cast.  What's the point of that?  Scolaire (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so. Let me mock it up on my sandbox and we can see if it's what Rannṗáirtí is getting at. Back in a tick. -- Evertype·✆ 15:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Em, no. Edit conflict. I meant Rannpháirtí's latest idea.  I didn't understand your one at all, I'm afraid.  Scolaire (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is what I was saying. See my sandbox and note that it has two info-boxes (yours and mine/Rannṗáirtí's). It does not allow Position Statements during the ballot because as you say what is the point? -- Evertype·✆
 * Yup that's what I meant - but why is the info box repeated? Also, I hope you don't mind, I added what I meant by in-page links. If you click on them you don't leave the page, you just jump down to the details on that option. Then below there is another link to go "back up" to the options list.
 * Man, you really like that clutter? I find it very disruptive to reading. I think it's deep overkill considering the short length of these paragraphs. The two infoboxes are there only because evidently we haven't decided which one we want. -- Evertype·✆ 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They could be made neater and less visually disruptive. I was afraid to do anything beyond the most simple implementation because it was your sandbox. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the risk of vandalising other editors "rationale" statements is so great. Surely that kind of thing would attract one of those "non-trivial sanctions"? I agree with Scoláire re: "my rationale", and that's why I favour having a "members", but really do think they need to be on the same page. Also, Masem said the per-option statements would appear below each option. Not on a separate page. Maybe the member statements would be a place to use the "show/hide" template? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not make the show/hide template remotely appealing to me. Not all editors even know about it. It's just a bad idea. Keep it simple, please? Please? -- Evertype·✆ 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been looking over this conversation for the last couple of days. Although I have nothing too constructive to add to this I do think that Masem should be the one who should be most involved in writing a draft. At the very least he should be working very closely with those of you who are working hard on it. I have no opinion on the matter and whether I even vote depends on how well all the options available are explained to me. On the other hand, if it is explained in too much detail over several different pages users like myself may be turned off by it. I can see you are all working very hard towards your goals. I think, as I said, Masem should be brought into this discussion a little more. I hope you don't mind me butting in here. Coll Mac (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A sincere thank you for that, Coll Mac. I feel another new section coming on.  Scolaire (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The sort of things we've been discussing over the past couple of days is just the sort of things that requires a moderator to take charge. We need someone to say "we're doing this". I wouldn't want someone to say so without listening - but I think we do need someone to say "we're doing this" after having listened. Masem is the only person with authority to do that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heck I don't even know what timezone Masem is in. He is certainly not spending as much time on this as some of us.. -- Evertype·✆ 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hand Masem the reins
It's now almost exactly a week since Masem suggested putting the vote on hold to think it out a bit more. In retrospect it was a good idea. Issues were raised that hadn't been fully dealt with before, and some people were heard who felt they hadn't been listened to before. However, I think there comes a point when everything useful that is going to be said has been said. Beyond that point, the only people who benefit by continued arguing are the people who don't want the poll to take place. Per Coll Mac's comment above, I think the time has now come: And I would hope that nobody will respond to Masem's scheme with a "but.." I also think that, while we should be ready and willing to undertake any job if asked, none of us should do anything more on our own initiative. An operation like this can only succeed if it is centrally regulated, and the only centre we have here is the moderator. Scolaire (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * for all of us to put down our pens,
 * to invite Masem to summarise what he has heard over the last week, and
 * to invite Masem to tell us how the poll is going to be conducted, including what format the ballot paper will take.
 * Is a good idea to wait and see what is going to happen, we are simply creating more distractions which slow things down and leads to wastage when ideas are not used. Good idea to all pause and wait for further details. On the no buts bit, sorry but this vote has huge implications for the next few years, i reserve the right to "but...." if really really needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about putting things on hold either but I'd like to hear back from Masem too. I'd also like him to be a bit more "pro-active" (not in dictating but in chairing/moderating). I'd also like confirmation of dates/deadlines, etc. I think we should all reserve the right to say "...but" also. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I am not proposing to put things on hold again. Just the reverse! I am proposing that the period of reflection be declared at an end, and that we proceed ASAP to the vote itself, with Masem directing it, and without any "But that's not they way I wanted it at all!"  Does either of you really believe you will have a "but" that Masem hasn't heard already?  It's not a question of "rights", it's a question of whether we trust the man to do his job or not.  Every "but" is another step towards bringing the process to a halt again.  Scolaire (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Butting in again, sorry. A suggestion of "maybe a little tweek here" rather than a "but" may prove to be the thing that moves it along a little quicker. I'm sure masem has been looking at all the suggestions even though he hasn't been pro-active. Coll Mac (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what Masem has heard or not. I don't think it's realistic to think he can come back in and solve all of our problems - I don't think it's fair to expect that either. A problem, I think, over the last few days is that all our work hung around "but, no..." and there were few "yes, but..."'s. We weren't collaborating, were were presenting a series of competing ideas. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the potential for frustrations to mount, increases with each passing day the 'Final Poll' is set back. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're still missing the point, Rannpháirtí. Solving our problems is not a part of Masem's job description.  We have tried to aid him in deciding how this is to be done.  Now our part is done and Masem only has to decide on a procedure and tell us what it will be.  For my part, no matter how far away from my vision Masem's final decision is, I will only say "Yes, Sir, thank you, Sir!"  Anybody who genuinely wants the poll to take place will do the same if they've any sense.  Scolaire (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps asking him now on his talk page to do just that, then holding fire until he finishes would be the best way to go. Coll Mac (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to bring up recriminations but only last week we were having the poll. Masem had assigned a time, said OK to the ballot page, battened all the required hatches, told editors to put the invites out ... then someone whose name begins is "S" said "...but".
 * There have been no changes made to the ballot page since then so it sounds a little rich that you should say we should all just accept whatever we are told. I was all "yes" before. Now, when we could have been one week into the vote today, I'm sorry to say it, but it was you that set this "...but" ball rolling. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well. Perhaps this was the period of reflection that we all needed.  Perhaps we truly are ready now....  --HighKing (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat what I said earlier. You have all put in a great deal of time and effort to accomplish something which is not easy. Could you all forget who said "but" first or anything else? What do you think of my suggestion above? Coll Mac (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool. And I apologise, Scoláire, if what I wrote above was unfair. I understand you've been working hard on this too. And I don't doubt your faith one bit.
 * Coll Mac, I don't know what's being tweaked anymore. We've got 10 different versions of the intro text, pro/anti statements that are on the page/off the page/on the page/off the page, apparently no room for general statements - but apparent consensus on having no discussion of thel issues in the intro text, statements that will be linked by user name, but not by user name, linking to personal statements from the ballot area ... of maybe full discussion ... or maby not ... who know what's going on? And still there has been no change made to the the ballot page itself!
 * I've love to say I'd agree to whatever Masem says - or just offer minor "tweaks" ... but god knows what's happening anymore! I don't know what Masem could come back with. I was all set to go this day last week then it all came down in a heap. And it's been in heap ever since. And I don't know what for ... because that has not been one change made to to the the ballot page. So I can't agree to saying anything when Masem comes back because it's all a "pig in a poke" at this stage to me. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact there has been no change to the Ballot paper maybe tells us something. Is it because opposing viewpoints cannot agree on it for their own reasons? This tells me it could be the most neutral one of all. If it hasn't been done yet I'd like to make a suggestion (I hadn't looked before starting this). Let everyone have a vote on the present ballot with only for and against without comments. What do you think? Coll Mac (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect it will be an "Oppose", but it may be a good thing to do at least. Maybe it it does come out as an "Oppose" we will be a bit clearer now about what we want changed. I wouldn't stop people from commenting, though. If it does end up being an "Oppose" then it's better to know why. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe too it would be a good idea to focus on the "good things" that came out of the past week. For me, it's:
 * Proposed navigational changes to the layout in the ballot paper (as can seen in Evertype's sandbox
 * Propsed "(My rational here.)" links leading out from votes in the balloting area.
 * Proposal to shift the focus of the intro text from what to call the state to the (actual) problem of arranging two articles
 * Maybe if everyone listed their own "good things" about the last week, we could get an idea of what we achieved from all of the acrimony. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is supposed to be per ArbCom three Mod's here not one. If there is issues to be addressed, they need to be addressed. -- Domer48 'fenian'  21:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Domer has a point, there's suppose to be three. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked the other moderator as their are only 2 and the reply can be found here. BigDunc  22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * wow BritishWatcher (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm around. Lackadaisical is all. The other mod is doing a fine job; no-one's asked me for assistance, so I figured I'd just hang back. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that a joke? The first I've heard of you. Tfz     23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick aside: I had commented above a while ago, probably archived now. In my experience, mediators like working alone. I've always been available, but there isn't much communication between the Arbs and the mods, and I don't want to interrupt Masem's flow. We're on the same page as far as any grand strategy goes, but there isn't talk of tactics between us. I'd rather I just hung back until someone needs me for something explicitly aside from the procedural. Please contact me on my talk page to continue this particular conversation. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I've not been responsive, RL comes into play and I've also been having a hard time trying to follow every change/complaint, etc. (I will note that people are fighting over the presentation of the ballot, and at those of us Stateside, brings back lovely memories of the 2000 election. It's the wrong battle to be focusing on.) So to summarize things as I see them: I think all these steps lead to about as minimal a POV ballot but with as much possible non-POV information as one can expect for this topic. Now, yes, I could take over and say "We're doing this, this, and this" but that should be considered a last resort, though I will suggest pushing something through if there's only a few resisting it. While its been tumultuous to get to here, there is at least mostly agreements on the ballot process, it's just these fine details we're getting too worked up about. --M ASEM (t) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The shorter lede to the ballot seems acceptable with most; there is no point to bring up any specific issues beyond that one exists.
 * We need to assume at the same time that the voters are both intelligent enough to use a web browser, but "stupid" on the issues (in that they lack detailed knowledge of it in the average case). At the same time, we know from past trial that as soon as you break some ground, however, non-POV its meant to be, everyone wants their view added on. Thus, I like the recent additions of the collapsible sections (there are some slight formatting changes I would suggest), and I still think it makes best sense to have user essays linked as appropriate, though I don't think I would hide the existence of these behind collapsible sections (that is, the examples per each choice is good to keep hidden, but everything else needs to be shown).
 * I think it's reasonable if someone has a general comment to have a section for those. However, by general, I don't mean "any option but X" type arguments but anything that will help educate the voter or provide an overall POV sense.  I'd rather see those that feel they must state their POV to focus on supporting or opposing a specific option than trying to address the entirety in one go, but that's not to say general encompassing statements can't come out of that.
 * Masem, I very much dislike the collapsible show/hide toggle. I think it is wiki-cuteness that just gets in the way. As a voter, I will have to open them all up. Why not just leave them? Please have a look at my sandbox and take that proposed configuration into account (it has two infoboxes but I think the lower one is more popular). Thanks. -- Evertype·✆ 00:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear though, it's only one of those "preambles" that will appear on the ballot? Masem, I'm also happy with the '"list of options"->linking down to "details on each option"->linking back up to the "list of options"' method as in Evertypes sandbox. The "show/hide" method met with suspicion that it was trying to "sweep information under the carpet", while I don't think that is true it is an impression we don't want to give.
 * Also, Masem, could we have a decision on the info box (there's now two major version and lots of minor version) - or at least herd people towards a decision. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, yes, ONLY ONE OF THE PREAMBLES would appear on the ballot. I thought I had been clear about this; I addressed it twice already. Apologies if I was unclear. -- Evertype·✆ 08:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It just seems all we've been looking at for the past week has been pink bloody info boxes. I wouldn't be surprised if someone said we should put them all in there. :-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Shhhhh! -- Evertype·✆ 08:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care particularly if we keep the examples of the options expanded or not, though I will note that with collapsed sections, it gets to the point much faster. The examples themselves are not bad, but I would suspect the type of editors we'll be attracting to this poll will be the type that can read the one line option and understand immediately what that suggests; the examples are still useful for those that are not as experienced or for those seeking better clarification. --M ASEM  (t) 14:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

While I have a major problem with general POV statements being used and presented as fact, if there was a hat note indicating that they are POV statements and this should be considered by readers. Where they go I'm not sure but I don't consider being placed by the options would be correct. However, on the Pro and Con statements, its my opinion that they should be sourced and fact based and aimed at informing readers and placed beside the options. They should focus on our policies and be kept seperate, that is one link should go to Pro statements and the other to Con. This allows editors to review the options in an informed way, and allow them to weigh up the Pro's and Con's themselves without having to wade through mountains of POV. While it has not been mentioned I'm getting very concerned by both this and this and now this. -- Domer48 'fenian'  07:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That fellow was Wikipéire? Well blow me down. He was responsible for a lot of mischief before Masem locked the ballot template. -- Evertype·✆ 08:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm been flogging this for a while now - but a standardised format could fix that. A standard hat note explaining that the statements was the work of one author and expressing a possible health warning isn't a bad idea. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not mind that format, though I feel strongly that the pages themselves should be linked from a Position Statements page and individual Project members' names should not appear on the ballot. -- Evertype·✆ 08:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll move my statement to that format, Rannṗáirtí. -- Evertype·✆ 08:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Evertype·✆ 08:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So... which of the preambles? I don't mind myself. I assume the choice was winnowed down to those two. -- Evertype·✆ 08:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the shorted intro, "But..." i do not think we should keep those collapsable options, there is enough room on the ballot paper for all to see the key information displayed there. The simplified text does not explain article content / where all articles end up as clearly. I also didnt see what is happening about the pro/con statements, or is that the user statements refered to before. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that you, like me, don't favour having collapsable text, but you favour just having the text always visible? The section on that page that points to the user statements points to WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements and the statements there should point to (for instance WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements/Evertype where each person's statement gets a subpage with his or her user page. (I did not move Scoláire's there yet, but am itching to do so. ;-) …) -- Evertype·✆ 11:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BritishWatcher, in Evertypes sandbox there's a slight change to the layout (a list of the options, followed by the details of each with links to and fro between the two). Evertype has pointed out that the links are a bit clunky as they stand, I think that they can be improved, but in principle are you OK with that (rather than the show/hide system).
 * Actually the links down are OK. I deleted the links back up because they were very clunky and heck, people know how to scroll. -- Evertype·✆ 18:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What too is the word on "my rationale here" links? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody said (Scoláire?) what's the point... since we have a process now for writing statements, now's the time. -- Evertype·✆ 18:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok I see what's being done on the Editors personal statements but what about the Pro and Con fact/policy based statements which are to inform readers. While editors personal POV's may hold some intrest to readers, it is how the options measure up on things like WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME which will inform their opinions. The reader can then weigh up the facts themselves and make informed discisions. The health warning on POV statements should be seriously considered. -- Domer48 'fenian'  12:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We've tried to add non-POV statements to the preamble, only to have more and more info be asserted that it must be added, and bogs down the issue. Even with a strong policy-based argument, this entire situation pretty much falls under Ignore All Rules.  The key thing is that none of the options below violate any policy - some may be better matching to current policy, but we would have already discounted all those that would be immediately against policy.  Remember, the goal as Rannphairti has reminded us, is to determine where the coverage of the island and the country are to be located, not to try to end decades-long political dispute.  You are certainly free to cite policy and sources in an essay to be included as a link, but our past attempts at completing the lead point to leaving off anything that could be taken as supporting one option over another in the official ballot. --M ASEM  (t) 14:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We should now know why some editors wanted to get agreement through consensus. A poll for something so important was the wrong turn on this one, but I will help if I can. If we can get consensus on the poll, then we should have got it here with the naming issue too. I am saying this because if this "poll" fails, then there is always 'consensus'.  Tfz     14:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem, your use of Ignore All Rules is quite frankly ludicrous. All editors are invited to put forward fact/policy based arguments both for and against and you along with some editors are trying to prevent that, why? You have been asked countless times to provide editors with diff’s to show were fact based discussions on our various policies were attempted and you could not provide one, not one. In your opinion “the key thing is that none of the options below violate any policy” but again, if asked to support this with a diff it would be either a) ignored or b) you’ll prevaricate. You go on to say that we “have already discounted all those that would be immediately against policy” yet RoI was left in despite a multitude of sources which showed that it breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV. I’ll ignore your straw man argument about the “decades-long political dispute” or this being some kind of “official ballot” and just point out to you the obvious. If editors provide sourced and referenced information which comply with and are supported by our policies in support of a particular option, editors are perfectly entitled to challenge that by doing likewise. However, to address an option by providing policy based reasons supported by references, and to be challenged by nothing other that editors POV does not provide readers with the information they need to make informed decisions. So again, what is wrong with having both policy based reasons for and against an option. Each editor can provide there own rational each with a separate section for their rational; there is no need for discussion or dispute. If an editor disagrees with an editors rational on any given policy they can provide an alternative in their own section. There is no need for any interaction between editors, and editors should be told not to direct there comments to either the editor or their rational but simply provide their own and let the reader weigh up the strength of the arguments themselves. Your actions and comments have provided us with a POV charter, and all I’m asking for is that we introduce some rational and reasoned information for readers. Trying to link the pro and con statements with the problems on the preamble is just another attempt at deflection, and is very disingenuous.-- Domer48 'fenian'  17:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Domer, you can write your own perfectly logical statement and let people read it. That's what you've asked for. We had a nice list of fairly neutral pro/con arguments.... that wasn't good enough for some people, so they got pushed. (They form the content of my own Position Statement.) Please, please, write your own position statement. Put it here. I want to see your statement there. If you don't put one there, I can only assume that all of the protestations which you keep offering to us are just blocking tactics. -- Evertype·✆ 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do have some sympathy for a point made by Domer48. If I happened to be one of those writing a statement I would rather not have it picked over point by point. Another user with a different view can make his/her own views known by refuting my points in their own statement as well as making their own. In my first post here I said I would only vote if I found the arguments and statements clear and concise. If you go down the road of allowing everyones statement to be interspersed by others comments it could get messy. I think most people I see here would like the Ballot to begin as soon as possible. That won't happen if every sentence of every statement is questioned. Leave it to the individual to make their own statements then leave it for the voter to decide. Well, that's my opinion. Coll Mac (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "...RoI was left in despite a multitude of sources which showed that it breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV.." Can we have a diff for this please, please? Or better still could you cite one of these sources - a simple quotation along with the author, title and date will suffice, no need for ISBNs.
 * I think this demonstrates the fallacy with the demand for citations in the POV statements. WP:SOURCES etc. work in articles because the process of collaboration edits out invalid synthesis of published sources. There would be no such process in the writing of POV statements. An editor could cite a hundred and one sources as evidenced their position - regardless of whether those sources actually did or not. In an article, such a synthesis would be challenged on the talk page. In the POV statements there would be no such opportunity to challenge synthesis.
 * Secondly, there are no citation that can solve this matter for us. The question is how do we disambiguate pages on Wikipedia. Reference to policy is what matters, not reference to secondary sources.
 * That said a health warning that would head each POV statement, I think, would be a good idea. I propose the following:


 * --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that Masem has been dealing with this on his own as the sole moderator. Perhaps it's time for the other moderator to come in. I would suggest that he could keep a close eye on the statements to ensure nothing outlandish is stated. They could ask for a source on anything they deem fit. Coll Mac (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest this better?


 * A few subtle word choices to make it sound less like the provided statement is a bogus lie. --M ASEM (t) 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, better. Maybe you could slap that on each one as you receive them? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you go Rannpháirtí anaithnid a whole article full of sources. I make a simple point of asking that arguments for and against be linked beside each option so editors can make an informed decision. To make an informed choice, the arguments have to be fact and policy based, that is supported by references and sources. Unsourced POV statements do not inform readers, all they get is an editors opinion. I made a statement above, and was ask to back it up and I have. Now Rannpháirtí anaithnid can do one of two things, they can challenge the sources, by providing alternative sources or they can accept my contention. However, they could also prevaricate and have it picked over point by point, without having provided any alternative sources at all. Coll Mac for example using the above example can make an informed choice based on the strength and quality of each argument should Rannpháirtí anaithnid decide to respond. The choice that Masem is offering readers is unsourced POV statements a soapbox in other words over verifiable and reliably sourced information which is written from a neutral point of view  designed to provide readers with the information they need to make informed decisions. The arguments both for and against provide editors the opportunity to challenge each other without getting bogged down in pointless POV discussions because there is no interaction. Each editor is only responsible for their own statements both for and against. Now Rannpháirtí anaithnid has the opportunity to test this out by challenging the sources I’ve provided above, without having to refer to me. Why are editors so resistant to backing up their comments, one would think by now that like me they would have all the references they need? -- Domer48 'fenian'  20:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My request was for a quotation from a source that backed up the statement that "RoI was left in despite a multitude of sources which showed that it breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV ". (I also asked for a diff for showing that the same had been provided before.) You could not provide a one. You have not proven it. Even though you say you do, and even though refer to sources.
 * The same will be the case in the POV statements. Editors can make statements. They can cite hundreds of sources to back up these statements if they like. But there will be no means to ensure that those sources actually prove the statements those editors make.
 * I agree with your description of a sort of dialectic. But simply citing sources is no way to ensure the validity of statements. Without the process of collaboration, there is nothing to stop people from engaging synthesis. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a disagreement on whether each editor should have their own statement or whether one statement should be put forward through collaboration? Coll Mac (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So we got no sources to challange the point I made about the  multitude of sources which showed that the inclusion of RoI in the list of options  breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV and that Rannpháirtí anaithnid instead decided to prevaricate. So I'll ask again, why are editors against giving readers the oppertuntiy to make an informed decsiion. I have no problem with editors making their POV statements, but I'd like to see arguements both for and against each option being linked to the options. That they be supported is just common sense. -- Domer48 'fenian'  21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "...the multitude of sources which showed that the inclusion of RoI in the list of options breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV" - What multitude of sources? I have asked that you please provide a quotation from just one of these with the name of the author, year and title of publication. (I also asked for a diff showing where the same was provided in the past, but that is not forthcoming either.)
 * prevaricate: to speak or acting in an evasive way I have asked you for a quotation from a source (one of a multiude, we would be told). It is you that seem evasive. Why?
 * In any case, do you see the problem with sources? Anyone can make a statement. They can cite a source (a "multitude even"). That does not mean that the source proves the statement. They make be drawing a synthesis (i.e. original research), for example. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone disagreeing with linkage (and marked appropriate) of pro/anti statements for each option. However, there's no requirement for sources. I will vet blatantly problematic ones, obviously. But no sources are required. Yes, you strengthen your argument citing policy and external sources, and that's a good thing, but it is important to remember that in the history of this debate, people have tried to cite policy and external sources for a long time, but there's always someone ready to fight back with their own policy and external sources, leading to no resolve on the issues. Thus, in some editors' mind (and the way I see this) that all the options are valid when you twist and turn policy and sources one way or another, and thus this is about more of the meta-nature, thinking beyond policy and what is the best long-term solution that will minimize future conflicts, even if that is the option that has the weakest support in policy. In other words, if WP:IAR works, then we should do it.  Thus, I'm not expecting all editors' POV to source policy and external sites, but at least be clear and coherent. --M ASEM  (t) 23:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the current plan, although can i just check we have dropped the idea of using the hide feature? All the current information on the ballot should remain visable for all, we cant depend on people clicking each options show option before voting. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Masem, so the linkage of pro/anti statements for each option is agreeable, sorted. However there being no requirement for sources is a major problem because it turns the statements into another opportunity for soapboxing which is the hallmark of this process. With correctly sourced and referenced statements there is no need for you to vet anything, and I for one would have no confidence in your ability to do it either. Having again used a strawman argument of "in the history of this debate, people have tried to cite policy and external sources for a long time, but there's always someone ready to fight back with their own policy and external sources, leading to no resolve on the issues" I must again bring editors attention to my comments above. Editors are invited to offer conflicting sources in their pro/anti statements for each option, its then up to the reader to determine the validity and strength of each source and make an informed decision. To illustrate how ridiculous your alternative is, you say that “all the options are valid when you twist and turn policy and sources one way or another” we call that WP:SYN but then go on to suggest that, therefore we will not require sources at all and you call this “thinking beyond policy”  however on Wikipedia we call that WP:OR and it’s a big no, no. Masem we have seen the disagreements your attempt at a “preamble” have caused, why should your suggested vetting be any different? If the pro/anti statements for each option are used by editors to blatantly “twist and turn policy and sources one way or another,” we can address it, however, if they do this with their own personal POV statements you can do nothing about it. That is the logic of your arguments. -- Domer48 'fenian'  08:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Readers of the POV essays will have to use their judgement as to the number of sources or policy links contained and how they are applied to judge if the statement is a good one to follow or not. A desperate plea to oppose option Q because of today is a Thursday, and not backing any other policy or sourcing anything else, is a POV statement that can be included, but obviously is not influential. A rationale option supporting option X because it minimizes the chance for any potential future conflict on the issue, but also not citing sources or policy, is likely to have a bit more impact.  But that's not a job we should be deciding for the voters.  Also, do note that OR applies to article space - and by extension to the naming issue - we cannot use (nor are we using) a bogus option that has no backing by sources; we can't move the state to "Mystical Happyland of Ireland", for example. However, in termining how we create policy and in this case how we assign the right naming scheme, OR and POV are perfectly appropriate to apply in the discussion. This is why it's important to recognize that IAR exists - we do the solution that best improves the encyclopedia even if it is contrary to all policy (save for a couple, like non-free content and BLPs). Case in point: most English speaking people call the state of China "China", so WP:NC should have us point it there, but because it is better both politically and properly, we call it by its full name "People's Republic of China", and recognize that "China" could be used as a more generic article about the area. But it is important that those names are all factual and follow a logical and valid scheme. The solution that might be voted on here may be a similar result - one that is contrary to policy but because we've vetted the options, are the ones that are still completely valid with respect to sources.
 * And while I've considered allowing for responses, anything beyond "I support this statement" will lead right back to endless edit wars around the same thing, even if the original POV statement is twisting policy to their whim. We need to assume that editors voting in this poll are familiar with application of policy and what it means (just like here in the States, we're supposed to be aware of the issues and politics before stepping into the voting booth). There will be some editors swayed by a wildly-misappropriate use of policy in a POV statement, but most should not be (same thing happens in political elections).  Again, I stress that we need to assume a certain level of intelligence and familiarity with the WP process and policy from our voters. --M ASEM  (t) 14:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You say Original research and Point of view, the very opposite of neutral point of view “are perfectly appropriate to apply in the discussion” and you don’t seem to have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? All of the options are based on Original research and Point of view, so to even suggest that “we cannot use (nor are we using) a bogus option that has no backing by sources” is just plain disruptive in my opinion. I’m asking that we should back up the options with sources, and your saying there is no need, we can use Original research and Point of view. Now I suggest you read my posts above and below again, and come back with something other than ignore all rules, as the basis for offering readers a distorted view of the nature of the dispute and the facts and policies behind the options being offered. -- Domer48 'fenian'  15:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * After doing a little bit of research on this subject I have discovered the truth that the Irish Parliament have in fact passed a law in which the state is now officially named the Republic of Ireland. My research of the sources has also unearthed the fact that the majority of people throughout the world would think of the Island rather than the state when the name Ireland is mentioned. It is also a verifiable fact that those who wish to keep this article as it is have never proved their POV with any sources of note. Don't ask me for any proof that my statements are true, I just don't have the time. Please, just take my word for it. It's all true!. Coll Mac (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies for my over the top nonsense statements. I'm sure nobody would make such outlandish statements. My point is that a statement could be made by anyone stating facts that are dubious without having to back them up with anything. They would most likely be a lot less obvious than the above. How would the voter be able to tell what is the truth and what is the slight untruth without seeing the sources? Coll Mac (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent post Coll. Masem are you saying that we are to ignore policy and write any old bullshit and it will get linked from an official poll on wiki? BigDunc  18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's assume that Coll's statement above is provided (maybe not as much rhetoric but keeping with assertions without facts). I would not vet it (it is not incivil or the like) and I would link it, based on the working assumption that the voters can recognize a statement that claims certain aspects without backing them up is a weak one at best. I fully expect that there will be statements with sources and the like, so that when the above statement is compared against it, it is clear it is a weaker one.  Note that I'm strongly encouraging everyone to include sourced facts and the like, but to require that is against this type of process. --M ASEM  (t) 18:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, Coll Mac, but just because someone provides a "source" for a statements doesn't mean that those sources actually support what is being claimed or that the statement will be any more fact-based because of them. It has long been known, for example, that John Costello explicitly stated that the term "Republic of Ireland" should no be used as the title of a Wikipedia page but was precluded from inserting such provisions into the Republic of Ireland Act owing to residual, secret provisions of the 1921 Ango-Irish Agreement (cf. P Bew et al., 1989, The Dynamics of Irish Politics, Lawrence & Wishart Ltd; P Arthur, 1985, "Anglo-Irish relations and the Northern Ireland problem" in Irish Studies in International Affairs; P Mair, 1987, The changing Irish party system: organisation, ideology and electoral competition, Burns & Oates).
 * The above example is outlandish, but you will surely see that, without the process of collaboration, citations are evidence for nothing. There is nothing to prevent synthesis (i.e. original research), undue weight or - like my "Costello" example - plain outright misrepresentation of sources in the POV statements. See above, for example, how Domer48 has makes claims that a statement he has made is source based. Yet when pushed for a quotation to back up the claim, he/she shies away. In the POV statements there will be no opportunity for such pushing for the facts, so editors will be free to claim published sources support whatever outlandish statements they may make. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are definitely pushing the bounds credulity here and I suggest that your inability to identify Coll Mac’s satire on this, despite their admission betrays signs of incompetence. Please explain just what “type of process” is this that you would even consider allowing this type of nonsense to be presented to the community? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  19:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Masem has been doing a good job on this. I certainly wouldn't want to be in his/her shoes. I do agree with you Domer48 that any statements made should be backed up by sources. I hope if Masem looks at it again he will realise any such nonsense statements should not be permitted. If the policy says sources are not needed then at the very least it should be pointed out for all to see that they have been strongly encouraged to provide them, and those without sources may be less reliable. Coll Mac (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen up, Domer. It's you who are lacking credibility. These are position statements. They are not encyclopaedia articles. Now, I am sure that you believe that your own arguments are perfectly logical, and bolstered by links to sources (however cherry-picked), and that anyone who reads them must be compelled to believe your side. And Masem has invited you to write your statement, as I have. But it is folly to suggest that everyone's Position Statement will be constructed like yours is. I have already posted mine. It is a set of what I consider to be neutral evaluations of the different choices on the poll. I and others wrote them, for the ballot, but there was not evidently enough good will for them to be accepted for the ballot. Nevertheless, they form my Position Statement. I  am not going to go and footnote everything on my Postion Statement, because I don't care to. I think that they are quite reasonable, common-sense, common-knowledge assessments of the choices. And since it's my Position Statement, I get to make that judgement call. If you don't like it, well, tough. Go and write your own. But bad-mouthing Masem paints only you in a bad light. -- Evertype·✆ 20:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In an effort to forestall yet another roadblock, I have put Masem's version of Rannṗáirtí's caveat header on the top of the two posted Position Summaries. There. Now anyone who worries that my Position Statement might by a synthesis of my own opinions will know that it probably is. -- Evertype·✆ 20:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I never knew a discussion on a Ballot could get so heated. As I said, I think Masem is doing a good job, and he's moderating all on his own. I think the other moderator should come in and give him a helping hand. I do believe that statements should be sourced but my opinion on it is not so strong that I would continue to harp on about it. I'll step away from the discussion now and hope you get the Ballot off and running as soon as possible. All the best. Coll Mac (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What we need is not people stepping away, but people saying "I can live with this version, warts and all, and let's go ahead." As far as Position Statements go, well, my own one links to various wiki articles but I'm not interested in writing a "thesis" to prove what my take on things is. Are you writing a Position Statement? I encourage you to do so. (And I don't even know what "side" you are on.)
 * I have no position or side. I will read all the statements with interest though, and when I feel strongly enough that one of the options should be chosen over the others I shall place my x in the appropriate place. As stated above, I do believe sources should be used, but I can live with it. Warts and all. Coll Mac (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Knowing that the “position statements” and the Pro and Con statements are two completely different things yet basing arguments on the “position statements” is disingenuous. I’m not interested in what editors put in their “position statements” but I am in what get put in the statements attached to the options. The for and against comments will be attached to the options and therefore should be supported. Now I not sure how readers will view my comments both for and against the various options but I do know that they will be able to evaluate the veracity of them. One would think with the suggested level of discussion that went into this process, with suggestions of how every policy and reference was supposedly discussed to death, that editors would balk at the opportunity to provide the sources and references which support their views and positions. That editors would resist the opportunity to illustrate to the wider community how and why options they support are maintained by our policies. That editors would reject the opportunity to challenge, through sources, references and policies why they oppose particular options suggests a complete lack of confidence. Now despite provocation, I’ve remained calm, rational and reasonable and suggest editors do likewise. What editors are being ask for here is not unreasonable. In the Pro and Con statements you provide references that’s it.-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  22:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "I’m not interested in what editors put in their 'position statements' but I am in what get put in the statements attached to the options." Aaaah! This makes a lot more sense now. I agree that there is a problem. I think Evertype is of the same opinion too. Attaching statements written by individual editors to the ballot paper may attach a validity to them in the minds of voters that is undeserved. I don't really see how we can get around the problem without collaborating over the pro/con statements. Even if we do have require source in the pro/con arguments, without the process of collaboration we won't end up at NPOV. Example:
 * Individual method: I begin a pro/con argument. I write the statement X and provide a source for it. I further add the statement Y and provide two published sources for it.
 * Collaborative method: I being a pro/con argument. I write the statement X and provide a source for it. You say that the source does support the statement but that it gives undue weight to a particular part of the source so you modify X→X2. I add the statement Y based on two sources, you remove Y as a synthesis of published sources (i.e. original research).
 * Using the "individual method" we have two sourced statements in the pro/con argument: X, which is unbalanced, and Y, which is a synthesis (i.e. original research). Using the "collaborative method" we have a sourced statement X2 that gives a balanced assessment of what is stated in the source.
 * Unless we can collaboratively write the pro/con statements then I don't see any way around this problem unless we either 1) scrap the pro/con arguments and only go with position statements or 2) flag the individual pro/con arguments with a health warning like I posted above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One way this could be done, adding a few more days to the process but providing this, is that there would be a two stage process. Stage one: editors write their essays that will be attached. That stage closes, essays are attached to options, and then stage two starts: editors are free to put their support, or write counterarguments to those essays.  This step would have to be strictly controlled: the agreements or counter positions are not pieces for discussion, so you say your piece and then that's it - no counter-counterargument by the essayist, no ganging up on one editor, etc. And this would only be for pointing out flaws or problems with the arguments, not to point readers to others.  These counter-points can be used to address any (as seen by the responder) deficiencies in the essay arugments whether that be lack of sources, incorrect application of policy, misinterpreted facts, or just a general POV statement.  That at least provides some counterfeedback that some feel that are being missed.  --M ASEM  (t) 23:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst i strongly support the Pros/cons statements and dont think we should have to source everything to Domers standards, which would be impossible... we do have to ensure the statements are reasonable. Cols example above should not get past the vetting and be linked on the ballot paper (people could link that as their personal statments in the (see my rationale) thing) but the pro/con statements have to be honest, they cant just state lies. If many people strongly dispute the claims in a statement it should be re written or another statement considered. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Would the "counter argument" be visible to the voter (I don't think it should, I think it should only be posted here)? So the suggestion is, I write a pro/con statement, others respond to it, I must address those concerns by providing sources/amending the pro/con statement. TBH I don't see it working. I think it will just lead down the usual road of undue weight, weasel words and synthesis. Someone will write X. Another will say that X is not true. The statement will be amended to say that "puppets of the imperialist jingos think X isn't true - but the TRUTH is that it is".
 * Can we just take them out and leave it all the obvious POV statement? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And really it shouldn't matter anyway. This is a purely internal issue: how Wikipedia organises two page. External sources have nothing to say on the matter. ... but still, I expect whether the name of the Irish state is X or Y or Z in TRUTH will be the most profound case put for many. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward
I welcome the agreement on the Pros/cons statements and the need for sources. I agree with the need to include the health warning on all statements. I have no problem with the suggested process on the Pros/cons statements suggested by Masem. I am mindful of Coll Mac's comment on how the statemets can be "picked over point by point" by some editors and would point out that to challange a statement one must first have grounds to challange i.e. a source or reference which directly challanges any given source. I agree that the "counter argument" should not appear on the statement and have offered suggestions above on how this can be addressed. Since the Pros/cons statements are fact/policy based, there should be little dispute or disruption as a result of POV statements. This is over all a positive step forward. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  07:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it be useful to create the pages for Pro and con Statements which we can post on? Each of the options having its own section and we can either here or the discussion pages of the Pro and con Statements raise issues editors may have. These statements will also go a long way to address the issue of the opening statement also. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  13:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me iterate why I think the suggested essay with agreements/counter-responses seems to be the best way to go.
 * First, I cannot legitimately put the requirement of having sources in any of the POV statements, as that's not required at any other discussion forum anywhere else on WP. Sources obviously help, but take a look at various AFDs and you'll see some but minimal or no sources at all. I still urge editors to use them if they can, but some arguments and position statements would not be able to point to any but instead appeal to common sense.
 * That said, I realize that people are worried that someone will put up a not-so-obvious bogus claim without sources, or misapplication of sources that needs to be addressed. That's understood. Which is why a single agreement or counter-argument step seems appropriate - this would be sufficient to allow those that feel a completely unsourced statement that can be challenged by other sources to do so. But again, I stress this needs to be a counterargument for that option, and not a statement in support of a different one.
 * Now, to allow this cycle to continue, to allow responses to counterarguments and so forth, starts to descend into discussion, and that's what that's been happening for the last few years leading towards this point. We don't need to reiterate all that to the voters, nor is anything new going to be said. The arguments and counterarguments are not there to convince yourselves of what the right option is, but to make sure your POV for or against an option, or the claims of others for/against that option, is known to the voters.  They can easily find the IRCOLL project talk archives if they want lengthy reading material, but of those that will review the position statements and responses, they just want to make sure they're aware of the main issues involved.
 * I can see having a talk page of the position statements used for discussion but by default these wouldn't be advertized to the poll. I just don't there's any value for having the position pages themselves being treated as forums as they would rapidly descend into the retreat of existing arguments that have been made here over the last few years.
 * Only the position arguments would be linked on the ballot page; the agreements or counter-arguments would not be. --M ASEM (t) 15:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose specific arguments being placed on the ballot page. If you mean links to them, the link should only be to WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements. Please confirm, Masem. Also please note that two Position Statements are there. -- Evertype·✆ 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No arguments on the ballot page, only links via writer's name to their argument page. --M ASEM (t) 18:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable about people's names appearing on the ballot like that. I think the ballot should point to WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements and that is where the names should go. Please address this, Masem. -- Evertype·✆ 16:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The options would appear something like this below. You have comments in support and against this option. These comments will be fact/policy based. The only thing that will appear is the comments for and against. It will not include arguements or counter arguements. So for example, if an editor in support of this option cites WP:COMMONNAME and uses supporting references, an editor may disagree and using possibly the same policy, and alternative sources place their comments in the comments against link. Reference to comments either for or against should be avoided when commenting as the point is to let the reader come to their own conclusion based on the information provided. You outline the reasons why this option should be supported or rejected and not why either alternative is wrong. I would not use comments why it should be supported based on arguements why the comments against it are wrong. Discussions on the statements should not be long drawn out affairs, and will possibly revolve around the issue of WP:SYN. This being fact based should be stright forward. To prevent anyone trying to pick over each statement line by line, all challanges must be based on alternative sources. So an editor can't just say well I don't agree with that, they must be able to say I don't agree with that because this source says the exact opposit.

As to the position statements, I agree they should not be on the ballot paper. I'm not to pushed were they should go as long as they are not presented as anything other then editors own personal POV's. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  18:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * '''A: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.
 * (Ireland + Republic of Ireland) → Ireland (Rational for and Rational against this option)
 * Ireland (disambiguation) → no change
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

! Name of page ! Initial text (the first sentence in the article) I very strongly oppose Domer's suggestion that links to the rationales appear in the MIDDLE of the ballot where he has them. I also disagree that the rationales should be split into "for" and "against". My own Position Statement gives arguments on both sides, and cannot be split thus. -- Evertype·✆ 16:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ireland
 * Ireland is a European island and an independent state of the same name.
 * Ireland (disambiguation)
 * Ireland commonly refers to: ...
 * }
 * Ireland commonly refers to: ...
 * }


 * Ok we get that you disagree, now please tell us why? I don't like it is hardly a rational. Your arguments can be split, you just choose not to, and they should be supported with references and not just your WP:OR. The rational will appear beside each option, making them accessible to the reader and having those separate presents them both in clear and concise format. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  18:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A) The word is "rationale", not "rational";
 * B) You do not get to decide how people format their rationales; Evertype is completely free to comment on one, some, or all, for or against, in whatever order he chooses;
 * C) Masem has already stated that rationales need not necessarily be referenced;
 * D) Including rationales beside each option introduces the problem of whose rationale gets listed there. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The country article & the island article must not be merged. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The articles could quite possibly be merged, but who's too know. I'm sure you can provide a number of fact/policy based reasons to support you POV. However there may be quite a few compelling sources put forward to support this option. Any how your comments have no useful purpose in this current discussion, notice the header "Moving forward." -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything is possible, time will tell. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so how is your comment helpful in a section called Moving forward? BigDunc  20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Being honest is helpful. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Give your 'reasoning' GoodDay, and less tr***. Remember the word is 'collaboration'. Repeat it to yourself 50 times a day! Tfz     20:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The country & the island are not the same things. PS: Be not afraid, if I'm the lone dissenting voice? the merge proposal will be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They are the same thing, the country is 32 counties, the sovereign country is 26 counties. You should visit sometime, then you'd understand more clearly. Tfz     20:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My blunder. 'Merge the articles' isn't a proposal, it's just an exampler. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a blunder, my friend - see Option A here. --83.70.245.234 (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, I shall oppose it. The country republic doesn't cover the entire island, a part of the island-in-question? belongs to the United Kingdom. That's the way it. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The country of Ireland covers the entire island, the sovereign country of Ireland covers 26 counties, which is 85% of the island. Tfz     16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well they said they very strongly oppose so lets hope they have very strong reasons for their opposition, unlike the ones you put forward on their behalf. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  22:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A) The word is "rationale", not "rational";
 * B) You do not get to decide how people format their rationales; I am completely free to comment on one, some, or all, for or against, in whatever order I choose;
 * C) Masem has already stated that rationales need not necessarily be referenced;
 * D) Including rationales beside each option introduces the problem of whose rationale gets listed there. -- Evertype·✆ 18:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Having said you very strongly oppose the rationale that is the rationale for the Pro and Con statements and not the personal POV statements being placed beside each option, you would have equally strong reasons for this, but apparently not simply parroting the previous editor. Were would you like to see these referenced/sourced and policy based statements placed? An obvious place with the reader in mind would be beside the options. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not care whether Position Statements have references our sources or not. I understand that you do. You seem to be the only one who wants to try to insist on this.
 * I do not care whether each Position Statements makes explicit reference to Wikipedia "policy" or not. I understand that you do. You seem to be the only one who wants to try to insist on this.
 * I want the ballot to link to WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements and I want Position Statements to be on individual subpages off of that. I would like to see your Position Statement there.
 * It is rude for you to dismiss me as "parroting". I happen to agree with what Bastun said, and you appear to be wilfully obtuse in understanding that, as evidenced by your persistence in badgering me. My answer wasn't good enough for you. Well here is another. I doubt it will satisfy you either.
 * Including rationales beside each option introduces the problem of whose rationale gets listed there.
 * Please go now and write your statement, or tell us all that you refuse to write your statement.
 * Masem, for the gods' sake please put some time limits on this now. We need the ballot, not more hand-wringing. -- Evertype·✆ 21:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * One can almost sense the panic with editors when asked to supply sources/ref's, facts. Trying to ignore the difference between "position statements" and the "Pro and Con statements" is not going to change the fact that that is what is being discussed. I know you are opposed to having to support your POV but hey this is an encyclopedia, were we deal with facts not opinions. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  21:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A Position Statement is not an encyclopaedia article. I feel no sense of panic. I feel a deep sense of ennui at having to put up with passive-aggressive bargaining techniques, stonewalling, and endless repetition of the same idea over and over. Anyway, if you will look at ''my Position Statement, you will find that its content is that which we endeavoured to construct to express various positions on the different options. I am confident that the assessment for each of them is verifiably fair and neutral, and can be understood by potential voters who use their intelligence and common sense. Of course, some of the more vehement POV-pushers here refused to allow it to be on the ballot paper. -- Evertype·✆ 09:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Position statements
@Masem: "I can see having a talk page of the position statements used for discussion but by default these wouldn't be advertized to the poll." Where will the position statements be advertised? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore all rules?
Agree with Domer here. The "ignore" notion is wrong, wrong, wrong when it is being used to push a British pov title on the sovereign country of Ireland. Why not apply the "ignore" principle to the Wiki-so-called "British" Isles? We quote "rules" like sacred scripture when they support majority POV and ignore them when the confront majority POV. That isn't WP:NPOV. This is a charter to turn En:Wiki from an encyclopedia into a majoritarian Angloshpere polemic. Sarah777 (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "majoritarian Angloshpere plemic"? now, that's a tongue twister. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah if that was the plan we would never of even got to this stage. The view that the article should remain at Republic of Ireland would have been accepted and those moaning would of been ignored. We are here, its very likely the article will be moved from the current Republic of Ireland title so you should be happy. The more you and Domer sit here moaning the longer we wait for the vote which means the longer we wait for a possible change.. something u and some others are so desperate to see.
 * Goodday i think we need an article on "majoritarian Angloshpere polemic", any ideas who could write it? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't, but the phrase has a poetic look to it. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have Sarah write it, and you BW edit it. Yeah that'd be the biggest non-article ever, all zero bites of it, LOL. Tfz     12:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * @Several above; are you folks dissin' me? I have a skin thicker than a rhinocerose's elbow. Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

BW, just a couple of points. Masem, and some editors are saying that possible use of WP:SYN in the sources for and against statements could be a problem, so we address that by telling editors they can use WP:OR. It is not me or a group of likeminded editors holding up this process. It’s the same group of editors who have dominated this whole issue from the very beginning. Now once again, what is wrong with using fact/policy based arguments in the statements for and against each option? What is wrong with allowing readers the opportunity to evaluate the arguments for themselves? What is wrong with allowing readers to the opportunity to weigh up the strength of sources presented? What is wrong with allowing readers the opportunity to apply our policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR to the sources and making an informed decision for themselves. If I make arguments for and against options who is stopping editors challenging the sources, references or my application of policy with alternatives. I’ve agreed with allowing editors having the opportunity to present their POV statements, and all I’m asking is that we also allow readers on the Pro and Con statements to be afforded the opportunity to see the fact/policy based reasons for the options. However, allowing editors to put forward their POV into both their personal statements and the Pro and Con statements is to corrupt, debase and remove any semblance of impartiality that this process could have claimed to have ever represented. It is the group of editors who want to control and determine the type and quality of information presented to readers who are holding up this process. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  15:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said above, Position Statements are not encyclopaedia articles and it is absurd for you to suggest that they should be sourced, or certainly to try to derail this process by suggesting that "some editors" are making a ruckus. I see a small coterie of ruckus makers, and at this stage it seems to me that you and they are doing as much as you can to keep the poll from happening. At no point do you ever say anything positive about this process. I for one am hopeful that the poll can start soon so we can put an end to all the moaning. -- Evertype·✆ 20:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm not holding up the process. I've posted my Position Summary already. Where is yours? I'm sure it will be much better than mine. -- Evertype·✆ 20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Per my comments here. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  22:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And Evertype, no one asked me for mine(opinion?). And does it not matter too much, or is this all a game? Tfz     23:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do what you want. You're semi-retired anyway. -- Evertype·✆ 16:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The egotistical view
It is not the state that Ireland is in, but the state that is in Ireland, end, end, end, end end end end. ~ R.T.G 20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's ye point? GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am just worried that people will do this Ireland (says Ireland but actually leads to Ireland (state)) and then say something like "The largest lake in Ireland is Lough Corrib." I think that point is more important than what the article is named. Northern what? Northern Timbuctoo mebbe. It is still overlooked in this ocean of dialogue. ~ R.T.G 05:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as the Queen of England is cozy in her page, it should be just fine.  Tfz     13:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Queen of England? there's no such thing anymore. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why are people always calling E2nd, by that name. WP says go with common name, WP:Common. It's an aside, but can reveal the hypocrisy that sometimes abounds. In other words, let's not get tied up on lesser detail! Tfz     14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's Queen of the United Kingdom. PS: I agree, let's not get tied up in this. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * GoodDay is correct, just because the American media incorrectly call her the "Queen of England" does not mean its her common name. Queen Elizabeth II is how she is known around the world, silly wikipedia naming conventions prevent commonsense on this matter though. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And the wonderful thing about democracy is that everyone has a vote. Regardless. Daicaregos (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What about English Royalty of the England Kingdom and their Round Table Knights? I was sure I heard of those somewhere but nonetheless, it is not the state which Ireland is in but the states which is in Ireland. ~ R.T.G 19:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure that there are articles about the Monarchs of England and the Kingdom of England and the Knights of the Round Table. Have you forgotten that this is about naming some web pages, not about politics or Truth? -- Evertype·✆ 21:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just have to share my little cliche with you. It is not about the state that Ireland is in but the states that are in Ireland. Politics? If they can think of a good excuse to march somewhere together we should all be OK. I have seen flute bands out in green for Paddys day in Belfast so they will probably not rest until they are doing something together. ~ R.T.G 09:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Recap/clarification?
So, where exactly are we at this stage? I've not been able to pay too much attention the last few days, but from a quick read, what I think is outstanding/needs decision is:


 * 1) Which ballot to use?
 * 2) (All?) editors are free to write a rationale, which will be linked from somewhere on the ballot page if they so wish?  These need not have references (but obviously its better if they do).
 * 3) Is there a size limit on these rationales?
 * 4) Each option on the ballot page will have brief statements underneath?
 * 5) Are these just 'pro' statements, or 'pro/anti'?

If someone could clarify, I'd appreciate it. When do we think the above might get sorted and the ballot actually commence? <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am hopeful that the ballot at the top of my sandbox is chosen -- although a decision still needs to be made as to which of the two infoboxes should be used. Both point to a separate page for Position Statements. No Project Member user names appear on ballot paper itself -- only on the Position Statements page. A summary of the ballot points is given, then repeated below with explicit (unhidden) examples of what the different options could mean for the initial sentence of the articles in question. I think that this ballot paper should be used, that we should proceed to collect Position Statements and get on with it.
 * We should set a time schedule and people whose statements are ready get in, and those which do not don't. Masem has indicated that he reserves the right to reject any that are, well, not serious in his judgement. I would support letting him do that.
 * I see no need for there to be.
 * I hope that the brief statements (which are NOT pro or con) which describe the ramifications for the initial sentences are retained on the ballot.
 * People should be free to write what they want in their Position Statements. No positions should appear on the ballot (just like in real life ballots).

That's my opinion. -- Evertype·✆ 21:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's get the Final Poll, the Curtain Closer (etc) into gear. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, if that means that you endorse my suggestions above, please say so. Saying "let's get the Final Poll", yes, it's what we all want. But it's the form of that that is in question. -- Evertype·✆ 21:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. I support Evertype's suggestions above. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There will be Pro and Con statements attached to each option and they will be referenced/sourced and policy based. Your POV statements can go were ever you like as long as they don't appear on the ballot paper. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  21:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose any pro or con arguments appearing on the ballot paper itself. In the real world, we do not see such arguments on ballots. The arguments belong elsewhere, whether they are my "POV statement", or whether they are your "unassailably logical and perfectly sourced statement". Neither should go on the ballot, Domer. This one is a deal breaker. However fantastic your statement will be, it's still your POV, whether you want to dress it up with citations or not. -- Evertype·✆ 00:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Evertype's proposal - favour the first the intro in your sandbox, mainly because I think it is more polished (the second one needs a bit more work before I'd be happy with it). I have also redone the Position Statements page and included a section for pro/con arguments. Maybe instead of linking to directly to individual pro/con statements from beneath the options, we could link to that section on the Positions Statements page? I also think it will be pointless insisting that POV statements (either general statements or pro/con arguments) be referenced since there will be no way to properly challenge synthesis (i.e. original research) or plain misrepresentation of published sources. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I really hate have severe misgivings about what you did to the Position Statements page. I think all the statements should be treated equally, coming from individual editors, and should all be kept on sub-pages. The scheme you put there is asking for a world of painful delay, as we will NEVER EVER be able to agree any text. It's very late. I'm going to bed, but I think that what you did should be reverted tomorrow. -- Evertype·✆ 00:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "I really hate have severe misgivings about what you did to the Position Statements page." OK.
 * "I think all the statements should be treated equally, coming from individual editors ..." So do I. Are they not?
 * "...and should all be kept on sub-pages." ... Again, are they not?
 * "The scheme you put there is asking for a world of painful delay..." Scheme? Delays? Huh?
 * "...as we will NEVER EVER be able to agree any text." What text? What page are you reading?
 * "It's very late. I'm going to bed..." OK.
 * "...but I think that what you did should be reverted tomorrow." Then do that. But before you do, can I ask that you go look at the page again? What you wrote didn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe someone else has something to say on it? Maybe wait for their input before you revert it? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's far, far, far too complicated. It's confusing even to me to have to decide which of the multitude of places I should duplicate the link to my own Position Statement. It's just far too complex. I think the list of Position Statements should simply be a list of links to the editor's names. Voters who want to study them will do so. Attempting to have them pre-parsed is just over-ticking the plumbing. I'd really like to see the simpler list as here. -- Evertype·✆ 09:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you shouldn't "duplicate" your link. Did you want to express a pro/con on a particular option? I thought you only wanted to write a single general statement?
 * I don't see how we can be "over-ticking the plumbing". Your preferred draft is identical to the first version. A write followed by a single rewrite is not "over-ticking" anything.
 * That said, since we only have two names in the list, a categorised list is overkill. I thought we could expect more position statements by now? How many will there be? If it is only two then I agree it should go back to the simple list. If it is more than six or seven then I think we should start categorizing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think that a categorized list is overkill, and we should just list the contributors. If it is the two of us ± Scoláire, fine. Let's keep it simple, and not try to lead all the voters through all the pros and cons. Those who want to read the statements will do so. -- Evertype·✆ 14:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see how many positions statements there are. I had imagined that there would be far more that two by now. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see there is still a disagreement over whether sources have to be used or not. Maseen has already said that it would be preferable though not necessary. If it is an absolute certainty that there is no wikipedia policy on this then I don't see the problem with going ahead without them. I do agree with Maseems statement that they are preferable and that any argument with them may be more convincing. Rannphairti, I understand your point that they could be misrepresented, yet an argument without them can also be misrepresented, perhaps even more so. As I said, if there is no policy then there is no need. It will be an individuals choice on whether they think their argument will be more convincing with or without them. Coll Mac (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. For my part I made my arguments and I am happy with them. I don't feel the need to "prove" my case with a thesis. There are sources to support almost anything anyway. -- Evertype·✆ 00:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources obviously bolster an argument in the mind of the reader. Sourced transparent statements will fare better. But, with regards to determining the "facts", there has been such a load of nonsense (both "supported" by sources and otherwise), particularly around ROI, that it really makes little difference IMHO.
 * Domer48's claim above, for example, that have been a "multitude of sources which showed that the inclusion of RoI in the list of options breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV." No doubt in his/her statement such a claim would be supported by this "multitude" of sources. Yet if we ask him/her for a quotation from just one of these showing that this is the case, and he/she shies away. If sources are the answer, let's see the quote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Evertype, I too support your first infobox. Of your other points, I agree with number 2 which would actually cancel out number 5. Number 3 concerning size limit is one I think should only be looked at as they are written. Not sure if a rationale similar in size to War and peace would be appropriate.  Coll Mac (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If somebody wants to write War and Peace, bíodh aige. More power to him. It's up to the voter to decide to read it or not. -- Evertype·✆ 00:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors must begin to wonder why a small group of editors refuse to support their poll options with references. We all must being to wonder why this small group refuse to back up their poll options with any of our policies. It must also cause some concern that this small group should insist that they be provided the oppertuntiy to present their unsourced opinions to readers in an attempt to "inform" their decisions. This is an encyclopedia not a chat room, and as such we do have some standards. Editors are being provided the oppertunity to present their arguements to readers to support their arguements and they refuse to do so. The question is why? Readers need to know what are they are voting for. They need to know what are the reasons for the various options. They need to know what are the reasons for supporting one option and rejecting another. They need to be provided with the information which will enable them to make informed decisions. They need to know that the information they are provided are not just the opinions of editors but are supported by both references and policies. They need to know that they are being given the facts and not a fictious account of the issues. So lets see the excuses offered by these editors why they want to prevent editors from making informed decisions. We are told this issues has been well discussed, so it should be no problem to provide the supporting references. That is of course if this process is not a sham. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  07:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "... the multitude of sources which showed that the inclusion of RoI in the list of options breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV." - Can you please provide a quotation to support this statement from one of these sources with the name of the author, title and year of the publication? The quotation should demonstrate that the source actually supports the statement. If you do, it will allay a great number of my fears vis-a-vis the ability of editors to correctly use sources. If you can't, it means that the correct citation of sources will be threatened by synthesis (i.e. original research). Thank you. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To even suggest that you fear that the correct citation of sources will be threatened by synthesis and yet accept original research shows that your "fears vis-a-vis the ability of editors to correctly use sources" is BS. I provided you a whole article full of sources to support the statement that the inclusion of RoI in the list of options breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV but you could not respond so you prevaricate. So here again is just one source to support the statement the European Unions Interinstitutional style guide which clearly states "Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’" when refering to the Irish State. This source is supported by WP:V, WP:RS is not based on WP:SYN or WP:OR and supports our policy of WP:NPOV. Now if you prevaricate it proves my point again that some editors do not want editors to have the information needed to make an informed decision. Provide a source which challanges the view of the 27 Member States of the European Union, per WP:COMMONNAME. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  09:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Domer48, "synthesis" and "original research" link to the same article. Synthesis of published sources is original research.
 * The quotation you supplied ("Do not use Republic of Ireland nor Irish Republic.") does not support the statement ("...the inclusion of RoI in the list of options breeched one of our most import policies WP:NPOV"). The quotation does not comment on the NPOV or otherwise of the term. From the quotation we don't know why the EU style guide is to not use the term. Inferring more from it that what it there is original research.
 * Please see policy: "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid that's a really poor attempt at original research on your part and goes a long way to explain why some editors are dead set against providing references. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  19:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

@Domer48. In my humble opinion you should let the sources argument go. You should write your statement and add your sources to your rationale. If you believe that sourcing will go towards making a more convincing argument then from your point of view it can only be a plus. Delaying the Ballot (and I know I have contributed to that) appears to have put off those who were contributing earlier to this page. It would be interesting to hear from those editors and discover if they are happy to go ahead with the Ballot as it stands. Coll Mac (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

@rann - there's no need to debate the merits or otherwise of Domer's arguments here. Really. And perhaps a timely reminder to everyone - Arbcom administrators have specifically stated that Domer's prevarications can be ignored. The constant repetition and WP:BEANS from him is annoying, but replying just means we'll see it repeated yet again. The moderator has stated that we do not need sources for the position statements. That's good enough for me. Though mine will have them, anyway ;-) <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. -- Evertype·✆ 14:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Are editors happy to have the statements written now and arguments presented as things stand? (with among other things, sources as optional)

 * Support Coll Mac (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support if this means "OK, folks, write your Position Statements in your sandboxes and let us know and we will help post them to the Position Statements page and subpage (without causing chaos)." -- Evertype·✆ 14:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes,it means just that. Coll Mac (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Whole process has dragged on long enough. Valenciano (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as per Evertype, and I additionally wonder how many people will be on holidays and miss the main event now that it has been delayed till at least the July/August period? --HighKing (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Evertype. (HighKing, the actual poll, when it goes live, is scheduled to last 21 days). <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support ... and think there is a case now for extending the ballot to six weeks. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Rationale for doubling the length of the poll? -- Evertype·✆ 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the middle of the summer time. People are on holidays/going on holidays/not so interested in looking at a computer screen. It's not unimaginable that someone might not look at Wikipedia for the duration of a three week poll - never mind find the time to participate fully. If we were going to give X amount of time for the poll during what we could say was a normal period then we should consider giving >X amount of time for the poll during what we might predict to be an "off-season" period. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (Adds: Masem, I think a deadline would focus minds. I thought it was said somewhere that last Sunday was the last day for position statements? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC))


 * Support. Lets go. Rockpock  e  t  21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: It has been agreed that editors can have their POV/Soapbox Statements, and it is also agreed that they will not appear on the ballot. This issue is about the “Statements both For and Against” each option. The issues involved are, 1) should they be sourced, 2) were should they be placed on the ballot paper, 3) should the Pro and Con statements for each option be kept separate. On point (1) Masem outlines a process for fact checking the statements here. On point (2) here they suggest they be linked to each option. On point (3) here they suggest that they should “focus on supporting or opposing a specific option than trying to address the entirety in one go.” So are editors suggesting now that we drop the Pro and Con Statements and just present the readers with the POV/Soapbox Statements? Please not that Masems attitude on fact checking on point (1) came after Coll Mac’s deliberately bogus statement illustrated why sources are necessary. As to Bastuns attempt at distraction “Arbcom have specifically stated that Domer's prevarications can be ignored.”  As can be seen here it’s a completely spurious claim! Here is a list of ArbCom Members and they said nothing about me or the report that was thrown out by Admin's. Just another reason for fact checking.-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  19:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we any closer to having the Final Poll? I assume, I won't need references & sources to back up my claim, that the republic does not cover the entire island. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I still want the pros / cons statements which will be linked on the ballot paper that must be reasonable (not sourced to Domers high standard though). We should not do away with the pros and cons statements, i strongly oppose that (if thats what is being suggest) its vital we have detailed pros / cons for options rather than peoples soapbox/POV statements. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Domer and BritishWatcher. We have already tried to come up with "acceptable" pro/con statements. We had a good set, worked on for some time, and then several people came at the last minute and torpedoed them. (These are now in my personal Position Statement. I do not want to see a second set of positions or arguments. All statements, whether general or pro/con or sourced or unsourced, should be in the same place, and linked to in the same, randomized way. I object to Domer's personal attack which suggests that any Position Statement that does not meet his criteria for citation are "POV/Soapbox Statements—indeed if anyone is perpetually on a soapbox here it is our dear friend Domer48. I do not support a split of "Position Statements" and "Pro/Con" statements. We already had a set of the latter, and they failed to win the consensus of BritishWatcher and Domer and some others. I am quite sure that if they were to write a set of Pro/Con statements it would likewise fail to won consensus. Pony up, ladies and gentlemen; write your Position Statement so we can post them to the appointed place and get on with this. -- Evertype·✆ 20:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (Adds: Masem. It's time for a deadline, and time for you to notice how many names are constantly working on collaboration and good faith and which names are constantly finding reasons to ignore consensus and delay. -- Evertype·✆ 20:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "We have already tried to come up with "acceptable" pro/con statements." Funny how we are still discussing the pro/con statements, and you suggest we already tried? Statements without sources are "POV/Soapbox Statements even Masem has described them as POV Statements. Your comment above is as factual as your Position Statement, but we will get round to that when this is addressed. I thought you agreed with the need for this, or that is what we were told. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless supported by a consensus of editors, the pro/com statement will essentially be POV statements too. I, for example, do not share your POV that the EU's style guideline should determine how we name our articles. Its one thing providing a reference (objective), its another interpreting its relevance (subjective). Its patently clear that we will not reach a consensus on pro/con statements, so lets all list out subjective statements - providing sources, or not, as required to make your case - and let the community decide.  Rockpock  e  t  21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Domer, you seem to be trolling for attention. Rockpocket is right: we have no consensus on pro/con statements, and we won't get it. We have an alternative mechanism: A set of individual editors' Position Statements. We have three now. Go and write yours. You have failed to win people over to your ideas, and it seems now that the ballot will not give any arguments but will link to the page of Position Statements. That's the venue for your arguments. -- Evertype·✆ 07:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (Adds: Masem, please confirm. I have asked you for confirmation several times now. -- Evertype·✆ 07:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC))


 * First off the EU's style guideline was just one example, used as an example. That you offered nothing to back up your comments/opinion/POV or mention it in the context of WP:COMMONNAME, verifiability, neutral point of view explains why we don’t get consensus. Information that is challanged must be challanged on the basis of alternative sources and not just the opinion of an editor, who in the absence of an alternative source relys on their opinion alone. On the Pro/Con Statements Masem has outlined a process for addressing issues with the Pro/Con statements, this process can also be used on the "POV/Soapbox Statements. There is nothing stopping editors from putting forward a source which challenges references, and letting the reader weigh the strength of argument. The main point though of your comments is, let’s put possibly misleading information before readers and present it as fact. Your suggested alternative to using referenced sources which would be reviewed is to use "POV/Soapbox Statements which will not be reviewed. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  21:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree with that interpretation. I don't dispute the contents of your sources, just their relevance to the discussion. For example, your source tells us what the EU's style guidelines are - nothing more, nothing less. Once you begin to use that as justification for why our article must be named whatever, the issue is no longer about the source, its about the use (or misuse) of the source to advance a position. That is more misleading than bald soapboxing (note soapboxing does not equal POV; just because one has a POV, does not mean that one is interested in foisting it on others. A distinction worth considering). Tub thumping is easy to ignore, propaganda masquerading as information is insidious, however. Rockpock  e  t  01:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't care to hear Domer continue to make content arguments on this page. This page is for process. -- Evertype·✆ 07:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is part of the process, weather you care to respond or not is up to you. Now when it comes to playing word games on sources I'll be more than happy to respond but for now this is about weather we on the Pro and Con Statements present readers with referenced sources which would be reviewed or just use "POV/Soapbox Statements which will not be reviewed. Are editors now suggesting that we drop the Pro and Con Statements and just using "POV/Soapboxing Statements. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  08:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Weather" is an atmospheric condition. I believe you mean "whether". How's that for a word-game? -- Evertype·✆ 10:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A little unfair of you there, Evertype. Everywon can make mistakes in there speling. Not me of cource, I mean everywon else. Seriously though, point scoring on spelling? Coll Mac (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Call it Domer Fatigue. I'm tired of being told that my Position Statement is a soapbox, and that I am playing word games. Right now, Domer's got the spotlight (see section below) and clearly he enjoys it. But he's not producing text for the ballot, he's not producing his own Position Statement, he's no producing anything but repetitious repetition of his previous points. It's not getting us anywhere. -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)