Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 21

Behaviour reminder
This page has been recently getting more hostile, with no specific editor as the source for the hostility. However, no one has crossed any hard lines that one would normally seek administrative action to correct.

I strongly remind everyone to keep their cool and stay civil. It is possible to argue without dipping towards personal attacks.

As such, unless there is a clear disruption by a single editor, if this page continues to digress towards more hostility, I will consider seeking full protection of this talk page for a few days to let everyone cool their heads. Same goes on the ballot's talk page.

Remember: nothing is going to happen to the page titles come the end of the poll. We still have other matters to resolve, much less the poll results. And remember that nearly everyone involved here has been over these same arguments over and over and over again.

A tip I learned from earlier confrontations: if you're about to post in anger - stop, take a step back, check your watchlist, get a cup of coffee, or anything else besides reading this page, and then come back a few minutes later and see if there's a reasonable reasonable response. Not every comment needs a response, and sometimes it's better to let someone else have the last word. --M ASEM (t) 23:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's me outta here! G'night. Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For myself, I regret that my "straw poll" came across as hostile and that it generated such hostility. In hindsight, it was poorly thought out and had a good deal of unhealthy emotion behind it. I would be quite happy for that entire section to be deleted if there was a consensus for it. Scolaire (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah. It's a good reminder. -- Evertype·✆ 19:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Post-September 13th
The poll ends tomorrow evening, and so it would seem appropriate to look at what happens after. R.A., above, has outlined the main issues:


 * Titles (except IRL/ROI/dab):
 * Use of ROI/IRL in article titles
 * Use of ROI/IRL in category titles
 * Redirects between ROI/IRL articles/categories
 * Dabbing of ROI/IRL
 * In-article use of ROI/IRL
 * Use of ROI/IRL in templates.

Are there any other issues that need to be added to that list? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems to cover it all. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. The validity of a poll which goes against the clearly expressed preference of the editors living in what Wiki currently describes as the "Republic of Ireland". The imposition of British POV on the article about this country. Sarah777 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But the Poll isn't the topic. We discussing how the repulic & island articles shall be shown in Wiki articles content. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't discuss the issues above in isolation from the poll? Or maybe we can ignore the poll, is that what you are suggesting? I'd agree with that. Sarah777 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle, we don't know the results of the Poll yet. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly - which is why Bastun's suggestion is premature. Nor do we have any idea of the legitimacy of the poll or of its implications. Sarah777 (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are any believable claims of an inherent bias coming from people who can actually demonstrate they know how to interpret the poll in terms of NPOV (clue:it's not done by counting your fingers and toes), should go to arbcom. Any tedious moaning, bitching and whining, goes in the bin. MickMacNee (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And you are...who...exactly? Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a guy who knows how to interpret polling statistics properly and neutrally. MickMacNee (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And who knows that issues with arbcom remedies can only be appealed to arbcom. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I aint even getting into the debate on what happens next till the poll closes, 24 hours is a long time!. Although the first thing on the agenda will be dealing with the complaints / validity of the poll as mentioned by Sarah after is closes. She obviously has alot of objections to raise, i think theres quite a few voters of E who are clearly sockpuppets and trying to rig the vote to counter her arguments. But we can start the fun and games in 24 hours when the poll closes. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those who've committed sockery at this Poll will (hopefully) have their multiple votes deleted. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are they? Names please? Sarah777 (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, that's a qood question. Hopefully, all votes are legit. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Who cares, the poll was questionable from the start. Null and void was the word used, I think. Welcome to Encyclopedia Britipedia, at least that's where it's headed. Tfz     21:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If one doesn't care, why the frustrations? GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whois frustrated, not me buddy. Tfz     21:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a little list of votes i am rather uncomfortable with and im sure that others do too. Im not going to be naming names here and now. Only if its needed when the poll is closed, although it should not even be needed if nothing changes in the vote. The community will have spoken. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (After ec, @Tfz): What a shame the facts don't bear out your allegation. A majority of Irish editors, as well as a majority of British editors, as well as a majority of non-Irish/non-British editors, all favour Option F (so far). Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. A very substantial majority of Irish editors are against F. Sarah777 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect if, and only if, as you were doing, you use some weird system of "anti-counting"... "x number voted against F, which is more than those who voted for F, therefore a majority of Irish editors are against F". The truth, inpalatable as it may be to you, is that under the PR:STV / IRV system - which this poll uses - the winner, counting only Irish editors, is (likely to be) F.  Your method of counting, when applied to the other options, also shows that F is the least unpopular among Irish editors (or at least it did the last time I checked using your "anti-counting" method. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sooo... back on topic, post-September 13th... I don't know what the best way of dealing with this issues is. A subsection for each one? Or a unified proposal? In the absence of inspiration, I'm going to kick off with one that I think won't be controversial (but by all means feel free to propose alternative methods of dealing with the outstanding issues):

In-article use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland

 * Proposal: Within articles, where the context is clear, links to Ireland the island and Ireland the state remain the same. The term "Republic of Ireland" only needs to be used when there is ambiguity that cannot be resolved from the context; such as, for example, in the title of the Wikipedia article.

Please indicate your support/opposition below by signing your name (without adding comments). Comments can be added in the discussion area below.


 * Support:
 * Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Valenciano (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fmph (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Scolaire (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ~ R.T.G 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Only because I don't think we should "freeze frame" at this moment, we should work to arrive at guidelines for when to use the terms, if that means changing articles that currently go against the guidelines we arrive at then so be it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For now, unless/until we can clarify where the ambiguity lies. --- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion:

Whilst i agree that for the most part things should remain the same, that proposal is far too open to ones own interpretations and will not solve the problems. We need detailed guidelines stating exactly when ROI should be used and when it should not be used. So without doubt we can look at a specific case, check the guidelines and without doubt come away knowing how it should be worded. The current methods and the wording in that proposal do not resolve all the problems on when we should and should not use. I will go into some more detail in the coming days, whilst we are here we should try and reach the strongest agrement possible, otherwise we will have wasted this oppurtunity and disputes will go on else where. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By opposing the sensible proposal above you waste many an opportunity, will confirm many a person's suspicion as to your real agenda and delay any settlement. I suggest you reconsider.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what is said but i cant support something unless it goes into more detail, i wanted clear guidelines of when we can and cant use the terms, otherwise we will always face the same battles like we do over the British Isles in articles. If the above proposal is passed, is this matter considered resolved? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

An issue that was raised over at British Isles recently is one area where clarification would be useful.. the paragraph currently reads :


 * "The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands.[7] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland."

Ive been ok with that wording as its clear its talking about an island and then the state. But there was a recent edit war changing it to Republic of Ireland and on the talk page the concern raised is that we are using the same term in the same paragraph but with two different meanings. In this case i dont think its too much of a problem, but what would happen if a two different Irelands were used in a single sentence, would that not cause some confusion? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you think of an example where there could be some ambiguity in the sentence? Guest9999 (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that i can think of, but id like to know if we are all ok with having two different Irelands used in the same sentence or if in such cases one should be piped, rather than two identical words going to different places which could be confusing to some. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hypothetical example: "County Cork is the largest county in Ireland and also on Ireland." reads very poorly. Editing for the reader, that can become "County Cork is the largest county in both Ireland and the island of Ireland as a whole."  Or even remove the second 'Ireland' entirely, so its "... and the island as a whole." Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be ok with that, so in such cases we are saying its better to put "is the largest county in both Ireland and the island of Ireland" rather than saying is "the largest county in both the Republic of Ireland and Ireland" or "largest county in both the Republic of Ireland and the island of Ireland.
 * This is why ive opposed the proposal for the time being, there are examples like that which the proposal doesnt clearly define. Are we basically saying where possible say "island of Ireland" rather than use Republic of Ireland? Considering how much debate there has been in the past on all this, it just seems like the solution proposed is too simple and doesnt cover everything, unless its going to be expanded after? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have voted 'support' because I believe in principle that usage should "remain the same" i.e. that there should be no reversion to Republic of Ireland based on the poll result. However I agree with BritishWatcher that more specific guidelines need to be worked out, now rather than later, for usage in the future. In particular, there is an urgent need to update IMOS with an agreed wording so that any editor, whether previously involved or not, has access to a simple and clear set of rules to determine which term should be used and when. I seem to recall that a good deal of progress was already made towards an agreed set of rules on this page some months ago. As an exception to the "remain the same" principle, I feel very strongly, on encyclopaedic grounds, that the words Republic of Ireland have to appear, in bold, in the first sentence of the Republic of Ireland article. Again, the exact wording is a matter for collaboration and consensus. Scolaire (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no grounds at all for ROI to be bold on that article, it is about a country which is called Ireland. The need for disambiguation may mean that we have to use ROI for disambiguation purposes, but it does not justify in any circumstances imposing that language where it is unnecessary.  To do so would be sectarian in effect (I make no comment on intention) not encyclopaedic.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * By "encyclopaedic" I mean that the title of an article appears in bold in the first sentence of the article. There have to be very goods reasons for not doing that.  Surely we can put the "imposing" and "sectarian" arguments to bed at this stage of the game?  "Ireland, also referred to as the Republic of Ireland..." How is that sectarian?  How is it an imposition?  How is it even controversial?  Scolaire (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the earlier discussion on the IMOS guidelines that I referred to in my earlier post. Scolaire (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The name of the country is Ireland, and ROI is a disambiguation name only. If you are on the article about the country then the proper name should be used and emphasised (possible with a hat note).   Happy to put the issue to bed if you stop raising it.  -- Snowded  TALK  13:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with BritishWatcher that by not clarifying what cases are ambiguous we might as well not bother with this section because it proves and changes nothing. I scream to differ that in the place where both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are shown, there is space only to declare them both as such they are. One blew east and one blew west. No more this one blew east and one crap I really have short patience for it because it is, of course, the spawning point for this whole nonsense. There is no one. Neither of the two after that has a right be one through self declaration or imposition of the other. End of story, we do not entertain it, apologies. Nothing short of that is fair or we would be changing the titles as requested. Anything else is politically sympathetic one way or another and we do not condone ourselves to be either hypocrites or subverts do we? We are asympathetic to politics. What is equally important and most pressing confusion is when stating a statistic, population of Ireland, how do we provide it? If we can sort this one out a lot less of these debates will be held by our children as we might all be hoping. A spade a spade. "Don't forget your shovel if you want to go to work or you'll end up where you came from like the rest of us... (and out the ******* door)." ~ R.T.G 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I see now the concerns here. There needs to be clarity when the country & the island are mentioned together. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There needs to be clarity in that which pertains only to the republic. Just as we should not say that the North is Ireland we should not say that the south is Ireland. There is provision for this and who are we to say we may ignore it? Just because you know how to catch someone off guard "Is that Ireland?", "Yeah!". It means nothing better than a bad joke if you can say "The north is Ireland too but we are ignoring that." Ha. Ha. Ask Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness if Ireland is the state in the south. Ask Ian Paisley if Ireland is not an island. Ask Wikipedia if it is right to place the island at Ireland and the state at Republic. Then go ahead and argue about the whole thing again, we weren't really clear on that some of us, right? We all in again? ~ R.T.G 16:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed my position to 'oppose', as I acknowledge to problems pointed out. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The things which are verifiable are fairly simple. There is a state called IRELAND and and island called IRELAND which was once a state, or a loose union of four kingdoms at various stages in its history.  Because two things have the same name we have the long running issue about disambiguation, but throughout that no one has challenged that the legitimate name of the state is IRELAND.  This means that talking about the Lisbon referendum (to take a case) should use IRELAND as the context is the state of that name.  Geographical features in general reference Ireland as an island,  History prior to around a hundred years can use IRELAND as meaning both political and geographical entities.  HTe fact that the default disambiguation phrase is "Republic of Ireland", does not mean that the state has had its name changed.  In the vast bulk of cases  Ireland remains the correct, and citable form  -- Snowded  TALK  16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You can avoid all of the confusion some of the time, some of the confusion all of the time, or you can avoid all of the confusion all of the time by using Republic of Ireland which is or should be equally and more so recognisable as the desription of the independant Irish state and agreed upon continuously, emphatically and unendingly by all those for whom avoiding confusion was the most important deciding factor. Fact. Fact. Fact. Fact. Fact.  ~ R.T.G 16:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I regret that I have to oppose this proposal. I really liked the look of it at first (and still think it's right in principle), but I think that there is far too big a gap in understandings of where ambiguity arises for it to be useable in its present form. That gap means that this wording of guideline won't actually provide a clear enough framework for settling disputes, and if it doesn't do that then it's no use. :(

I hope that this gap is bridgeable, because I suspect that editors on difft sides have difft circumstances in mind. So I suggest that we start examining some specific examples and see where we get with them. I know it'll be a little laborious, but it looks to me like the only way clarify what we mean by "ambiguity that cannot be resolved from the context". To avoid overwhelming this page, I suggest that we create a subpage for those examples. Is anyone up for that exercise? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to keep discussion centralised on one page (this one), but no objection from me. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Ireland articles
I've not really got involved in this discussion before but would like to throw in my two cents.

Regarding sentences linking to the two Ireland articles, in my view you should never have two links that look identical but go to different pages, as in


 * "Cork is the largest county in Ireland and also on Ireland."

It's inelegant and potentially highly confusing for readers. A casual reader won't be familiar with the 'pipe trick' and might reasonably imagine both go to the same page.

I think it should be a rule that wherever both articles are linked in an article the links should look different. This can be done in various ways. E.g.:


 * 1) Cork is the largest county in Ireland and also on the island of Ireland.
 * 2) Cork is the largest county in the Republic of Ireland and also on the island of Ireland.
 * 3) Cork is the largest county in the Republic of Ireland and also on the island of Ireland.

Any of these three avoids the identical links issue. But personally I think (1) will be a bit baffling for those unfamiliar with Ireland. For those who want clearer language without using "Republic of Ireland" another (less eloquent) option is something like


 * Cork is the largest county in the sovereign state called Ireland and also on the island of Ireland.
 * Cork is the largest county in the sovereign state called Ireland and also on the island of Ireland.

Any thoughts? Iota (talk)
 * All of the options is acceptable to me, the main thing is distinguishing the country from the island. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For me the best option is option 2, and i think thats far better than having to add lots of text just to work around the issue of not using Republic of Ireland. These are exactly the sorts of issues i wanted agreement on here, just so we all know where we stand on the issues and in a months time a dispute doesnt pop up which is simply open to anyones own opinion.. im sure others wont agree with my view that option 2 is the best, there for we need agreement on which is. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My personal preference is also (2), or maybe (3). But I think I should stress that avoiding confusing identical links, which I would hope to get agreement on, doesn't need to be a pro-ROI vs. anti-ROI issue. Iota (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a particularly egregious example from the Wexford article as it stands at the moment

Iota (talk)
 * I could except 'Republic of Ireland' in that context or 'island of Ireland' in that context. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * wow that example is a really good one of the current problems, there is no way at all of knowing that one is talking about the island and one the country currently. Clearly that does need changing, id say it should be to Republic of Ireland and island of Ireland. (option two in your previous post) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It all depends on the context. Any of Iota's examples at the top are fine IMHO e.g.:
 * "Cork is the largest county in Ireland and also on the island of Ireland." If the context of this statement is in a discussion of local government specifically in the Irish state then what "Ireland" alone is would be clear.
 * "Cork is the largest county in the Republic of Ireland and also on the island of Ireland." If the statement appeared in a discussion of the traditional counties of Ireland, and distinctions between the Republic and Northern Ireland were being made e.g. if immediately afterwards Co. Tyrone was said to be the largest county in Northern Ireland.
 * "Cork is the largest county in the Republic of Ireland and also on the island of Ireland." I think this form of linking is better as it is clearer what is being linked to.
 * I think the Wexford example is very good as it demonstrates the potential to play on ambiguity of the word Ireland. We cannot assume or reply on readers hovering over a link or clicking on it to get the meaning of a word, but the plain-text phrase "Ireland" is perfectly correct in either meaning for the sentence "Wexford ... is the county town of County Wexford in Ireland". It is better I think to use the phrase "island of Ireland" in the following sentence, if for no better reason than it reads better - avoiding repetition of the word "Ireland" is isoloation and since islands have souther tips, whereas state generally do not thus some form of dabbing is needed.
 * I think we do need guidelines of when and where to dab between the various phrases, but we need to step away from the idea that one or other phrase implies POV (which I think we have?). Where possible, I think, we should use the correct name for the state (viz. "Ireland") and avoid verbose turns of phrase (e.g. "island of Ireland") where the are not needed but we shouldn't be afraid to be a clear as possible about what we mean. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Britishwatcher writes:

One thought as an aside is that we may need an unambiguous way to refer to the state from 1937-1949 (i.e. when it was no longer the 'Irish Free State' but not yet called a republic). Iota (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here we go round the mulberry bush. It was first and fore most a republic pre-1937-1949. The word republic has a meaning. It means "Under political control of the public people." They called it the War of Independance (Irish War of Independence). It was more like a massacre of atrocities against the Irish. Afterwards the Brits wanted to pull out of Ireland. Would you walk into Wembley and shoot a load of people or raise Cardiff city to the ground in flames? Well this was the kind of carry on at the time of the birth of the Irish state. It was as dirty and ugly as any atrocities the Brits may have heard of in rumours from Africa or India and sensibly they began pulling out of the whole thing holding only that which insisted it remain such as Northerm Ireland. That state was a republic. That republic is the state. It is no less accurate a title for the Irish Republic than it is appropriate. On a scale of ten. Ten. The debate here is "Can we exclude the north from the word Ireland today?" the answer is "Any day you please so long as you exclude them from the term Irish." ~ R.T.G 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * @Iota: Why might we "need an unambiguous way to refer to the state from 1937-1949"? As Rannpháirtí has said, how you refer to the state at any time will depend on the context.  Thus "Ireland" may be appropriate in one context, "the Irish state" in another, and something else in another.  Flexibility is the key.  It may be worth pointing out that there is no article dealing with Ireland 1937-49, so how you refer to it may depend in part on what you're linking to.  Scolaire (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Context, context, context. Cities are normally, or almost always spoken about with regard to their state. Never heard "Paris is the second largest city in Europe", (that is by way of example, don't know what place it actually is), and most readers don't care about that. Those statistics would be on another page called List of European cities, or something similar. The danger is that maybe we are making up hypothetical scenarios when it is not necessary to do so. Agree with Scolaire on this, "context" is everything. Tfz     00:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ireland is somewhat unique in that it can refer to either a contemporary state and a traditional country of Europe. Thus it is valid to say that both Belfast and Cork are the second largest cities in Ireland. For the sake of our readers we could say that Belfast is the second largest city on the island of Ireland and that Cork is the second largest city in the Republic of Ireland. And lo and behold that is what we do: Belfast, Cork.
 * We are covering old ground here though. And I wholly agree that specific (or made up) examples is likely to lead us down contrived paths. Did we not have general agreement on broad principles before? I think we should move back up the that level again. If we got agreement on broad principles maybe we could then try to apply them in real-life scenarios, but let's leave Cork and Belfast alone for now? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Following two paragraphs moved from unrelated topic ~ R.T.G 13:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Snowded of the options listed which would you say is the best solution. I would say option 2, but if others disagree (which i think some would) then its not as simple as is being suggested, or hoped for with the current proposal unless its expanded. As i said before, i agree with the princple, there should be no mass changing of the current use, i just oppose it because there are unclear areas which need agreement. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Any reference to a city should be in the context of the state of which it is a member, so Cork is the second largest city in Ireland. Two states share the same land mass, they were once (any maybe in future) part of the same state; the same is true for many other areas of the world but we move on.  Republic (as we have clearly established before) is a description of the state, not the name of the sate (a few errors below in this respect).  For geographical areas the debate tends to be Ireland (the island) v British Isles with many of the same editors who insisted on using RoI there arguing for BI (there is a political agenda here) but we have a reasonable compromise worked out over several articles there.   Basically I think the rule is very simple: Ireland should be the norm unless there is clear (and I mean clear) ambiguity and danger of misunderstanding.  If that is the case then RoI should be avoided as a NAME with alternative wordings being found.   Ireland or Northern Ireland" for example is valid and removes ambiguity.  Otherwise I am now convinced, given the lack of any compromise and the wider disputes over the use of "British Isles" that the only lasting solution is for Ireland the state to be called Ireland.  We can go back to that in two years time unless people listen to our moderator on the nature of the poll.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Who do you think you are Snowded? "In the future"? Here, go read soemthing about WP:CRYSTAL BALLS. And beside that, if you haven't yet found a quote you "clear (and I mean clear) ambiguity and danger of misunderstanding", you are either purposely ignorant of what the main debate goes on here is or you just dont sink in. i.e. in one ear, out the other, keep singing the song which is, unless you are incapable of language, purposely ignorant. There is obviously evidence of mass confusion and disagreement about that particular title you ignoramus. ~ R.T.G 13:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on Snowded, what does your reference "the nature of the poll" suggest? ~ R.T.G 13:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * RTG, what are you talking about? I don't understand your immediate input. And I very much agree with Snowded. Tfz     14:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If an editor with as much input as Snowded fails to acknowledge the oceans of disagreement and expressions of confusion toward every idea related here is unnacceptable and we would do well to set some barriers. Anyone with hopeful dreams of a united Ireland is in touch with neither Ireland or Europe. To late buddy there will be a Europe long before Ireland and with tits who don't know their state from their elbow it was never possible, right bro? How dare anyone agree with "Any reference to a city should be in the context of the state of which it is a member" which is imperialist rubbish, besides being irrelevant to anything on this project because we will be refering to cities in any and every context appropriate including state, world, sport even fiction (which people just made up for the sake of it). Let's just quote Snowded one last time, "Otherwise I am now convinced, given the lack of any compromise and the wider disputes over the use of "British Isles" that the only lasting solution is for Ireland the state to be called Ireland." WTF has calling the state got to do with calling the British Isles? Appologies Snowded, there is no republic in Ireland? Meaninglessness. The state of insufficient value. Yes, there is. ~ R.T.G 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't know what you are 'talking' about, appears to be an attempt at political soapboxing. I'm glad you use the word 'context' because that's quite important to this issue. Tfz     20:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Me? What are you talking about? What exactly do you need to know? Do you always speak when you don't understand without requesting explainations? He talked meaningless shite that is drowning this project and you siad "I agree with that guy!" Would you like to understand more? ~ R.T.G 10:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Drowning, I said, with no signifigant change to the mainspace content in months and hundreds and hundreds of pages of the same "we didn't hear you, that must be British Republic?". Polls, discussions, edit wars, blah blah. Snowded has been adding to that for years and here he writes about finding the case where find people to disagree. Well that is more than we can accept because if he hasn't found that disagreement and confusion yet what has he been writing about all this time? ~ R.T.G 10:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A man is not blissfully happy in the repetitive state. You can continue on your own from here. ~ R.T.G 10:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Another option is direct linking: Avoid using Republican of Ireland|Ireland & Ireland|island of Ireland all together. Merely use the direct approach: Republic of Ireland & Ireland, it certainly would be alot easier to impliment. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would rather in such cases we say "[{Republic of Ireland]] and the island of Ireland" or and the Island of Ireland BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * RTG I really can't be bothered to answer this sort of nonsenical and abusive comment. I'm sort of sorry you didn't understand the point I was making, but not suprised.  When you are ready to stop soapboxing and assume good faith, let me know and I will be happy to engage.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not want to see you write one more time, "unless there is clear (and I mean clear) ambiguity and danger of misunderstanding" because there is clear (and I mean clearly something has cropped up) ambiguity and danger of misunderstanding and if you must act like you have been ignoring it all along you shouldn't join in any more because you will require turning out at this stage in debating the which and ways of referring to the proudly independant state of the south of Ireland. Soapbox? I am trying to slap you not preach to you, thanks though I will consider the calling. I will accept you in good faith from the moment you accept that being in Ireland without being in that state has had pitifully poor consideration in these debates although in concern it should be no less than equal. Rest assured, my negativity is only a stem of all reasoning here being "If we didn't call it Ireland, we wouldn't agree wholeheartedly with the independant Irish state." and get this, we can disagree and even say "It was wrong!" and so long as we stick to the facts, they wont even bat their eyelids. That is, worth much more, than following them like blind mice. ~ R.T.G 23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.
Following recent changes by some editors to the Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location.  Xan  dar  01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Don't be fooled. The proposed wording change is shown at the RFC linked in my post above. The removal of the "exceptions" phrase is a very significant change. The policy never stated that it consisted of "rules" before, and it still doesn't. However it remains policy. Simply stating a personal view that titling a section "principles" changes the status of the policy page, is one not even accepted by many editors on Hesperians side. There is already an attempt to use the principle of no exceptions to the "use common name" policy to radically change the Naming conflict page, and one of the proposers of this change has indicated that the guidance on flora is also targetted. The change is in my view an attempt to impose a rigid, top-down policy on naming which ignores what wikipedia editors on the ground find most useful.  Xan  dar   03:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Theres alot of text on that page, im not exactly sure what is being proposed and what the previous change was. Could you explain the basic implications for the Republic of Ireland article name if the change being suggested is made? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Long standing contributors inciting the naming debate
Please, I am calling on the leaders of the project in relation to the unrelenting naming debate. If any editors appear to make long standing contributions to the naming debate and are found to periodically state words to the effect of supposingthat the naming issue in all its aspect is not in contention, can we not prevent them from adding anything? i.e. If I just come along and say "Nobody is arguing about how to title the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles" can I, and hopefully some others, be banned from the project for at least a month? Having read a lot of the debate I am convinced it would run 20 - 25% smoother as this pointless exercise is a large part. Perhaps it is not pointless I really have to sit back and wonder at times hence this request. (very angry, raging) ~ R.T.G 13:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's kinda difficult to put such restrictions on 'talk-pages'. The best solution is for editors to pratice 'self-control'. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Difficulty is only relevant when it nears the impossible, would you say? ~ R.T.G 20:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You've already said it, ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Where to now
Maybe its just me, but I feel this project has now come to a natural end-of-life. For me, much of this ongoing discussion on usage would be much better positioned at WP:IMOS. This project has become a venue for strife and argument rather than the bringing together of diverse groups. Should we put it into abeyance now, and move the discussions to more appropriate locations? Fmph (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no concerns as to where the discussion-in-question is held, as long as I no where it's being held. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, this project still has alot of work todo, despite the result of the poll being solved the poll page does state that other things must be solved by the collaboration project before everything is official. To move the debates to different locations would set us back not forward. I think we can wrap this up in a few weeks, but we shouldnt just stop now progress is being made. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There will be strife and argument wherever the discussion takes place. That is precisely why we need to keep all discussion on the Collaboration (sic) page.  Having squabbles and edit-wars breaking out at IMOS, Ireland, Republic of Ireland and a couple of dozen "x in Ireland" articles would be a nightmare.  What's needed is (1) all the parties who are still flogging a dead horse on the poll talk page to get stuck into the proper work here and (2) somebody, possibly Masem, to produce some sort of a "road map".  Scolaire (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion was held in innumerable places and now it seems to all settle here, is that not correct? Why don't you go to some other active project you aren't interested in and ask "Are you dead yet"? Then you can start to gather and survey the responses? You can list the ones that say "Yes we are all dead thanks" and do stuff about it! List them on WP:AN with a complaint etc.. Dead huh. ~ R.T.G 11:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Eventually, hopefully, it will end up at WP:IMOS but for now let's keep discussion here - at least until we arrive at something concrete to propose over there. I think much of the wind will have left this project now that the two articles titles is resolved (for the time being). I suspect many editors were only interested in that (narrow) matter. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 02:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with keeping discussion here for now. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that the poll has finished is there a more specific goal for this collaboration page? Perhaps having it more directly pointed to how the result of the poll will be implemented (or not) on the relevant articles? Jack forbes (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the main issues identified as still needing resolution have to be tackled - they're listed in the "Post-September 13th" section above. There aren't that many, and now that the poll is out of the way, I don't think they'll be too controversial. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming ballot
Has there been an effort to conclude the opinion poll? ~ R.T.G 17:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If theres no consensus to ignore the vote which looks very likely then it will be concluded in a couple of weeks according to masem BritishWatcher (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The poll is concluded. "We end up with Option F as the "50%" winner (both in total number of all non-empty votes, and in total number of remaining ballots) by Round 4, with 50% of all votes, empty or not, by Round 5.  The "outcome" is a bit more nebulous, and depends on all concerned engaging positively, on this page, over the next few weeks.  Scolaire (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Substantive issues (redux)
OK, a bit of redux here, but below are proposals to resolve the substantive issues as I see them. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of terms in articles...
Below again are Blue-Haired Lawyer's proposal, which were pretty well received last time around.

In general the state should be referred to as Ireland. There are situations however when, for clarity and/or disambiguation, distinctions will need to be made a) between Ireland-the-state and Ireland-the-island and b) to avoid confusion with regard to Northern Ireland. In these situation the preferred means to do so is to call the island Ireland and the state the Republic of Ireland (this can be emphasised where necessary by use the phrase island of Ireland).

While the final decision to use one set of terms or the other should be determined by the unique contexts of each situation, the following rules of thumb will generally hold true:


 * In lists of sovereign states, when discussing economies, governments or other qualities of states, the state should be referred to as Ireland e.g. Economy of Europe, NATO
 * When describing the area served by an organisation that is primarily all-island, use the phrase island of Ireland in the first instance and either Ireland or island of Ireland thereafter e.g. Supermacs
 * Always use the official titles of state offices (e.g. the President of Ireland, never the President of the Republic of Ireland)
 * When writing about the state and Northern Ireland in the same context, use the Republic of Ireland (or the Republic thereafter) e.g. the border should be described as being between "the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" never as being between "Ireland and Northern Ireland".
 * For articles where historical correctness is important (e.g. The Emergency (Ireland)) the state should be called the Irish Free State for the period between 6 December 1922 to 29 December 1937. In the same kind of articles, for the period thereafter until the coming into force of the Republic of Ireland Act (18 April 1949), the state not be referred to as the Republic of Ireland (another means to distinguish Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island should be used as necessary).

The following was not listed before but I would add it now as a firmer rule of thumb: The reader should never have to click or hover over a link to find out which Ireland is being referred to.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (For the sake of accuracy, this isn't actually my proposal, which you can still see here. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes, I took the liberty of rewriting it, but I think the essence is the same? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I reject the (invalid) poll (still hasn't been even corrected!), and an imposition of British POV on the name of our state, I find it ridiculous that editors would agree to always use the official titles of state offices, but won't use the official title of the actual state. The double standards here are astounding!  This isn't progress.  It's not even consistent of reasonable.  Seeing as digging in the heels and unreasonableness appears to be the tactic that works here, rather than collaboration, consensus, policies, etc, I for one will not be agreeing with these proposals.  The only policy should be to use the correct term, always, everywhere.  Nowhere should the state be referred to as Republic of Ireland.  --HighKing (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * More anti British POV pushing. Im not sure that the above guidelines proposed go into enough detail, matters raised above on how to handle two Irelands in a single sentence has not been dealt with fully as far as im concerned. Ill make further points on this later, but if certain parties like Highking do not agree to the terms, i fail to see why others should unless these guidelines will be inforced and those violating the rules because they simply disagree or refuse to collaborate should be punished. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are too quick off the mark talking of punishment. Which guidelines should be enforced? The above is only put forward as a proposal. There should be less talk of, if they do that or not do this then punishment should ensue, and more talk of how you can all come up with a reasonable solution that relates to the poll result. Jack forbes (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Im not saying the above guidelines should be accepted and anyone breaking them be punished. All im saying is with people saying they refuse to accept any guidelines on this matter, then theres no point in the rest of us signing up to them unless those who go against the guidelines in the future despite not accepting them here will be punished (or their edits just undone). I agree we need reasonable policy here first, i still have many concerns ill come onto in the coming days. This is far from over BritishWatcher (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgive if me I happen to misunderstand the procedure. I thought that since nobody was prepared to compromise(?) on naming the article on the state by the actual real correct name as used by all of the international community, that the correct procedure was to ... well, refuse to discuss anything reasonably and merely dig the heels in over something that I and others feel very strongly about.  British POV pushing and invalid polls to show that a British majority favours a particular outcome wasn't the *process* that most of us Irish editors signed up for.  Although I could always offer to compromise - what about I'll agree if you accept that the current title is down to a British majority on Wikipedia and there'll be no more mention of anything to the contrary otherwise the deal is off?  --HighKing (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with HighKing on this. There is only one state in the world called Ireland, and there is no ambiguity. Endeavouring to construct ambiguous scenarios is faux, and not "real world", will fail, and should be avoided. Context and word-smithing are much more effective ways of writing articles. Tfz     10:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * tell that to the people who those in the Republic of Ireland elect to govern them, evidence has shown its used 1000s of times in the parliament there. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have an obvious POV that is not "real world". Examine the quality those links, and then do your thesis. Tfz     11:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Irish government is "not real world"??. That is something the Irish people must decide, although their willingness to impose the lisbon treaty on the Irish people would back up your point of view on that matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅Can we not go back there please guys and lay of punishment as a theme please. As far as I can see the above guidelines use IRELAND as the name of the state in the bulk of instances. I would incline the "Northern Ireland and the Republic" or similar in other cases which conforms with common use. -- Snowded TALK  11:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Northern Ireland and the Republic" in other cases? that sounds to me as though Republic of Ireland should be removed from everywhere. if thats the case i strongly oppose. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should we pander to the ill-informed British editors who insist on their own terminology to reinforce their own view of the world? We should use "Ireland" everywhere the state is being referred to.  --HighKing (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I rather stick with 'straight linkage' for the country & the island article, personally. It should would avoid alot of headaches. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ...I'm getting ready to start ag caoineamh, now (and that's not a pretty sight)... @HighKing (and, to an extent, Tfz): There was a Wiki-wide poll. It was valid.  And despite what you say above, you know that most Irish editors favoured option F.  Reiterating the "only name of the state" argument from over 9 months ago is circular and pointless.  Reiterating the "British POV" argument is pointless, counter-productive and disruptive.  @BritishWatcher: You're really not helping.  Your behaviour is just as disruptive.  Stop baiting people, please. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bastun, when something is being repeated several times, it does need a rebuttal. Agree with you that it is circular, but if it's ignored all of the time, then that message fills the page. Tfz     17:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @Bastun, yup there was a wiki-wide poll. Invalid.  Valid votes were removed, editors were run off, but more importantly, the scope of the poll was not agreed and appears to have been rushed and pushed through.  We've also had the slow breakdown of the process as editors withdraw - largely becuase the slow realisation that British POV is pushing and driving the status quo.  All the talk of compromise is just a sham.  So now, as we enter this phase of ratification of British POV, take a look around.  Compare the active editors today with the editors that were active before the poll started.  Nearly all the Irish contributers have withdrawn.  And any attempt by me and Tfz to point out why the process is invalid, why votes shouldn't be removed, etc, are met with derision and name calling.  And Masem has consistently ignored questions posed by me on several issues - so for me the lunatics are definitely running the asylum.  This process is dead.  --HighKing (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. BW appears to be reasonable some of the time but he has a bad habit of asking for blocks, or as he has done here, asking for a punishment if this or that isn't done. BW, collaboration doesn't start with a warning to those you want to collaborate with. @Bastun. What exactly is ag caoineamh? I'm getting a little worried here! Jack forbes (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here you are Jack, and something similar it Scottish Gaelic I guess. The Banshee sometimes does that too, yeah we should be worried in the event of her arrival.) Tfz     16:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All im saying Jack is if most of us are to accept certain guidelines (we aint at that stage yet) then one or two who simply refuse to agree must not simply be allowed to make changes in the future going completly against those guidelines. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tfz - the "only name of the state" argument is completely beside the point. Most articles on states aren't at their official name.  But then you already know this.  Arguing about it is even more pointless given that the poll has already been held and is done and dusted for two years. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So, after all that, it does look like the proposals above have a broad consensus? -- Snowded  TALK  20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with RA's version of BHL's proposal. Dunno whether there's consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If by "broad consensus" you mean you'll just ignore any editors that don't agree, then sure. On the other hand, there's at least two editors that broadly disagree...  --HighKing (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well as much as id hate to agree with highking on this, i dont think theres broad consensus on this matter yet. I have concerns about this not going into enough detail. Some of the things mentioned on this talk page about use of 2 Irelands in one sentence dont appear to have been addressed. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I tentatively support the proposal, on condition that RA's addition is added - "The reader should never have to click or hover over a link to find out which Ireland is being referred to"; where there is a risk of confusion or ambiguity, Republic of Ireland should be used (e.g. the opening paragraphs of Scouting Ireland and Olympic Council of Ireland should clarify that these bodies are Republic-of-Ireland bodies); and that Republic of Ireland should be used in articles covering the British Isles (as well as those covering all of Ireland) so as to avoid confusion with Ireland-the-island. Mooretwin (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the north "should be referred to as Ireland as much as possible" but nobody is interested in discussing that. It's only the north of Ireland is it not? Is it Not-then Ireland because that is what it has been all through this whole dispute. I suppose that one-sided debates are difficult at best. ~ R.T.G 01:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

...in articles, categories, etc....
Where a topic is has a substantial real-world organisational form, the "Ireland" of the topic should refer to the territory most commonly used by organizations in that field. Example:


 * Sport in Ireland should refer to the island of Ireland (on the basis that sporting organisations are commonly organised on an all-island basis e.g. GAA, rugby, cricket, hockey)
 * List of companies of Ireland should refer to the island of Ireland Irish state (on the basis that incorporation in "Ireland" means being incorporated in the Irish state)

Where the topic does not have a substantial real-world organisational form, the "Ireland" in the title of an article should refer to the entity that is most substantive for that topic. Example:


 * Music of Ireland should refer to the island of Ireland (on the basis that the island of Ireland forms a more substantive topic for discussing music than does the music of the Republic of Ireland)
 * Economy of Ireland should refer to the Irish state (on the basis that the economy of the Irish state forms a more substantive focus for discussion than does the all-island economy)

These rules should be followed even where precedence among other articles is to organise articles in a different way e.g. Architecture of Ireland should refer to the island of Ireland even though other Architecture in... articles refer to architecture in a sovereign state.

These rules should also be followed even if following the rule results in a dab page. Example: Religion in Ireland should refer to the the island of Ireland since that is how religions commonly organise themselves in Ireland. However, since there is no article in existance that covers religion on an all-island basis that Religion in Ireland should remain a dab (unless the two currently existing articles are merged that is).

Where it is uncertain which "Ireland" is the more substantive topic, it should be assumed that the island of Ireland is the substantive topic even if this means a duplication of content from a United Kingdom-related article or a distinct Northern Ireland-related article focusing solely on Northern Ireland. (The existance of distinct Northern Ireland articles should not be taken as evidence for a need for distinct Republic of Ireland articles.)

If an article, category, etc. exists for the less substantive topic, it should be titled using the form "... the island of Ireland" or "... the Republic of Ireland".

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There appears to be an error in the second one - "List of companies of Ireland should refer to the island of Ireland (on the basis that incorporation in "Ireland" means being incorporated in the Irish state)". As companies are incorporated in a state, then List of companies of Ireland should refer to the state. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And, while there is currently a separate company registry for Northern Ireland, so NI companies could be identified for inclusion, this is about to be merged into the one for the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland Company Registry IntegrationCavrdg (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that link, good information and it does change this specific issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the Architecture in ... example might also include a reference to category hierarchies, i.e. just cause there is a Category:Architecture in ... for each European country does not necessarily mean there should be an Architecture in RoI article.
 * Yes, I mean the above to refer titles of all kinds of articles, categories, outlines, and so on. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd be easier to just use Republic of Ireland (for country) & Ireland (for the island), at least until 2011. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but there's nothing wrong with compromise. The poll was only for the names of the three main articles, and there's nothing to stop us using "Ireland" in categories where there's little or no need to disambiguate. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but I see a real problem in this proposal wrt categories, because categories are much more structured and consistent than articles.

The status quo is a very thoroughly-organised category hierarachy in which Foo in Ireland refers to the island, and will usually have subcats of Foo in the Republic of Ireland and Foo in Northern Ireland. Counties are subcats of the NI and RoI categories, and there may also be all-Ireland subcats (which may in turn have RoI and NI subcats). It works well, and provides a consistent category navigation structure across a whole range of topics from geography to politics--- and consistency is very highly valued in categories. So far I am not aware of this having been controversial in any way, and I played a big part in standardising the categories -- there some huge exercises at CFR which I advertised as best as I could on the IE project etc.

Starting to use using "Ireland" in categories when we mean the 26 counties would break that consistency, and I can't see that this does anything to assist ether readers or editors -- it just seems to make things harder for all concerned.

I wouldn't object in principle to renaming all "Foo in Ireland" categs to "Foo in the Island of Ireland", but only if all are renamed, to maintain consistency. That would be a huge job, and I'm not sure that it would be worth the effort. It would also be resisted at CFD, where there is a principle that categories should reflect article names, and the article on the island has not been moved to "Island of Ireland".

As to naming of articles, I agree that there doesn't always need to be a separate ROI article -- and I agree that religion is a subject where a merger might be appropriate. However, where there is an article relating to the 26 counties, I think that the title should be unambiguous about its scope. When the main articles are labelled "Ireland" for the 32 and "RoI" for the 26, it seems logical that "Foo in" articles should follow that naming convention because they are effectively breakout articles. It's not as critical an issue as categories, but it seems to me that consistency here helps the reader.-- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. --HighKing (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree about consistency in category names, or about consistency in article titles, or both? And can you explain why? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with consistency. I disagree with using a made-upey name for the Irish state just to propagate a British POV in an encyclopedia.  I vehemently disagree with promoting an incorrect name or title to the state, and using it in this way is wrong and confusing.  And I abhor the lack of compromise that this process started out with, which has now degenerated into majority POV pushing.  This process is dead.  --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its impossible to attempt to get consensus or compromise when certain editors are making offensive and inaccurate claims about "British POV", this is total nonsense. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BW, several editors think you have a British POV, the Union Jack on your page is kinda like a clue, and a lot of your edits support it. You think you are being neutral, while other editors have a pro-Republican, Anti-British POV (and their user pages and edits support that).  So why not just accept that, let the comments wash over you and focus on a compromise.  No dispute has ever been resolved by asking people to give up their beliefs about the other side before they engage in the process.  Let the comments wash over you, respond to the substance.  -- Snowded  TALK  16:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with people saying i have a British POV, i could take it as a compliment. What i find offensive is the endless claims that Republic of Ireland is "British POV", which is complete nonsense. Clearly rejected by Irish editors who supported the current article title, and even someone like Evertype who withdrew from this collaboration project and wanted a different result said the claim of "British POV" in relation to Republic of Ireland was wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * and other editors think it is (and its not a complete nonsense) and if you check it out then you were one of the major factors in Evertype withdrawing. Please learn to live with other people's views who disagree with you, please don't refight battles which are no longer relevant, lets just try and move forward.  -- Snowded  TALK  16:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The IR-COll page was set up to achieve compromise and consensus over the issue. Strange thing is, we ended up with no compromise, and with no consensus either. Tfz     17:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If they are entitled to make wild claims that the article title is British POV, i dont see why im not allowed to respond to such claims saying they are nonsense, offensive and counter productive because it makes reaching consensus alot harder. Onto the actual issue, i do not feel that strongly on this matter, im having to keep an eye on several different areas right now and its consuming alot of time, so closing one or two areas is something i would like to do.
 * I want us to move on get agreement here and then lock everything for two years so we can all go onto other things. Whilst i support the principle there should be no major changes to current usage across wikipedia of ROI. I wanted clear guidelines so we do not get into fights like on the issue of BI where people are able to easily view things very differently.
 * One of these grey areas which was raised above is use of two Irelands in the same sentence. Now i have yet to see agreement on how to handle that example, or seen it covered in any of the proposals here. Which is one of my concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey BW, there is nothing offensive about having a point of view, I assure you, every living being has one. Sure where would you be without it? Tfz     18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont find anything offensive about having a POV or people having a POV or people saying i have a POV. What i find offensive is the claim Republic of Ireland is somehow British POV. Theres plenty of things British people should be blamed for, that title aint one of them :) BritishWatcher (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The facts say that the title here on Wikipedia is down to British POV pushing. I don't really care if you find it offensive, although I find it odd that you get so hot under the collar when it's pointed out.  But as Snowded says, different "sides" have different points of view on just about any issue you'd care to find on Wikipedia.  But when a "majority" is being used to enforce one viewpoint, that's just plain wrong and completely against Wikipedia.  And when you shove the so-called victory of the poll down the throats of other editors, and refuse to compromise because a British majority was allowed construct a single-issue vote, it just make you look like a loon.  --HighKing (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please can you all just stop this pointless bickering, and get back to the substance? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Sorry BHG, I can't really engage here as I disagreed with the method, and I disagree with the outcome. I'll mainly come back here if it gets a bit off topic, otherwise nothing to add at the moment. Tfz     20:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with this. Any category or article that is about the 26 and not the 32 should use Republic of Ireland. Support BHG on this one. Mooretwin (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "on the basis of incorporation in Ireland" AH! But the basis was "Companies of Ireland" not "Incorporation in Ireland" Subtly different and yet never quite the same. What then should go at List of companies in the Republic of Ireland and why should we bother to capitalise that letter when somebody (who?) might find that offensive? I.E. you would defeat some sort of purpose if you said "We can define all the others but not this one." ~ R.T.G 01:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

...in lists
In lists - whether actual lists, articles organized into list-like subsections, a links in templates etc. - the "Ireland" referred to should refer to the entity most appropriate for the topic being listed e.g. if states are being listed "Ireland" refers to the state, if geographic or cultural entities are being referred to then "Ireland" is the island.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * In general I think that is a positive contribution, I would be tempted to allow more use of "the Republic" rather than "Republic of Ireland" as that confirms with a lot of common use.  -- Snowded  TALK  08:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So long as the it's clear what's being talked about, "the Republic" is fine IMHO. (Adds: so far it it fits with an encylcopediac tone.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Snowded - pretty much everything there is reasonable. And natural English, aye.  There's no need to write "the Republic of Ireland" (unlinked) where it's previously been linked; common usage would suggest to use just "...the Republic." Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We should just use for the country & island - Republic of Ireland & Ireland, at least 'til 2011. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One thing that puzzles me slightly is that everyone seems to capitalize republic. Should we not, strictly speaking, write the island of Ireland and the republic of Ireland. Even the Republic of Ireland Act specifies that the "description" is Republic of Ireland, but by capitalizing Republic they are seem to be making it a proper name (de facto an alternative official name). This does seem to be relevant when referring to the state (though it was less relevant to the discussion of the article name).--Boson (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just figured a direct link to the country page would be better then the 'change method'. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the bit about lists. If its a list of sovereign states, im ok with "Ireland" just as if its a list of geographical locations "Ireland" should be used, aslong as its clear from the topic which is being mentioned.

However the response by snowded in this section about use of "the Republic", does concern me. If there is a need for ambiguity then i am fine with Republic of Ireland being said once, then "the Republic" in further text IF it fits into the sentence well and sounds ok which wont always be the case, but also only when there can be no confusion about what its talking about. So in just an Ireland article, it would be ok, but if it was about the ROI and another country that might be a republic, saying the republic would be problematic. Either way to maintain stability there shouldnt be some mass change of wording used.

One thing i do oppose if its being suggested is that the Republic/Republic be used as a pipelink for Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Referring to Ireland in other articles
Having come to the poll from an announcement on a European project (where we previouly had to cope with the Macedonia dispute) I was wondering when the discussion on references to Ireland (mainly the republic) in other articles will start, and where it will be held. Perhaps one could get some tips from the Macedonian project, where the discussion was also spread around in unlikely places. At least the result seems to have been reasonably well documented (though it is not always easy to find), at Centralized discussion/Macedonia/consensus. Perhaps both projects could arrange for the respective decisions (and discussion?) to be better linked (e.g. from WP:MOS).--Boson (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They were to take place after the poll on the main article names. It was agreed above to keep discussion on in-article use etc. here. One attempt at discussion took please earlier here. I have opened another discussion with specific proposals directly above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I hadn't seen your contribution when I started writing. I am obviously a slow typist!--Boson (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Republic. Made up? British state?
All too often, if you are not a professor of history or some other buff to whom no sliver of knowledge has not been available to with directions, something you thought you knew is first questioned and then shown to you to be incorrect in favour of something completely different. There are various claims on here that the word "republic" is imposed on the Irish state by the British. Now, by definition in the dictionary, the state would seem at first glance to be a republic, a state controlled unquestionably by the public. To my knowledge the title Republic in relation to Ireland was conceived and set out, most likely, in the days and documents of the Proclaimation and Eater Rising, around 1916 to put our best date on it. But, and yet, here are claims recurring that the title Republic not only is questionable when to use it or not, but is an invention and brand by British counterparts of one sort or another, not even correct to describe the state in definition. Now, I have assumed all along that these claims were intended to suggest that the title Republic was something not heard of until the run up to the mid-forties, that the British government was always on the states back to be the Republic and they conceded to much consternation, something to that effect. But, editors whose general knowledge would convince me that they know at very least some factual general knowledge on the topic come back repeatedly saying Republic is an invalid title created and imposed by the British, not even wanted let alone accepted by the wider Irish public, even broadly offensive. I want to discuss it clearly if anyone wishes to. Is there some history of the title, even in broadly acknowledged rumour, preceding Irish self-determination of the title Republic? Is there some verifiable, even in broadly acknowledged rumour, feature to the state which would prevent it from being truly defined in language as a republic? ~ R.T.G 00:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question, and I very much look forward to seeing the responses.
 * Since one of the central issues in this dispute is the assertion by some editors that RoI is offensive to them, an examination of the nature and history of that offensiveness is something which should have been addressed very early on in the IECOLL process. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we go around in circles again. Here's a simple response broken up into small statements:
 * This dispute is not about who "invented" the term
 * This dispute is not about using the term when disambiguation is required
 * The Republic of Ireland is a valid term. But.  It is not the official name or title.
 * This dispute has never been that using the term "Republic of Ireland" is 100% wrong in all cases - it is useful to sometimes use a description where a name is confusing. A bit like "John Smith" or "John Smith the doctor".
 * This dispute centers on using the correct name when referring to the state when the state is being referred to, specifically the main article on the state which is currently sitting at "Republic of Ireland".
 * Also understand that for years, the British government refused to use the correct name for the state (Ireland), and instead used their own name, enshrined in British law, which is the "Republic of Ireland". This completely confused the matter between name and description.  (Although this has changed since 1998 (although not in law))  This is the source for the original British POV pushing claim.  If the British government now uses the correct term, why is Wikipedia so out of step?  It appears on the surface to the British POV pushing.
 * Since British media still used the term, many British readers are not aware that the name of the state is "Ireland". Many incorrectly use the term as a title or name (when no dab is required, etc).  In fact, many consumers of British media appear to make this mistake.
 * So it comes down to, why is Wikipedia insisting that the article reside at the official British name for the state? In practice, it appears to be British POV pushing, especially as here at least, the arguments have been made clear.
 * But it's not as simple as that either. For example, many Irish people don't want to use "Ireland" as the article name as it could be interpreted by an unknowledgable reader as referring to the entire island.  it could cause confusion to understanding where Northern Ireland fits in.  It's a matter of respect although it appears that there's more respect from the Republic for Northern Ireland sensibilities on this, than there is the other way around...
 * The answer on WP was to go to Arbcom for a ruling on the article title and usage within articles. We discussed solutions looking at a whole.  And discussed.  And discussed.  Never did we agree that we'd deal with the title separately from the content (what would be the point if the same British POV majority would simple vote to retain the status quo - as just happened).  But compromise *was* being discussed - even Masem's very last attempt to avoid going to a majority vote was a package deal.  So during a period when most Irish people were away on holidays, a single issue majority vote was pushed through by editors who all ended up voting for the status quo.  What a farce.
 * And now, while the gloating about "winning" is still ringing, they're similarly attempting to push through the other issues as single-issue items also. What a farce.
 * So in a nutshell, while the current title has no consensus, many editors are attempting to use British force of numbers to keep the title in place. --HighKing (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "So during a period when most Irish people were away on holidays, a single issue majority vote was pushed through by editors who all ended up voting for the status quo." Yeah it's the done thing for Irish people to go for SIX week holidays while British people sit in front of their computers scheming up new ways to shaft the Irish innit? What a complete and utter load of bull. Valenciano (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with the analysis made by HighKing. BigDunc  14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with the analysis made by Valenciano. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. The old disagree-with-one-statement ploy and ignore the other points and the general point being made.  That gets old fast.  On the other hand, why not check the archive between Masem's last attempt at a compromise poll, and the list of editors who somehow, against the Arbcom directive and with Masem's apparent approval, pushed for and turned the process of compromise and agreement it into a single-issue majority vote....  --HighKing (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yawn. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with HighKing's assessment. Also very importantly, may I add that the the Irish government spends untold capital investing in the name "Ireland" it's proper name, yes my tax. The dividends of this investment are shared by all, both North and South. It's not for Wikipedia to countermand those efforts to keep the island up to economic speed, by calling the state by a different name. All the EU partners know the the state by "Ireland". Tfz     16:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If HighKings assessment were right, then it means that there were about 25 Irish editors who all intended to vote the same way. These editors then went on holiday at exactly the same time. They went for two month long holidays all to parts of the world where internet access is not available. I've heard some weird conspiracy theories round here but that one reaches new heights of absurdity. Using the highly unscientific "Sarah777" method of profiling editors according to their nationality, F won among Irish editors. We can now move on to more productive stuff i.e. disambiguating the articles where necessary. Valenciano (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I broadly endorse HighKings bullet points (but not the subsequent rant). I would only have small issues with the second-last bullet point. In particular the statements:
 * "[British government refusal to use the correct name for the state] completely confused the matter between name and description." I disagree because, regardless of British government use of the term, I believe that confusion would still exists in Ireland too about the term. The simple existence of a constitutional "name" (which looks like an informal name for a state) and a statutory "description" (which looks like a formal name of a state) would confuse most people regardless of what the British government opinion 1949-98 (which frankly should be of no concern to us, anyway).
 * "It appears on the surface to the British POV pushing." While undoubtedly some do see it like this (HighKing's faith, for example, is not something I would ever draw into question), I don't believe that there is much merit to it. It might help if we expand the "it" in that sentence, as an example, in which case the sentence becomes: "[Wikipedia being out of step with the British government] appears on the surface to the British POV pushing." It simply doesn't make sense.
 * I'm sorry, while I do believe that there are genuine editors who perceive use of ROI for the title of the article on the state to be "British POV", I don't agree that that perception stands up to much scrutiny. A more plausible (and defensible) explanation, I believe, is a sort of hurt sense of national pride. A feeling that Ireland is being treated differently. Well, it is. Because it is different. There are two "Irelands". There are not two "United Kingdoms", or two "Japans", or two many-other-places.
 * I'm reminded of something I heard from a Northern unionist: every time you see an empty flag pole, that's the flag of Ireland. It's a pride bruiser, but it's a fact. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with national pride, and everything to do with the proper name of the state. Also the British POV part is interesting. I don't give a rat's ass about British pov, or what name the general British population use for Ireland. What I do object to is that the poll was rigged to get that British pov onstream in order to get RoI as the name of the state here at Wikipedia. There are many sources where the Irish Government seeks to avoid the political description, just as Wales would avoid using the word principality. RoI is incorrect, amd not WP:COMMON WP:COMMONNAME. Tfz     19:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggested 'Ireland (state)' as the country article name. Mind ya, it's not the first suggestion of mine, that was rejected. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tfz, I think you mean to link to WP:COMMONNAME. Instead you linked to the following: "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." I hope the irony is not lost on you. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * RA, thanks for pointing that out and it's now amended, obviously you got my drift to notice that. Excellent quotation, let's junk the poll to where it belongs. Tfz     19:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

'''I asked the questions. No more ignoring me. Discuss other questions in other places, thank you.''' These questions are clear. If you wish to discuss what "this dispute is about", go elswhere. I understand what the dispute is about. This is not a place to discuss the dispute. Talk of the dispute will prevent answering this question. To discuss the dispute in relation to my questions, please refer to the section below, thank you. ~ R.T.G 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is there a history of the term and definition (title and type) relating to the Irish state which precedes Irish deterimination (was it the Irish who conceived an Irish republic using that word)?
 * 2) Is there and element to the state that would prevent it being defined as a republic (is it a republic or not)?
 * I don't know & I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies - my intention was to answer your questions. I believe there are some better qualified historians and history buffs here that would be better placed to answer your question (e.g. Scolaire?).  But here's a stab:
 * In 1916, a rebellion announced the formation of the "Irish Republic". While the Irish may have flirted with the idea previously, and were insprired by the French republic, AFAIK the main date most people would think about is 1916.
 * Nope - the state is a republic.
 * --HighKing (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss the implications of RTGs questions above on the ireland naming dispute
Hi, I would like to know what folk have to say, if anything, about the Ireland naming dispute in relation to the 2 questions I posted above this section, thank you, thank you, thank you. ~ R.T.G 19:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcomed, you're welcomed, you're welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So we've finally exposed the breath-taking ignorance of editors who don't understand that nearly all genuinely Irish people feck off for a few months in the summer and early autumn to their communications-free private islands in the South Pacific. All well and good, though of course those editors should have at least tried to keep up with this well-publicised shift in holiday patterns.

I'll add a question of my own. Did the British govt's use of the phrase "Republic of Ireland" to refer to the 26-county state precede or follow the enactment by the Oireachtas of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

F did not win amongst Irish Editors
In fact Irish editors utterly rejected F. Time to put that canard to bed. Sarah777 (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * After 200 votes (in total) Irish editors had rejected F by 18 - 7; at that stage British editors had favoured F by 29 - 18. Thus proving the fact that RoI is a British imposition. I gave up tallying at 200 as the vote had already been invalidated by the biased Administration at that point with a quarter of the Irish editors withdrawing in protest at the farce. Sarah777 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I presume that's just a count of first preferences? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. F v not-F (the key question). All my assumptions are explicit and I've explained them many times. Sarah777 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is some encouragement for you Sarah. Take every name on the polling list. Go to their talkpages. Conduct a poll survey. Be very clear that you do not wish to pressurise anyone, in fact invite them very clearly to ignore the poll. Add a few choices relating to being Irish. Invite them to pick one. Make a template out of it, me or somebody with better template skills will surely help you do that, and place it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Template:Survey of voters(Ireland naming August 2009). Make a space where they have a chance to explain their connection or knowledge of Ireland. Again make this last step clearly voluntary. Set a time limit of a week or so (two even? leave it open and ongoing, you decide). Open the page WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Survey of voters (Ireland naming poll August 2009). List all the results you receive in that week add them together in any ways you or others can think of. Then restart this section and tell people that you know something. I for one would be pleased one way or another to find this information gathered and actually discuss it. Surely you can improve on my idea but the princliple is good, do you say so? ~ R.T.G 20:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that is as reliable as "pouncing" on the results as they came in. We have a lot of NI Unionists etc claiming to be from "Ireland"; without being prepared to state what part. I think there is a better sampling in vino veritas by simply looking at their userpage declarations as they were before the vote started. I may complete the analysis I've done for the remaining votes but I regard the all votes after the censorship started as invalid. Sarah777 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Single...transferable...vote. Valenciano (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Meaningless in the absence of a Free Press. Sarah777 (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 18 + 18 = 36. 29 + 7 = 36. Therefore your numbers prove that the sum of the British and Irish voters that favor F is exactly equal to the sum that reject it. If the selection of F is an "imposition", it is not at the behest of "the British" alone. Presumably it is those from the rest of the international community that done that deed. As an interesting aside, is there any option that would not have been an "imposition" (i.e. was there any single option that the majority of Irish editors favored? In other words, did more than 12 of those that did not favor F all agree on another single option) If not, then every outcome would be an "imposition"! Rockpock  e  t  20:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What do those numbers represent, they are meaningless in isolation of an explanation of the methodology you used. If you can prove it, well and good, but I doubt that will happen. I'm prepared to take an impartial look. I would also like to see Sarah's methodology.   Tfz     21:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the top of this thread, it should be clear what the numbers represent. Rockpock  e  t  23:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Did any one option get a majority of "Irish editors" to support it? If not, then, by Sarah's logic, Irish editors rejected every option. Mooretwin (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Using RA's calculations, every single option would result in an "imposition" on Ireland, since the Irish editors themselves were unable to form a first preference majority among any of the options. This entire line of argument is utterly pointless, since there is no outcome that could satisfy it. Rockpock  e  t  23:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's why some of us, from the start, rejected the poll process. Tfz     00:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tz, he's just being Jesuitical; I suspect he actually understands the issue behind it all. It is clear that the vast majority of Irish editors preferred most options to the politically loaded "RoI"; it is equally clear that the preponderance of British votes supported this travesty of WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONAME. If we saw such engagement on other extremely cut and dried cases of British pov (look at the M50) then we might be able to take some of the things we read here seriously. This is but part of a pattern of imposition. But as in the case of "incivility" the establishment police only show up without being called when the Irish side utter a bad word. Sarah777 (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting F as a second, third, fourth or fifth preference would indicate that whilst F was not a voter's favourite option, there were non-F options that they favoured less than F - i.e. "F v not-F" was not considered to be the "key question" by the voter. The same arguments could be made for A v not-A, B v not-B, etc. Guest9999 (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This section is just one of Sarah's tedious bi-weekly reposting of the same unsubstantiated claim, and then doing a Houdini. If anybody is in any doubt that she has neither the will or the capability to show she even understands NPOV, let alone prove that this alleged systemic bias had any effect on this poll to an impartial audience, then they can look in the archives for the many re-runs of this behaviour. If you run the polling figures properly with a mind for compensating for systemic bias, (which involves doing something a bit more nuanced than playing with an abacus, and making crude assumptions about the synchronocity of Wikipedia to the real world), and it becomes perfectly clear that there was no deal changing net effect of the rather obvious fact that Irish people have their view and British people have their view. Ensuring NPOV is more than just proclaiming that as an astounding revelation as if people are thick as mince, then standing back and saying 'See!!!'. It requires scientific method and an open mind. Done, end of story, take your ball and go home if you don't like it, or even simply cannot understand it, because there comes a point when ignorance of the facts becomes willfull, and not just endearingly controversial. MickMacNee (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand why you find facts tedious; up to vote 200 Irish Editors rejected F by a margin of 18 - 7 and British voters supported the imposition of F by 29 - 18. Sarah777 (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I can fully understand why any detailed explanation to you of how using that little bit of simple counting to try and prove that there was a net bias effect on the poll in violation of NPOV is utter cloud cuckoo junk science, and when done properly shows no effect, is just going to go over your head, because your conclusion just 'looks' right. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

F won amongst Irish editors (which, in any case, is irrelevant)
F was a) the most popular option among Irish editors, and b) the least unpopular option among Irish editors. A discussion of topic b) is, of course, pointless, without also looking at how unpopular options A, B, C, D, and E were among Irish editors.

I know I have a list of Irish editors who voted. My list doesn't include any unionists, in fact, from what I can remember, it includes only one person from Northern Ireland who identifies as Irish. I know others kept there own lists. R.A. has tabulated his list of Irish voters' results. F wins. Saying it doesn't is - well, like some of the claims being made by Declan Ganley and UKIP about Lisbon II.

And - all of that is irrelevant, because it wasn't a poll of Irish people, or British people, or people from Britain and Ireland. It was a poll open to any Wikipedian who'd registered pre-June 1st. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Many British editors rejected F as a choice, and more did not put it first, and fair dues to them, as they know the proper name of the country. I think that the substantive point is that there was enough of bias there to put F in the first position. All that was needed is a small bias of about 20% to do that. Tfz     23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Perhaps you could back that up with a real calculation, because it appears to me that removing all so-called British editors votes would still leave F the winner. If that is the case, then your argument is entirely lacking in merit. Rockpock  e  t  23:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure about your mathematics, are they fuzzy? Based on Sarah's figures
 * "Irish editors had rejected F by 18 - 7; at that stage British editors had favoured F by 29 - 18"
 * I get
 * 25 Irish editors voted, 7 voted for F => 28% of Irish voters for F
 * 47 British editors voted, 29 voted for F => 62% of British voters for F
 * Tfz    00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tfz, you're simply repeating Sarah's fallacy of counting only first preferences, as if this was a first-past-the-post ballot. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought I was being generous as I didn't include the "Copycat effect". This too would skew editors' choices. Tfz     15:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent point Tz; as nearly all the Irish had voted very early on it is clear that the later arrivals were in many cases merely hammering home the British pov out of irritation at folk such as myself and others who refuse to stop pointing at the naked British Emperor. Sarah777 (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to say up front. This sort of exercise, using completely unverifiable data, is automatically wrong.  That said, from various sources, I make out the following:
 * 82 British voters in total, 51 voted for F, which is 62%. E got 10 votes or about 12%, followed by C with 8 votes or about 10%.  So the overwhelmingly popular choice for British voters was F.  The second choice was behind by a whole 50% or 41 votes.
 * 41 Irish voters, 14 voted for F, which is 33%. Nearly half in terms of popularity with British voters. C got 10 votes or 24% and B got 9 votes or 21%.
 * 83 other nationalities voted. 32 voted for F, which is 38%.  E got 19 votes - 23%, and B and C got 13 each or 16%.
 * There were 28 voters unclassified. 11 voted for F which is 39%, E got 6 votes which is 21%.
 * What can be read into these results? Anything you want, but it's all tosh if it's not based on verifiable info.  But in that vein...
 * Some observations. It seems that if the British and Irish votes are excluded, the baseline for option F is about 38%.  It shows that the Irish voters are voting pretty typically against this baseline (-6%) but the British vote is out by 30%.  I'd be very interested in hearing reasons for the British vote being so massively skewed and out of step with the general trend....  --HighKing (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All the above refers only to first preferences. So what it seems to be saying is that if we had a FPTP ballot, F would have won. And if we had an STV ballot, F would have won. I'm just not sure that means anything other than F was the most popular opgtion whatever way you look at it. Fmph (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrections from some more up-to-date info...
 * British. Total 84 votes.  A:1  B:5  C:8  D:7  E:13  F:50  (1.19%  5.95%  9.52%  8.33%  15.48%  59.52%)
 * Irish. Total 42 votes. A:3  B:9  C:10  D:4  E:3  F:13 (7.14%  21.43%  23.81%  9.52%  7.14%  30.95%)
 * Other. Total 83 votes. A:2 B:13  C:14  D:4  E:19  F:31 (2.41%  15.66%  16.87%  4.82%  22.89%  37.35%)
 * Unknown. Total 26 votes. A:2 B:3  C:4  D:2  E:5  F:10 (7.69%  11.54%  15.38%  7.69%  19.23%  38.46%)
 * For those that are interested.... --HighKing (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So? How does your response help explain the massive skew in British votes for option F as first preference?  I think that would go a long way towards understanding what's going on here.  --HighKing (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So British editors prefer F over all other options, and by a far greater margin than Irish editors do. And that is a problem, is it? Any option other than the one preferred by British editors would be better, would it? I'm sorry, but my brain cannot handle logic like that. Fmph (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, it might be necessary to bar British & Irish editors from the 2011 Poll (if that's held). GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It will definitely be held unless the "RoI" problem is put to bed before then. Sarah777 (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, give users plenty of time to register non-British/Irish looking socks .... Fmph (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Socks must not be permitted, they tend to stink. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks HighKing - analysing the votes like that does indeed once again show that under STV (which this poll was run under) - amongst Irish voters only, F wins. And if it had been run under first-past-the-post, amongst Irish voters only, F would have won. Which is nice to be able to quote when you or Sarah or Tfz go on about imposition of a British POV name on to the article about our state and that its an insult that its not at its official name despite most articles on states not being at their official name - but in an STV poll among all voters who wanted to vote and were registered pre-June, it is still, ultimately, irrelevant. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, this very clear demonstration of the "Britishness" of your "RoI" imposition will be very relevent. Sarah777 (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually Bastun, analysing the votes under STV amongst Irish voters results in C being the winner. Analysing identifable Other voters (non-British and non-Irish) shows E to be the winner.  Excluding the British vote results in E being the winner.  --HighKing (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What it shows me is that there is a huge British skew towards F, completely out of line with non-British. It shows that most voters indicated by their first votes that they prefer a change away from the status quo (anyone non-British I mean). It proves that a British majority keeps an unwanted status quo in place.  It shows that meaningless stats like these can be made to show anything you like....  --HighKing (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant as to who voted for the F-option, weither he/she is British, Irish, Canadian, American, Icelandic, Chinese, Indian, Iranian, Sudanese etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Your first sentence does not automatically prove your second. There is a basic methodology you need to follow if you ever hope to show these accusations are anything more than POV junk science. Sarah is utterly unwilling to do it, are you? Your starting point is not the voting figures, but the real world populations of Britain and Ireland. Input your assumptions, the actual poll figures, the options, and from there its easy to employ a simple bit of maths (not simple counting) to prove or disprove your second sentence follows from your first, showing conclusively that NPOV was not upheld in the poll and it should be set aside. Not doing so won't change a thing. MickMacNee (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Look - this whole analysis by nationality is "junk science" and I'd emphasise that absolutely no argument will be proven or disproven by using this unverified data. But from this unverified data, 62% of British voters selected F as their first choice compared with lower figures from Irish and others - what exactly is junk science about that and what do real world populations have to do with those figures?  I've detailed the numbers above.  And I'm not calling for the poll to be set aside because of those reasons.  --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not "junk science", but it is important to get the correct empirical data, and use the correct methodology. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that the vote may have been skewed is plainly living in Cloud Cuckoo Land, and it's difficult to take them seriously on this issue. A little honesty, and a little respect for opponents' arguments is rarely wasted. Tfz     16:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant that this particular analysis can't be taken seriously since the underlying data is unverified. --HighKing (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The trouble with that HK is that we can't, without hazard (as I discovered) probe into undisclosed nationality because, knowing the endemic problem of nationalist British (and American) pov "the community" (aka the same British and American editors) don't want this extent of nationalism at work. Thus we get British (or American) nationalism defined as "consensus" while those opposing it get labeled "nationalist" in a beautiful ironic twist. So they kinow damn well, for example, that there is rampant British nationalist pov at work in Ireland-related articles and they either aren't interested (it doesn't affect them) or they support it (being of the imposing nationalities). And MacNamee; I am perfectly willing to admit there are 60 million Britons and only 5 million Irish - so what's your point. A proportion is relative. Sarah777 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, but if bias is absent from the data selection process, then the result might prove to be broadly correct, as errors on one side of the data are likely broadly cancel errors on the other side. Standard deviation play a role too. Tfz     17:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So in summary: British editors appear to disproportionately favor F. I think everyone who understands how to analyze the data properly can agree on that. That only has a practical implication for us if that disproportionate sample changes the outcome. HighKing's own analysis suggests it didn't (in that F was also the most favored among the Irish and International voters, albeit by a smaller margin), so when you removed that skew, the result does not differ. Those who are doing data analysis based on STV come to the same conclusion. Based on these analyses, we should all be able to agree that the skew in British opinion is perhaps interesting, but entirely academic. Certain people are claiming this poll should be set aside because the result is biased by "British imposition". This claim is based on a incomplete data set (using just an early sample of the British and Irish votes, and ignoring all the International votes), using a metric that has no input into the actual result (F vs Not F). In other words, using the wrong empirical data and the wrong methodology. Can we put this "British imposition" to bed now and focus at the real issues? Rockpock  e  t  17:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Rock, you've misinterpreted my analysis. Analysing the votes under STV amongst Irish voters results in C being the winner.  Analysing identifable Other voters (non-British and non-Irish) shows E to be the winner.  Excluding the British vote results in E being the winner.  And the claim is based on the complete data set - albeit with unverified data.  --HighKing (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My view; the only way to check the hypothesis is to re-run the count 1) Without British votes 2) Without Irish votes 3) Without British and Irish votes 4) British votes only. Anyone got the software? Now that is the best way for editors to view/understand what is going on, or what the trend is. Trying to tell your opponents to more or less bugger off will not put this issue to bed. If you are correct, then what have you to fear? Tfz     17:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Using OpenSTV and the ScottishSTV method I get
 * All - Winner F, (2nd E) (5th count)
 * British only - Winner F (1st count :-)
 * Irish only - Winner C (5th count)
 * Exclude Irish Votes - Winner F (3rd count)
 * Exclude British Votes - Winner E (5th count)
 * Exclude British and Irish votes - Winner E (5th count)
 * For what it's worth.... --HighKing (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * E is the real winner here, hands down. No British POV, no Irish POV in the that scenario. Good work HighKing, QED! Tfz     17:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What a pal, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Let's not use unverified data to jump to *any* conclusions or to be used as evidence.  They may be useful as unreliable indicators to perhaps understand different facets of editor voting.  That's it.  --HighKing (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Before we continue; What's the purpose of this discussion? The Ireland articles naming thing is settled 'til 2011. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh .. another fantasy. There's no mandate from Arbcom to settle matters one at a time.  They specifically instructed us to agree on everything.  It's annoying that editors here keep insisting the the Ireland article naming has been settled.  It hasn't.  Nothing has been settled until everything has been settled.  And based on the lack of compromise going around, it looks like nothing will be settled either, so we're back to where we've started, which means that ArbCom will most likely come up with their own solution....  --HighKing (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the analysis had been done (by RA) and F came out the winner all ways, but HighKing's analysis seems to differ from that. My apologies. I'm not sure what the difference between them is (perhaps different datasets, perhaps different interpretations of what passes for Irish and British). But therein lies the problem: the anonymous nature of Wikipedia leaves this type of analysis horribly flawed. For example, I have voted, and presumably I have been assigned to one of the groups of editors, yet my nationality is not publicly known. I'm sure the same can be said for many other editors. Furthermore there is going to be a self selection bias: the editors who are prone to announcing their nationality on their userpage with flags and proclamations of nationalism are also more likely to vote along certain lines. Therefore we are more likely to count extremes and more likely to find differences between national groups. The more moderate editors who don't see themselves along nationalist lines, and who would drive both groups towards the mean if their votes were counted, are more likely to be left out. So the real question is, what exactly is going to be gained by this type of flawed analysis?
 * Secondly, even if we somehow did come to some agreement that British editors involvement changed the result. What are we supposed to do about it? We can't just exclude an editor's vote post hoc based on our guess at their nationality. Coming into this vote, everyone knew that British editors were going to vote, therefore its not like this came out of left field. So why is it only a problem when the result, which is unfavorable to some, became clear? I'm at a loss to see what the complaining we are seeing here is supposed to achieve.
 * My preference (E) did not succeed, either. That sucks for me, but I think we all need to summon a bit of good grace, stop trying to manipulate the result to suit ourselves, and move on. Rockpock  e  t  18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I too prefered (E). However (F) is the top preference among all editors, this must be respected for the next 2 yrs. Also, those who've 'erased' their vote during the Poll, made their choice & shouldn't be protesting now. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c)For the record RockPocket, you've been classified as "Unknown" nationality. I agree that this type of analysis is horribly flawed and I am opposed to it.  But I was also getting a little tired of RA's incomplete analysis being trotted out (which was based on a subset of the early votes) as the basis for "nothing makes any difference).  Finally, you state that Coming into this vote, everyone knew that British editors were going to vote - but that isn't the point.  The question I keep asking is, how did the Arbcom process to discuss and agree a "complete package" get turned into a single-issue majority vote?  Cos when I look back at the archives, Masem's last attempt before the vote was about a complete package, not a single issue.  So who decided to change the scope and terms of references?  Who agreed to it?  As I've said before, it seems that many editors, like me, believed that the principal of compromise was copperfastened and agreed.  It's why I've objected to this vote, and why I and others withdrew.  What option did we have?  By registering a vote, it could be seen as an endorsement of how the process was being abused.  Then when you look at the bullying during the vote, the ballot tampering, and the gloating afterwards, this vote has done a lot of damage to the open and compromise-friendly discussions we were having previously.  Some editors open declared that they were afraid to vote for a compromise on this issue for fear that the compromise-vote wouldn't be reciprocated on the next vote.  --HighKing (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I opted for the Poll, with the understanding that it would put a 2yr pause on the Ireland naming dispute. My understanding was that reaching a compromise wasn't possible, the Poll helped break a stalemate. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't necessarily agree with you, but that is a valid opinion. Normally I would agree that ongoing discussion should not be superseded by a vote, but in this case I could see no evidence that the ongoing discussion was constructive. Its not like we hastily jumped into this vote, literally years had passed and the same people were making the same arguments without giving an inch (and that includes editors on both extremes). Ultimately, this outcome will have to be signed off by ArbCom. I suggest you make this appeal to them and ask whether a vote with all its limitations is an acceptable solution. Its my feeling that they will accept on Masem's endorsement of the process, but you may be able to convince them (or him) that we should go back to the table. This type of discussion I'm happy to get involved in, but the persistent attempts to misrepresent the outcome of the vote by flawed analyses and counter-analyses are pointless and tiresome. Its also counterproductive in that it poisons the well and makes further discussions towards a compromise solution less likely. It would be much better if we could put the flawed whole data analysis thing to bed once and for all and instead focus on the more substantive issue. Rockpock  e  t  19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't defined the voters sufficiently. Any talk like you have is just a bag of...! smarties working over time. Find some real information and conclude from there. Conclude from speculation? Only if thereis no way to gather evidence. I said, they dont all say they are Irish or not on their pages including me so you are all talking poopie woosies if you didn't go and ask anyone. Nobody asked me thanks very much. Once again we will not be having my vote interpreted in any way except that which I can tell you straight out what it is. Ask me. ~ R.T.G 18:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry lads. I cannot be solid with you if the north cannot be in Ireland even if they are the most blackest protestants in all the world or even if Ireland is nothing but a bunch of lunatics. I am telling you they are both that and more. Ireland is only around about one thing even if there are things in it, things on it, things out of it, this thing, that thing and even other things. Let me tell you something, if you want to count the Irish votes and the British votes you better count the Irish and the British, including those who dont say "I AM A THIS IS ME" on their page or you are just telling a load of lies, which is probably true but let's sort it out. Ask me on my talk page "Are you Irish Mr Voter?" I will say... Blank or Blanks ~ R.T.G 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarify & simplify, please. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

All the analsys offered up so far claiming to have shown systemic bias is utter junk science, because it attempts to support that assertion based on polling figures that suggests that Ireland has a real world population of 35 million compared to Britain!. It doesn't get simpler than this for explaining why all of this is utter bollocks if people don't do anything more complicated to even out the alleged bias than basic counting, before they start flinging around the accusations of a British imposition. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I happen to think that your argument is utter bollox cos what your suggestion wouldn't do is explain why the apparent skew in the "British" votes which is the only comment I made, based on percentages. And weighting each vote against relative populations for each country (which I think is what you're suggesting) wouldn't change that.  In fact, it would probably result in F *not* winning on anything except the British voters count.  --HighKing (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good because its not meant to explain the skew (that falls under the rather obiovus starting assumptions that nobody is disputing). However, if you do do the maths, rather than just postulate, you will see that there was no net effect of the British and Irish bias on the actual outcome of the poll, because they pretty much cancelled each other out. What you are suggesting is, when we exclude the bias you don't like, but keep the bias you do like, then rather unsurprisingly, the preferred Irish option wins. That I am afraid is not excluding systemic nationalistic bias to ensure the NPOV is met. MickMacNee (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just more bollox I'm afraid. When we exclude both British and Irish votes, then E wins.  I've posted various combo's in the section below.  Not that I think it's worth the ether the bytes are taking up....but I just got a little tired of everyone quoting RA's analysis to justify all sorts of nonsense and that nothing made any difference to the outcome.  --HighKing (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Er no, because simply excluding both Irish and British votes is not how you ensure NPOV either, because you are simply removing votes, not bias. Ensuring NPOV is about properly weighting opinions, not censoring them. MickMacNee (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to show NPOV, that's the point. Your statement that "there was no net effect of the British and Irish bias on the actual outcome of the poll" is incorrect, since clearly there was, as can be demonstrated by looking at the other votes.  --HighKing (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, the 'net' refers to bias, not raw unadjusted votes. There is a difference. As of right now, all you have shown is how the net effect of bias would manifest itself in the vote if Ireland was theoretically half the size of Britain. Which is a nice thought experiment, but it does nothing for ensuring the NPOV has been shown on Wikipedia. Which is after all what is being claimed has been ignored in this poll. I would also point out here since you mention other votes, given the existence of the Irish diaspora, and the actual proven systemic bias of Wikipedia editors (go to ITN/C any day of the week), the 'other nationalities' totals very likely also carry a systemic bias, and probably would not represent the neutral middle ground between the British and Irish viewpoint either without proper adjustment. But by then we really would be into unverifiable data territory. MickMacNee (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It took me a while to understand your point but I think I get it. You're making the point that there were only twice as many British voters as Irish voters, even though in population terms there are many times more British than Irish.  You're also making the point that we tend to only get "interested" people voting anyway, in which case all the voting blocs are likely manifesting some bias in any case.  I'm not disagreeing with you.  That's how voting works, and a "bias" leads to the vote declaring a winner.  Wouldn't be much point otherwise.  And we both agree that analysis of this data based on nationality is inherently flawed.  What I'd accept is for editors here to desist trotting out RA's analysis to justify everything from vote tampering to snowball result to struck votes not making any difference anyway.  If we simply accept that the analysis is flawed (but not so much that it can't be used as a trend indicator) and see that some of the things that are being said *might* actually be rooted in some truth, maybe we can get this process back on track.  Maybe.  If things haven't been damaged beyond repair.  Personally, I think they have..... --HighKing (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not saying this poll cannot be analysed to see if NPOV has been met. What I am saying is the flawed way in which it is being done at the moment, in order to show that the British bias is forcing an imposition of a result, is frankly bullcrap junk science. If it is actualy done properly, then the figures presented as proof actually show there was no net effect of bias on the poll. That is not saying bias does not exist, because the two concepts are totally different. The reason we cannot get this far in the discussion and instead have this tedious reposting by Sarah, is because the 'conclusion' of the flawed analysis just so happens to look right to the people making the claims, because they have absolutely zero objectivity in the matter. MickMacNee (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I could not accept that anyone has a clear perspective of each voters disposition. The number of voters who say clearly on their userpage "I am from XXX", for instance, are few and far between let alone counting those with fair ties to the island north or south. There is a lot of flags and a lot of "I live here" but there is next to nothing about background and reasons for interest in naming the Ireland articles. How can you have a serious debate about what the Irish said and what the British said, what voters are relevant and how, when you don't know enough. Don't forget some folk from Timbuctoo could carry an irish pasport and we just don't know why they are voting until we get a response from them. ~ R.T.G 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll only contribute to this discussion to clarify some points about my "subsets". Like HighKing, Rockpocket and other point out, calculations of "British" or "Irish" subsets are unreliable - we don't know who's Irish or who's British. I did an early tally of Irish and then British votes in response to Sarah's hogwash tallies. Neither of those should be taken seriously - they are a best a gauge of British and Irish opinion, at worst completely off target.

After the poll closed, I ran a another subset: members of WP:IECOLL. That is the only subset that I would stand over since that is the only one that is reliable - membership of WP:IECOLL is a defined thing: if your name is on the list, your a member, if it's not, your not.

It doesn't matter who does the counting, subset of Irish or British voters are unreliable - don't read much into them. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is quite an easy task to determine the nationality/domicile of many editors here at Wikipedia. Some errors could creep into the identification process, but as explained earlier once there is no bias in the identification process, errors on either side would tend to cancel each other, and would be consistent with statistical theory + 'the laws of chance'. Tfz     13:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to point out here that while it may be interesting to understand how the Irish and British votes broke down, as soon as the intent was there to take this to a poll for anyone (within certain bounds) to participate in, the results show what Wikipedia editors as a whole want to see for the naming issues, ignoring the bounds of Irish/British/other designations. I'm sure there's a good psychological/ethnicity study here but for the purposes of what this collaboration is supposed to be doing, this is now a red herring. --M ASEM (t) 14:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So Masem, please could you do us all a favour and just close this talk page to further discussion of the shoal of red herrings? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

F did not win amongst Irish editors (which is the most relevant point to emerge here)

 * Absolutely disagree with Masem. Your censorship of the exposure of the British nationalist basis of the support for "RoI" skewed the subsequent vote so we have learned nothing except that the vast majority of Irish Editors don't want the article at "RoI" and that for the vast majority of British Editors that is the preferred location. Sarah777 (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Under any regime this poll would be null and void. The poll was rigged from the outset to deliver a particular result. That aspect becomes more certain with every lame excuse lodged. Tfz     15:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said above, this is just tedious reposting of the same flawed claims by Sarah, who cannot and will not understand why she has no case, and will simply dissappear again while it is explained again in great detail for her, only to reappear and come out with the same again. And on and on and on. MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you point me to that explanation that I "have no case". I certainly don't intend hanging around responding to the same old dross over and over. "the vast majority of Irish Editors don't want the article at "RoI" and that for the vast majority of British Editors that is the preferred location". This is true; and when I see any rational counter to that I'll reply. But I'm not interesting in dealing with waffling, obfuscation and endless peddling of British pov. Sarah777 (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You tell me how NPOV = Irish editors get to choose the name of their state article, and I'll point you to the kilobytes of discussion you keep ignoring (clue: it's all right above this repost) that shows why your astounding revelation the British and Irish people have different views, had absolutely no effect on the poll (that is, if the goal is to determine the actual NPOV view, not your odd interpretation of what NPOV means.) MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah's claims that "the vast majority of Irish Editors don't want the article at "RoI", but the closest she can get to proving that is to demonstrate that in a set of votes by editors claiming to be Irish, RoI did not command a majority of first-preference votes. That's a very different thing to what she claims. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This British vote (British only - Winner F (1st count :-)) swung everything, like a ginormous planet entering our solar system, pulling literally everything else from its orbit. Now study that piece of data a little deeper. Notice how F wins on the first count, now that's an example of 200% proof undiluted POV at its very best. Also I notice much obfuscation by some of those defending the poll outcome. Tfz     16:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So the fact that a choice you don't like won more votes than the other options is evidence of a huge bias? That's a novel way of looking at any sort of ballot.
 * I presume you are campaigning to overturn the results of the 2007 general election in Dublin Central, where Bertie Ahern won 1.84 quotas? By logic of planet Tfz, that indicates a horribly skewed poll where the result should be annulled. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice red herring . You know I objected to the poll, and strongly objected to UK being the only other country project being directly notified. I wanted all EU country projects notified, and it would have been so simple to grant that request, but that was not done, why? Tfz     17:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a red herring at all. You cite the existence of a result you don't like as evidence of a flawed poll, so the  comparison is valid.
 * As to which country projects should be notified, the two chosen were those which had been in dispute over the name. If the notification was to be more widespread, why select only the EU states rather the rest of the globe?  Ireland has much closer ties to the USA than, for example, to Bulgaria. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I wanted the rest of the globe and got very strong objections from the F camp. I compromised for EU, and imo was mislead into thinking that would be done. On discovery that it was not done, I then cancelled my vote. Also I wanted USA, added it to the list, and my edit was reverted. I can supply diffs for all these. On another note I see the edit warring has been already started by a disruptive editor here . Tfz     18:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In 2011, all the Projects-in-question shall be notified. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. We need to look into the conduct of this poll first. That could take until 2011. Sarah777 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Till 2011? That's believable. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

F did not win amongst Irish editors if, and only if, you only count first preference votes. By that same token, A, B, C, D, and E didn't win amongst Irish voters either. This, however, was a STV poll. And using STV, amongst Irish editors, F did win. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's wrong. I posted various combos above, but using STV among the Irish vote, C wins.  In fact, only by including British votes in any combo does F ever win.  --HighKing (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, British 'point of view' overwhelmed the whole vote, as predicted. Tfz     18:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be better to assume good faith and that British editors, Irish editors and editors of all other nationalities voted on the perceived merits rather of the relevant arguments rather than trying to impose some sort of nationalistic POV. If all discussions were defined by the general preference of editors nationalities then I'd imagine everything would be "USA POV" but that obviously isn't the case (e.g. Aluminium not Aluminum). It is clear that a reasonable proportion of voters from each nationality ranked each of the most popular options highly, for example I don't think anyone's disputing that in a first past the post system F would have won among those identified as "Irish voters". The vote could be analysed to death in any way, EFD or CFD were both voting patterns and might indicate a preference to have the state at Republic of Ireland but a different system for disambiguation - or they might not - nobody knows, as nobody knows what nationality most of the voters really are (apart from those who don't self identify a userbox is hardly a passport). Having said that Wikipedia is not a democracy for good reason, polls and votes are subject to personal bias, tampering, and on Wikipedia highly dependent on who notices and decides to turn up. To quote policy: "They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision. Elections and votes are only endorsed for things that take place outside Wikipedia proper, such as when electing the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee." - throwing out the poll is an option, all polls and votes are a form of compromise on Wikipedia, interpreting it in ways that it was never meant to be interpreted on (making groups retrospectively ineligible, making second preferences discount first preferences, etc.) should not be. If your preferred option is C then maybe the best way to try and achieve a compromise would be to write a good article or better draft of an all Ireland article (as would have been located at Ireland had C won) good content is a better way to persuade people - especially those not entrenched in this ongoing discussion - on Wikipedia than petty bickering. Guest9999 (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If that was addressed to me, then obviously you haven't been reading my previous posts. Not that I expect you to be doing that. Tfz     00:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're incorrect. Using STV, among Irish voters, F wins, and D is second. C gets eliminated in round 4. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you want to handpick a subset, you can get almost any result...you already know the data I'm basing this on. :-)  Just hammers home the fallacy of anyone even attemping to push one of these arguments based on this type of flawed analysis.  And I know we're probably not even disagreeing cos I know you agree with that.  --HighKing (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed :-) <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey HighKing, your data is either correct, or it is not. Is it correct? Either way it doesn't ameliorate other associated issues. Tfz     13:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My data is correct and is based on the complete list on the closed (but tampered) ballot.  --HighKing (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've restored User:DrKiernan/Ireland article names. The proportion of "Irish" and "British" "!votes" for F is the same, if you count people identifying with the island of Ireland as Irish. DrKiernan (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

the Irelands within Wikipedia
(Sheepishly admitting), I've forgotten where we last discussed this, so I'm continuing here. I see no problem with re-direct linking to Republic of Ireland throughout Wikipedia. Example: Republic of Ireland|Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, yes, but there are times when ROI is better. I support this. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with any of the proposals, whichever is selected is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we need to address the main problem before we address collateral effects of British pov being imposed. Cart before horse etc. Just look at the farce unfolding at the "roads" articles. They now want to stop us calling Irish national roads...well....Irish national roads! Makes them sound too important it would seem. Even the most important road in Ireland (North or South) must share a dab with a rustic English motorway while any old cart-track in Britain is reckoned to be the "primary" usage. Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah, that's an outrageous untruth, and I have no idea why you write such nonsense when you know perfectly well that it's a bare-faced lie.
 * It wasn't a British editor who objected to that, it was an Irish editor (me), and I set out the reasons for my concern at Talk:National primary road -- it's a question of which is the common usage. I quite agree with you about the problems on motorways, and if you paid attention you'd notice that we are on the same side there ... so I have no idea what brings you to falsely accuse me of thinking that "national road" sounds too important. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Particularly when 'all roads lead to Rome'. Seriously though, I've no quarrel with 'Irish national roads'. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Q; Why did the Roman chicken cross the road?
 * A; She was afraid someone would caesar! ha!   Tfz     20:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Groan. Jack forbes (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I give up, why? GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding the dispute over the legitimacy of the primary naming poll, is there a central discussion over the application of this to the naming of other articles and also usage in articles? If not, perhaps here would be the place to start it; it would seem prudent to try and reach a consensus over this issue. Rockpock  e  t  21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the place, Rock. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. The here is an opening gambit, then. I would propose the following guidelines for usage within article text:


 * In reference to the island of Ireland, we should primarily use the term Ireland piped to Ireland: e.g. Ireland
 * In reference to the state of Ireland, we should primarily use the term Ireland piped to Republic of Ireland: e.g. Ireland
 * In articles that refer to both the island and the state in the text, or where there is reasonable potential for confusion for the naive reader, disambiguation is required. In those cases, editors should use their judgment as to which form of disambiguation should be used to describe each entity. Examples include the following (though these should not be considered exhaustive).
 * For the state (in no particular order):
 * The Republic of Ireland
 * The Ireland, the state,
 * The state of Ireland
 * For the entire island (in no particular order):
 * The island of Ireland
 * Ireland, the island,
 * Ireland, including both the state of the same name and Northern Ireland,
 * There does not need to be consistency of usage between or even within articles. Good grammar, context, and ease of understanding should guide usages rather than any ideological adherence to one descriptive term over another.
 * Thoughts? Rockpock  e  t  21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm alright with those proposals. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great in principle, Rock ... but as ever it will come down whether editors can agree on what amounts to "reasonable potential for confusion for the naive reader". My experience of all related discussions over the last few years is that range of interpretations is so great that on any given article you'll have some editors arguing that the potential for confusion is zero, and other who'll argue that it's 100%. That's why I suggested above that we try to work on some examples of how to handle these issues, but there were no takers. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but all we can do is bring the horses to water, we cannot make them drink. Nothing is going to change the fact some editors will use WP as a battleground for their own political views for as long as they are able to do so. The only way we will stop that is the deal with the editors themselves. I think all we can do is put the guidelines in place and then hope reasonable editors follow them. I'm not sure what else is possible within our remit. Rockpock  e  t  23:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment; Nothing new here, it looks like Status Quo. Nevertheless I cannot participate is this exercise because it's based on the lie that the poll was 'fair and proper', I'm out.  Tfz     22:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The result of the poll would only influence the piped links, which are hidden from view anyway. Therefore this can be solved, in principle, whether the poll is valid or not. If the poll result offends you, pretend the piped links are to whatever article titles you would prefer they were at then comment on this framework. Because the end result shown on the screen is exactly the same. If you don't like this proposal and have a better idea on how to deal with the different entities in articles, lets hear it. Rockpock  e  t  23:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Like this? "Dublin is the capital city of Ireland" ? :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, can we just have one discussion about this? Let's stick to the first discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the second discussion (after here)), but aye, one place, please. BHG is suggesting a subpage, though, which mightn't be a bad idea. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A sub-page is a good idea. Mooretwin (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This naming debate exists on Wikipedia. It does not exist elsewhere. It is, therefor, nothing but original research. Republic is the chosen designation of this state and it is capitalised and titled such as a mark of honour. Original Research. If it boils down to O.R., it goes to sleep at some stage, interesting or not. This is very signifigant and is the way it goes. Let us put it to sleep on this occasion if we can and that means you because a lot of you seem to be hard working contributors, a league beyond me and accept that this nonsense can only be of value on Wikipedia if it can be sourced to a reliable external source including naming debate and resolution without possibility of one-sidedness, ignorance of the sovereign minorities that may or not exist. ~ R.T.G 20:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just proves the blinkered approach of some editors who start by refusing to even acknowledge that something exists, despite pages of evidence to the contrary. But otherwise, yeah, this process has failed.  Let's take it back to Arbcom.  --HighKing (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant as to one's nationality. The Poll is legit & the results stand 'til 2011. Come on ya'll, 'move on'. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If we do not list these things, Highking, they are like watching the Premiership. Sweet FA cos all we have, as you so rightly point out, is pages and pages of impossible nonesense. Everything signifigant should be listed in "verifiable" and "unverifiable" areas. Without that all we have is the start and the start and the start and the start of it. Nothing stopping you from starting a page like that, a non-discussion page and listing things beginning with the appearance of the naming debate outside of wikipedia, God knows we can make use of that page WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Ireland Naming Dispute Evidence. Non-discussion and don't bother to make it somewhere without telling people right here for six months. ~ R.T.G 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward
Ok, we're getting too much bickering and not enough forward progress here.

First, I feel it necessary that we need to assert that the poll results have been concluded and that unless someone has identified significant vote fraud, that the results need to be taken for what there is. That is: arguing about where the poll was advertised (it was put to the Village Pump and CENT, so it's hard to argue that it wasn't widely advertised), arguing about the split between Irish and British voters, and the like is wasting the collaboration's time. I'm aware of the issues, but I cannot see how this could be considered to invalidate a poll with >200 editors input. I'm also aware of what those strongly against the use of the RoI are coming from and can sympathize, but to be honest, the evidence against using this term is extremely weak compared to the evidence that the term is readily accepted. I'm not trying to judge on the term, but just a fact of this case - if you want to persuade people that we need to stop using this term, we need stronger evidence than what has been given. Counter example: We aren't calling African-Americans by a certain 6-letter word that starts with "n" despite the fact a subgroup of them use it freely among themselves because there's documented evidence that that term is a racial slur. If you find similar evidence for using ROI, then you might persuade the case better. Again, I'm not trying to be biased here, just brutally honest as to why the vote resulted in the way it did). Second, we're getting off track of the remaining issues. I believe these are limited to:
 * How to refer to the island or country in "History of X"-type articles.
 * How to disambiguate other pages that would use (X) as a disambiguation term
 * How to refer to the island or country (and other related terms) in any article relating to them.

My advice on these two as starting points, but please do not take these as "you must agree to these", are listed below. --M ASEM (t) 16:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that with most of the Irish participants having quit this process, you might have thought to do a head scratch and a rethink? Bulldozing on is just proving that this process was never about some actual compromise. Similarly ignoring every single question I have ever put to you on process and decisions has certainly alienated me from the process.  And absolutely zero attempt has been made to try to get participants who quit back to discussions.  Does this strike you as the right way to resolve this issue?  --HighKing (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, your comment above of the evidence against using this term is extremely weak compared to the evidence that the term is readily accepted calls your even handedness of this procedure into question, especially now with hindsight of your non-acceptance of removals of valid votes. Sorry.  But that comment has done it for me.  I'm now withdrawing also.  --HighKing (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What "valid votes" were removed that should not have been? There was one that was determined was improperly removed which I restored, but that one vote did not change any outcome.  Plus if you're asking questions amid the rest of all this going on, it's going to be really hard for me to find them.
 * Also, I'm not biasing anything against or for the term ROI, but being as honest as I can be as a moderator - those that wanted ROI to be used brought volumes of sources, and those that were against ROI brought "I don't like it" statements. It's not my decision to decide which side has more weight but I can tell you unbiasly that were I to make the decision alone, there's very little to consider based on that.  Remember: I didn't vote, I'm not making any final decision - only guiding people to get to a final one based on the consensus they come up with, and if that is overwhelmingly in one direction, its time to move on.  --M ASEM  (t) 19:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There were "I don;t like it" statements on both sides Masem, and evidence on both sides including much which was out of context. OK its time to move on, but I hadn't expected you to declare your hand on the subject like that. I think it points up the need for moderators to have an understanding of the wider issues when they are working with sensitive subjects. -- Snowded  TALK  19:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There was also the vote of the alleged sock which was illegally removed. I asked for an explanation 3 times, including on your Talk page, so let's not imagine that the questions were lost in the noise.  But it says a lot, and personally I'm disgusted, that you'd denigrate entire months of work by many editors to a simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, while praising the pro-ROI for bringing "volumes of sources"!!!  I'm dumbstruck.  Perhaps Names of the Irish state might be a good place for you to start, seeing as you've obviously paid no attention to this topic to date.  Or why bother....just keep bulldozing and ignoring.....it's clear to the rest of us that this process has been overtaken in order to underline the status quo by making it into a single issue and using British majority to enforce their POV.  Which, BTW, is another question I've asked (3 times) which you have ignored.  Odd that you'd say that a vote wouldn't make any difference either.  But an illegally removed vote here, an illegally removed vote there, (and I haven't actually checked if there's any others, they're just the ones I noticed), not to mention the votes struck out for various reasons, all make a difference.  Odd too that you state overwhelmingly in one direction as well as arguing about the split between Irish and British voters, and the like is "wasting the collaboration's time" just when it was shown just how much of a swing and effect the British votes brought.  Every other combination of voting, excluding British, or excluding British and Irish, etc, brings in a different result, which is not F.  And I know it's a long time ago now, but if you recall, the British POV majority is the whole reason we went to ArbCom in the first place.  Bah!  I'm out.  I'll wait till this gets back to ArbCom because for sure, you're not interested in actually getting an agreement in place, or bringing the "sides" together.  You're just being used as a tool for the majority.  --HighKing (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats unfair, Masem only suggested a possible way forward because things seemed to have stalled, and it was a basic framework, not a ruling. Theres things from both sides that people would not be too keen on. Walking away and now is just going to make a reasonable compromise harder to get. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did explain the removal of the vote from the user found to be a sockpuppet - as because it was agreed ahead of time that socking would not be appropriate for any voter. And yes, there are "i like it" arguments from the pro-ROI side, but they've also provided significant amount of evidence that the term is used freely by the government and press, among other things. If I was arbitrating this case, it would be hard to rule against this based on evidence; however, I'm moderating and suggesting that if the anti-ROI side want to alter how that vote came out and try for consensus, they need similar hard evidence.
 * Also, I don't see anything pro-British or anti-Irish or whatever in the vote; the results can be analyzed that way, but the setup and execution of the poll was run in a way to get Wikipedia-wide consensus, since this group could not come to one on their own. That's what ArbCom was seeking - either a consensus or a majority on the issue - and that's what its getting.  You can break down the numbers a million ways for all sorts of interesting cultural evaluations, but the end of the day, the naming of these articles needs to meet what the WP-wide consensus is, not what Irish editors or British editors believe it should be.  And that goes back to the "strength of argument" issue. I know there was one editor insisting every support statement needed evidence, but I asserted that the best we can ask for is the strong suggestion of evidence as this was meant to plead to the potential voters and thus influence them.  Those pro-ROI has links after links to show their case, but the anti-ROI had little else beyond their conviction to their statements.  This is being brutally honest here, and it is important to understand that that vote likely came out like it did in part to the evidence presented. --M ASEM  (t) 22:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have decided not to participate in this project any longer, so I'll keep this rebuttal short. Sure, you can break the results down a million ways, but until I actually did the work, lost of pro-F supporters (and now you) were very happy to trot out the fact that "a single vote wouldn't make a difference" and "there was an overwhelming consensus" based on incomplete analysis.  Now that another analysis shows very clearly a number of trends, with the British trend very much out of line with the rest of the votes, now you decide it doesn't matter.  I never ever pushed the British POV argument, but after the analysis, my right eyebrow did raise slightly.  I was surprised.  And since then I've made the point that actually, this point has merit. Moving on, you say that as because it was agreed ahead of time that socking would not be appropriate for any voter.  I made the case at the time, that the vote was cast *before* the editor even created a sock account, which he used on a series of completely different articles.  You say it was agreed that socking would not be appropriate for any voter, and it was very clear that in this case, the vote was validly cast and should have stood.  So that's two votes that you successfully managed to remove.  Then there's the issue of the outrageous bullying, not to mention your attempt to have Sarah777 banned by an Arbcom ruling on a completely unrelated matter.  You say Arbcom was seeking either a consensus or a majority on the issue, which I agree with, but they did *not* say to break the issue up into single-item issues starting with a "vote" on the article.  This could only result in one outcome, which is the same outcome we've had here for years - a title enforced by British voters.  Where was it decided to split from a broad vote on a number of issues in to series of single-issue votes?  (BTW, this is the 4th?5th? time I've asked you this question).  But the most damning statement you've made is that the pro-ROI had links after links to show their case, and by implication the anti-ROI had none.  I am shocked you make this statement, as moderator.  It explains why you have ignored question after question, why you've pandered to the F voters in their bullying and ballot tampering (oh, it made no difference you say.  Only because I pointed it out after, which should have been your job, and I haven't checked everything.  Have you?  Should I dig deeper?), why you've allowed valid votes to be struck and reluctantly added an undeniable vote back in (also shows how poor your checking of the votes actually was), but left another valid vote out (the sock vote it valid according to the rules.  It does not state that a "future" sock have their vote denied) it explains your reaction to Sarah777 (btw, noteworthy how you failed to sanction *any* other editor for continuing the very practice you decided to report), and it explains how now you still try to denigrate any discussion and try to bulldoze your way through.  Well - it'll be easier now.  You've personally helped to ensure that nearly all of the Irish voters have left this project.  I'm angry that such an opportunity has been wasted.  I'm disappointed we've wasted so much time on a process that Arbcom did not sanction.  And we've been let down by a poor moderator who doesn't understand the issues, has obviously not read much on the issue, who doesn't keep up with discussions, and who has now shows their partisan colours.  --HighKing (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Socking is socking. Also, that user was indicated in questionable behavior in an earlier country naming dispute (macadonia, IIRC). Also, there was discussion about keeping or removing that sock, and there were many more voices that believed the intent of the "no socks" was any socking activity, not just related to Ireland.  If it wasn't removed, there would be someone else in your place saying that the vote is invalid because the sock was kept. 1) I chose to go with what the consensus suggested on that, and 2) it makes no difference to the final poll at the end of the day.  (also remember that I readded the vote that was improperly removed)
 * Arbcom's ruling asked this collaboration to come up with a process to determine consensus or majority. When I was brought on board (this after this project had exhausted the first three moderators, btw), the intent I got was that people wanted a poll on the main article names and to get that done before moving onto other things. Thus, this collaboration opted to split the task of naming the articles to a vote before doing anything else.  When editors brought up trying to make an all inclusive solution poll, it was rejected by the rest.  Thus, the process was not decided by me, but by the collaboration.  And it falls exactly in line with what ArbCom was looking for.
 * Sarah's actions were causing non-IECOLL participants to withdraw their vote. That was an issue, because when the poll turns to all of WP to get their input, it should be expected that all we are doing is getting their input and not profiling them. That was disconcerting to me, which is why I raised the issue after I asked Sarah to stop, and the case bore out that there was nothing necessary actionable against it. Now, I know others after the vote have put up their profiles, (and I'm sure tracking internally to themselves during it) but that's what I did ask for: I didn't want people trying to analyze the results until the vote was over. Furthermore, those results don't attempt to positively ID each voter to their nationality, but simply blur the answers, summarizing as a whole.  That is not as questionable as what Sarah was doing back at the start of the poll.
 * I could have said something about the evidence difference between the pro and anti-ROI's before the poll, as I could see then there was already an imbalance, but I couldn't without being partial. I tried to help write language that showed that the term ROI was disputed (at the same time, some considering it just fine) without going into details, but both sides wanted to insert more and more language and that just wore that down. The only reason I'm saying this now is that with the vote concluding and ROI considered to be acceptable, the only chance that those that are strongly against the use of that term are going to have is to find better evidence that it should be avoided as to strike up more discussion and consensus on the issue. I care less which way it goes, just that "consensus or majority" is found.
 * And most importantly, the fact that before and after ArbCom that the isolated circle of Irish and British editors that effectively were part of the IECOLL group could not even come close to a consensus on the names by themselves is an epitome of the larger problem. My reading of the discussion prior to me coming on as a moderator and before the poll was that most members seem set that the decision was effectively a Judgment of Solomon, to be decided by WP at large.  This included Irish and British-aligned editors.  That approach is consistent with what ArbCom asked for, and certainly what was going to be the case if the second remedy - the result determined by selected arbitrators - if the first remedy failed.  I tried to see if there was any chance of consensus but there was nothing - there was an impossible chasm to cross.  Thus turning to get the opinion of the majority of all WP was the only remaining option before going back to ArbCom and getting them to make that decision for you.
 * I'm sorry if you think there's a failure here, but I don't see anything that could have been done differently to ultimaately get to this point. The poll was inevitable, the poll was run as fairly as possible, and with the poll that was ran, even including those votes removed voluntarily and restoring any questionable votes (just the 1 sock), there's still a obvious answer as to what the majority of WP want to see as the names of these articles. Yes, there are steps that I would have changed knowing how this came out (I would have, for example, kept votes private until the end), but I do not believe that I did anything to bias the vote but only to get the vote to actually happen as demanded by the consensus of the collaboration. That's what this group needed was a moderator, because as it was, the group by themselves could not move forward at all. --M ASEM  (t) 02:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I'm even bothering at this point. But at least you're starting to discuss stuff now Masem...
 * You state Socking is socking and that the editor was involved in questionable behavior in an earlier country naming dispute. Both those points are *not* in the rules that were decided.  You say the intent of the "no socks" was any socking activity - not true.  The intent was to prevent multiple votes.  You say I chose to go with what the consensus suggested on that - again not true.  Point out the consensus.  I fear you were more willing to listen to the noisiest single editor than the number of quietly spoken who agreed that the vote should be reinstated.  Your point that it makes no difference to the final poll at the end of the day is pretty damning of your attitude and running of the poll.
 * You state that "this collaboration opted to split the task of naming the articles to a vote before doing anything else.". Not quiet the whole truth.  This collaboration was preparing to simplify the choices involved in preparing a solution.  You state "When editors brought up trying to make an all inclusive solution poll, it was rejected by the rest".  Where was it rejected?  And more importantly, where was the consensus to make it a series of single issues?  Once again, I believe you listened to the pro-status-quo editors (who undeniably are in the majority) and ignored any dissenting voice.  For example, you mentioned briefly that you were aware that an editor called for all statements to use references.  That, btw, was an anti-status-quo editor who subsequently quit because of this issue - which is ironic considering you believe the pro-status-quo editors produced more references.  You say that "the process was not decided by me, but by the collaboration" - again I've asked for you to point out this "decision".  Point out the consensus to reach it.  Finally, you say "it falls exactly in line with what ArbCom was looking for".  I disagree.  This is a botch-job, with most editors alienated because you have failed to be inclusive, and to give due weight to the arguements of minority being drowned by the majority.
 * You state the you took action because Sarah's actions caused non-IECOLL participants to withdraw their vote. I recall, on this Talk page, an editor being called a sock, and subsequently withdrawing their vote, and you did nothing.  Double standards?
 * You state that you could have said something about the evidence difference between the pro and anti-ROI's before the poll. Actually, that was your job.  To shepherd the process, to make sure it's fair, to ensure good conduct from all.  Instead you've come out after the poll, siding with the pro-F side.  So perhaps it wasn't really in your best interests to say anything before the poll.  Perhaps if the sock had been an "F" vote, it would never have been deleted.  Perhaps if the bullying had been anti-F some blocks would have been handed out.  Perhaps if the ballot was tampered by an anti-F voter, more blocks would have been handed out.  Your "odd" behaviour and ignoring of questions throughout is starting to be seen in an altogether different light.
 * Finally, you state I tried to see if there was any chance of consensus but there was nothing - there was an impossible chasm to cross. That is very wrong and most editors here would disagree.  I recall we nearly had consensus on what was referred to as "Mooretwins Proposal", and IMHO we were just working out the actual details.
 * Given that I've already quit this process, the best I can hope is that you re-examine your actions, and re-examine your continued desire to bulldoze this process through. You've alienated all opposition to the status quo to the extent that we've pretty much all resigned from the process.  When I look back, much of this process was poorly managed (not really managed at all in fact), littered with name calling, incivility, and bullying and debates built with straw men arguments.  We deserved a proper structure for proper debate.  We deserved to get a moderator who was genuinely unbiased.  We deserved a process where the majority-enforced status quo would be balanced by weight of arguments and references.  It's a shame.  Not all the blame lies on your shoulders.  Some things you could certainly have done better, and you'll know them better than anyone, but on the whole, there are certain individual editors in this process that have done themselves and their "cause" no favours.  It's likely we'll now never get back to Mooretwins proposal, or even get close.  Why is that?  Because we've now "exhausted" an Arbcom process, despite many editors calling "foul" on the whole thing and withdrawing, and a poor moderator who let the loudest voices and majority make decisions, even though that is why we were here in the first place.  Sheesh...  --HighKing (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This process was doomed before it began. Given "obtain consensus or majority", consensus goes. so there was a vote.  All that proved was that there are more British editors.  An unfortunate consequence is that there are hurts and hostilities.  With regret, the process (if it can be so called) is not "moving forward" ClemMcGann (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I endorse this view, and that of HighKing above regarding the conduct of the polling process. As a native-born U.S. citizen, I am dumbfounded that such an obvious use of a formalism, WP:NC, to trump simple common sense (is there a blue link for that?) through a tyranny of the majority, to avoid calling Ireland Ireland has occurred for as many years as it has here. But, as a 34 month veteran of Wikipedia, I don't see it as surprising. There has to be a softening of stance by the British editors, Masem, period, before this issue is ever resolved. Despite fairly widespread advertisement, and five weeks of discussion, this important issue only received about five times the votes of a typical RfA discussion, something which receives little notice and is obscure to many editors. That indicates to me that most people would be happy with either outcome and don't much care. For the ones who do and joined this project, it has taken hours away from editing to prove what Clem already knows. From outside, it appears as if there is a prize of respect on a high shelf that the majority simply refuses to climb upon a step ladder to reach. They are so slavishly and foolishly in fear of naming an article Ireland because they think it diminishes the status of their enclave in Ulster. That is plain to me. But you, Masem, instead encourage that behavior by exaggerating the arguments in your concluding observations in an utterly biased way. Masem, the bizarre "nigger" reference at the opening of your "Moving Forward" statement was incomprehensibly foolish and makes it hard for me to agree with any defense against charges of your own bias you can muster, however eloquent. To move forward, I think you should seek assistance from an uninvolved admin and step aside. Sswonk (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The socking restriction didn't spell out either way if it should have been restricted to the actual naming poll or not. That was a mistake which is a lesson learned. Discussion occurred, and it was shown that the consensus wanted any sock action dealt with, thus clarifying it.  We could have avoided that, but that's how it happened unfortunately.
 * I can't point to any decision on that part of the process because it goes on and on for pages of the archive. That's half the problem here is that this collaboration, even before I got here, has stated so many things over and over that it's very difficult to find rhyme and reason to the process.  Again, I stress that ArbCom was looking for this group to find a reasonable process to assess consensus or majority to get the article names.
 * If that occurred, I missed it among everything else going on - again because of the volume this group is putting out. Please point me to where that happened.  (But again, I asked that only I deal with determining improper votes; accusations of socking should have been brought to me first, and that's a mistake learned).
 * I'm a moderator, not an arbitrator. Asking the anti-ROI to get more evidence would have show perceived bias to the process. If I was arbitrating, I could have asked or suggested that more evidence be brought, but that's not what I'm here for.  That's not to say there could have been very compelling non-evidence-based arguments for or against the use of ROI (Which is why I insisted on position statements without backing of evidence).
 * I know about the Mooretwin proposal, but when I was brought on as moderator, as I read the discussion, that was in the process of being rejected as a way forward, and already it was editors working on what the ballot for the poll was going to be like. I waited some time to see if there was a likelihood of another consensus coming forward but the only one that did was the intent to use the vote itself.
 * One more comment, is that when you look at what ArbCom decided, it was already determined effectively back there - before I got here - that unless the two sides could come to an agreement that the naming issues were going to be solved by a WP-wide process, and that automatically means that there were likely going to be more British participants than Irish ones - but moreso, there would be more English-speaking participants than either of those represented by those countries. That is, the end result (barring consensus before the poll) would be what editors across WP wanted, not what Irish or British necessarily wanted. If you feel this aspect itself was a problem, then you need to go back to the original ArbCom decision and call foul on it. --M ASEM  (t) 14:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The socking restriction was put there to stop cheating on this poll. Nowhere was the "character" of an editor brought into the equation.  You ignored all my calls to reinstate, and ignored specific requests for clarification both here and on your Talk page, thereby restricting any proper debate on the issue.  That was wrong.  In addition, many editors on this Talk page agreed that the vote should be reinstated.  If anything, consensus was for reinstatement.
 * You can't point to one, because there simply wasn't one. The process was bulldozed by a majority of pro-ROI editors.  The process was always dealing with a comprehensive solution from the start, and for months.  That is what we signed up for.  Why would we agree to break it up into single-issue votes that would just be enforced by the obvious British majority?  The answer is we wouldn't, and we didn't.
 * You're a moderator appointed to oversee the process to ensure it was kept civil, above board, fair, rational, and could be stood over, and that each editor could be included and involved in trying to reach a consensus. Given the fact you've declared your hand on where you stood, many of your questionable actions (or non-actions) show bias and unfair treatment.
 * Given that you know about the Mooretwin proposal, I'm surprised you state it was being rejected. It wasn't.  Some details were being discussed and worked out, but it wasn't rejected.  And it was the bones of a comprehensive solution.  In fact, if you check the archives, *every* single attempt we tried was a comprehensive solution.  That is why I'm saying that this single-issue vote was not agreed, and no consensus was achieved for having it.  If you hadn't been ignoring me, you'll see I (and others) have made this point right from the start.  It's not new.
 * You say that unless the two sides could come to an agreement that the naming issues were going to be solved by a WP-wide process. That isn't in the Arbcom ruling.  The Goals are stated as Actively to seek the cooperation of people who are uninvolved or hold different POVs as specified under membership, which you utterly failed.  And the original Arbcom process was to appoint 3 moderators.  Two were appointed - you and Xavexgoem.  As it is, now that you've tipped your hand as to your bias, it's clear that the non-appointment of another moderator has also seriously affected this process given that Xavexgoem failed to participate at all.  And just so that we're clear, the Arbcom decision never mentions a WP-wide process.  Ever.  The evidence page contains many statements and much by way of links (hopefully not new to you).  The most wide-ranging decision was that the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision.  Nothing about a WP-wide process.  Looking at the Remedies, the scope of where this process is at is off the charts.  --HighKing (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Before I go hunting for it, is the list of places where the notification of the poll appeared available anywhere? I remember that there was also some concern that notifications were not done sufficiently. I know I was notified at the MOS talk page. Where were the others? This inquiry is regarding your claim that a WP-wide consensus was reached. To be fair, I think that unfortunately is also under objection and is unlikely given that the poll was not advertised project-wide but arbitrarily. Sswonk (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:VPP and WP:CENT --M ASEM  (t) 01:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps its best if we all just agree no further changes to anything and go bacck to the previous status quo. Lock the current article names in place for 2 years and then try again then. Its clear alot of people involved in this debate have other more pressing matters to deal with, its been so quiet on here in recent weeks. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Moderators shouldn't take sides BW, before during or after the event. I wouldn't go as far as HighKing, but I am disturbed by a false statement which denigrates once side and complements another.  Its unfortunate, hopefully it will be withdrawn  -- Snowded  TALK  20:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Masem has been reasonably fair throughout. Theres been countless claims of British POV pushing which could have been stopped but were allowed. Which statement do you want him to withdraw, im not sure which u mean is unfair. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No matter, i see the bit you are talking about, im sure Masem didnt mean it in the way you are both thinking, he was just generalising a bit too much. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is fact though, and the history of this proves it to be the case that huge amounts of sources and evidence to justify the use of Republic of Ireland was provided by one side, whilst some of the main arguments for not using ROI was that its British POV, something that has been claimed throughout. There was certainly no strong case made for why it should be a disam page, its all been anti ROI and considering we used the type of voting system we did (unlike First past the post which would have helped Republic of Ireland supporters) it was a fair outcome. But as i mentioned before, it seems like we wont get agreement here, lets just lock the articles for 2 years and keep the status quo rather than working on changes, which it appears others will be unwilling to support. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am following this hoping to help out, and I do have a question for you. Is there even a small chance that you, given further resignations from the project and further questions about the viability of Masem's approach, would consider supporting a condition that the "two year lock" be a soft lock, whereby common sense arguments toward a possible renaming might be continued? I never supported a strict "British POV" opposition to RoI, but rather along with a few others at the vote discussion questioned whether "Ireland (state)" or some other dab term isn't simply better than the cumbersome Republic of Ireland. It may be that more than a few British voters, feeling insulted, rallied together to vote against accusations of POV rather than for the status quo, casting a vote for "F" in reaction to the accusations. Thoughts? Sswonk (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Its an interesting thought that claims of British POV were the cause of the outcome rather than British POV itself, however i doubt it was the reason for the outcome. The claims certainly made it harder for myslf and perhaps some others to compromise, but we have seen its not just British voters who voted for F anyway. The only main arguments ive seen is the British POV claim and attempts to prevent future edit wars, i just think clearly some didnt consider that justification for changing something after several years.
 * On this "soft lock", im unsure how exactly that would work. What happens if two months down the same people come back asking for change again. The poll said lock for two years, i think thats going to have to be accepted but rather than trying to sort out the rest of the stuff which people may also have a problem with, we could keep the status quo and save alot of peoples time. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All true. The "soft lock" would simply mean that a lock is in place but that the discussion over article titles might continue, without the argument "this is moot, we can't change it anyway" being a valid one. If, by some stroke of brilliance, some editors could form a strong consensus that minimizes the perception that "Republic of Ireland" is a nasty vestige of colonialism among those who argued vehemently that it was, and Irish, British and other editors such as myself could agree six months from now that RoI could be moved to something else, why not? A "soft lock" simply says, while it was voted on and the status quo prevailed, things could change without having to go into extraordinary arbitration to change the two year restriction. The status quo is given official imprimatur while discussions continue, giving hope to the possibility of a less controversial article title for the state whose capital is Dublin without waiting two years for that hope to be realized. Sswonk (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The intention of the vote was clear, it was a 2 year lock i do not think we can go back on that now and i do not think some people will ever stop blaming this on Britain and claiming British POV, which i find offensive and if the debate is reopened this will be the central theme as it has been throughout. Sorry the time for compromise on the article positions has gone.. 2 year lock is the only way, if in 2 years time things have changed in relation to ROI usage then it may be a different case and change may be justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Endorse everything Masem says above in his rebuttal of HighKing's post. The only people "withdrawing" from IECOLL are those who were anti status quo and who lost the WP-wide vote. (We've had similar "withdrawals"/"I'm retiring" posts before... but they keep coming back...). We could not come to consenus. Arbcom imposed a solution. We wore out two moderators. Eventually, there was consenus (not unanimous, but among a vast majority) for a WP-wide poll. That poll was held. F won by a large margin. With or without the single "future-sock" vote. With or without the votes of BigDunc, Sarah, Sswonk, etc., who struck their votes when it was clear F was going to win. It's an obvious tactic - we lost, therefore the result is invalid. Disappointing. Despite what HighKing says above, F wins among Irish, among British and among WP as a whole.

As an aside - I fail utterly to see how "Republic of Ireland" is more cumbersome than "Ireland (state)" as suggested above. And WP did not vote for a "soft lock". <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bastun, you (once again) state that F won among Irish, British, and WP as a whole, which I've shown to be incorrect.  Without the British vote, F loses.  Without the British and Irish votes, F loses among the wider WP community.  Among the Irish vote, F loses.  In fact, only among a British-only vote, or only by counting British votes into a combination, does F win.  And still some editors claim that the status quo is nothing to do with a British majority?  You have the same data, so it's puzzling why you continue to make this claim.  It's not a tactic I expect from you.  BTW, I've asked specific questions and I note you fail to address many of the questions I asked - most specifically, where was the consensus to hold a series of single-issue votes.  --HighKing (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yawn, we are moving backwards not forward because some people are still crying over a vote which has already finished and been decided. The articles will be locked into place for two years, move on and work on how to deal with these other important matters. Considering the outcome of the poll im prepared to be supportive of a very reasonable agreement on peoples conerns about use of ROI in text and in other titles. But we must accept the vote is over and done with. Republic of Ireland will be the article title for the sovereign state known as Ireland for the next two years. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've not been on much lately. Where have you "shown" it, rather than just claimed it?  I'm going by my STV tally (which you've seen the data for), Valenciano's, and R.A.'s, all of which show F winning, and in R.A's and mine, F winning among Irish voters.  (And again, as pointed out elsewhere on this page, it's ultimately irrelavant anyway).  Also, where are you asking me a series of questions?  And why me, I'm not a moderator?  (And, really, given you've left the project, why are you asking?)  Bottom line we can both agree on, surely, is that F won.  You were not questioning the validity of holding a poll when it was announced, or in its early days.  F would have won regardless of the future-sock vote plus those of the people who withdrew voluntarily, or because they were being profiled by Sarah.  Given that the result is in, you can either accept it and work on getting consensus on the other remaining issues, or do a Ganley and walk away (only to come back later). <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Names in "History of X" type articles

 * I believe that for these, if it is about the island (which may include details of the country but also include other parts including N. Ireland and what existed before the country was in place), then X should be "Ireland" as per the naming poll.
 * If it is strictly about the country, then X should be "Republic of Ireland". --M ASEM (t) 16:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: "Country" is not a word which meaning is "Political state". The island is also the country even if it is divided into four provinces tomorrow. You should call it "Independant state" and then delete what I have said. No other description except "Republic of Ireland" is more accurate. ~ R.T.G 17:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Ireland for the island should be used and ROI for the current sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation Terms
This depends if the term is unambiguously associated with a facet of a country or the government of that country (e.g. "Currency") or may be interpreted as either the country or island (e.g. "Roads")
 * If the term is going to unambiguously be recognized as referring to a country, then the disambiguation should be "(Ireland)".
 * If this is not the case:
 * If the article is strictly focused on the country, then the disambiguation should be "(Republic of Ireland)"
 * If the article includes the island-wide facets, the the disambiguation should be "(Ireland)" --M ASEM (t) 16:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to say that because this Wikipedia counts the island of Ireland as important as the independant state (the republic), we have a need to either describe all which is republic-only as "Republic" so that we can call all which is not-nessecarily-republic-or-NorthernIreland, Ireland, right? Or is it "When and where can we commandeer the islands name for our greed and purpose?" Disambiguation is often a difficult word. It is rarely used in casual speech. ~ R.T.G 17:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going that based on the poll, the average WP recognizes "Ireland" to refer to the island if there are no other contextual hints as to whether the island or country is being described. Now, I'm not against a complete-ROI solution (where any article that is referring to the country gets ROI regardless if it can be mixed up with the island), just that I'm thinking that per general disambiguation approaches, we keep the text there as short as possible. --M ASEM  (t) 17:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Anything related to the state government, the population etc. these are the things it is important to prevent confusion with and these are the things that are going to get you a response. State Government, Population/National or Regional Statistics, anything divided by the border. Ireland = Island. Republic of Ireland = Independant state. Northern Ireland = Northern State, part of UKOGBANI. Ancient history, the correct historical designation applies, example: Hibernia = Hibernia. Only after those two are we down to editor dscretion and mention of specifics "What is the definition of currency?" or "How do we build a road?" Any sense in that? ~ R.T.G 18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I support Republic of Ireland being used when disam is needed, if its obviously talking about a sovereign state then Ireland is fine. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When I say the words Nortern Ireland I am talking about a sovreign state because it fits all the criterea and also, when I say Greenland, I am talking about a sovereign state. This is no more a guideline than a sketch is a portrait. Sorry lads. You do not consider that you will be found fault with and why or you are just messing. ~ R.T.G 19:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Northern Ireland is not a sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if Northern Ireland isn't sovreign by ruling its own law, neither is the republic because we are so dependant and afraid to lose that dependence, the government are insisting we sign away our sovreign rights to lawmaking before Monday and we have been monitarily dependent for a long time most recently accepting in the order of billions to prop up the banks. So, polls are usually accurate and ours says we will give up our lawmaking by monday and we will talk then about who is more sovereign if you must. They call it "Giving up the national veto". If it boils down to what you prefer or what is the definition we will have it clearly thank you. We will have you Brits see us as worth something and you southerns calling us Irish before the end of this nonsense. That must be word of the day since all week. ~ R.T.G 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There you go they voted it away. The rest signed it away without asking except for Czecks who are merely giving it a read they say. So, either you have not one severeign state to speak of, or you have the much better acknowledgemnt that in HUMAN speech, sovereignty is a thing described as deserved, not stolen.


 * Regardless, you have two states with neither having more absolute power (if we must) over their (if we must) territories. N Ireland answers to England almighty while Rep. of Ireland answers to Europe almighty. When N Ireland changes its name to exclude the word Ireland we can talk about making something else out of something else, or can we choose to do things to a preference? Cannot have that. ~ R.T.G 17:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for spouting but under the Declarative Theory of Statehood which is the modern defining standard of the sovereign state, Northern ireland ticks all the boxes. These colourful terms only serve arguements when people are trying to settle disagreements. They equate this "Every time we refer to a city we refer to this.", "The sovereign one.", "Na na nana na." I looked in on this page for some time and couldn't really contribute much but after a while I just want to shout at ye all "Stick to the plain stuff!". Please, I am not very good at doing it but is it not the best course of action to create a base of relative information unimpeded by discussion or signed statements? It should have been done long ago. All this waffle should be on the talk of such a page years ago. It's like drawing up a load of plans with no construction in mind let alone a plot to buld on even though all the draughters are architects. It doesn't make sense if they aren't going to leave a building behind them. ~ R.T.G 16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, in laymen language. You're speaking above my lingo. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It (NI) is a state which is broadly disputed around here. It is not classed to be a sovereign state but it has all the defining qualities the republic has so we will have a reason to dispute defining one or other part of Ireland solely by the term "sovereign state" when other more appropriate terms are available such as independent nation or Republic, as my/your forefathers would have suggested.
 * Popping in colourful terms is wholy unnessecary and fodder for squabble because we are trying to clear up not paint a picture.
 * We need to list the things we are all talking about outside of a discussion or soapbox arena (such as ARBCOM signed statements forums, voting politic statements). Then we need to make a guideline page based on that new page and community views with strict consideration to the North of Ireland which is ignorantly and therefore insultingly lacking at this stage.
 * We have a frontpage to the project but we have no project. We need to get the ballot and statement links off the header and into a relevant section. This is not the Ireland naming dispute page.
 * I have begun a non-discussive Ireland naming dispute page as noted below, section "The end is not right nigh", and input in to that venture could only be productive so I am wagging a finger.
 * I said Northern Ireland before anyone ignores it again. ~ R.T.G 05:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In article bodies
We should strive to be similarly consistent with our linking policy, and make sure that we are clear on the first use of "Ireland" as to what it will primarily mean for the rest of the article to avoid excessive words. So for instance: When I say "primarily", I am implying that the other facet is brought up, say, no more than five times during the course of the article, while the main facet would be 50-100 or more times. --M ASEM (t) 16:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An article primarily about the island should always identify the island as "Ireland", with the first use in the lede stating "the island of Ireland", while the country should always be identified as "the Republic of Ireland" or just "the Republic" after the "Republic of Ireland" term is established.
 * An article primarily about the country should establish in the lede "the Republic of Ireland", and then always refer to the country by "Ireland" after that point. If the island is mentioned, it should be "the island of Ireland" with "the island" as the appropriate use later after that.
 * An article that is equally split between the island and country should probably clearly refer to both as "the island of Ireland" and "the Republic of Ireland", reducing those to "the island" and "the Republic".
 * If possible, if there is no significant reference to any other countries besides the Republic of Ireland, then it can be simplified further as "country". Same with using "island". Once you've established what the proper names are, generic nouns will help to remove much of the contention in using the terms.
 * Always consider to strive for precision and clarity above all these rules. Consider reorganization of content if to help separate discussion of the island from the country if  possible to avoid invoking the third rule of thumb above. If a possibly contentious statement is included that could be inferred to be either the country or island under the first two rules of thumb, spell it out.
 * Im not entirely happy with everything in this part of the proposal but i support it. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments
I'm disappointed by this. I thought that the kind of proposal that I posted above was more rounded and facilitated more fluid and natural use of "Ireland" to refer to the state. The proposal above come down fairly squarely on the side that "Republic of Ireland" is for the state and "Ireland" is for the island (for example Politics of the Republic of Ireland would stay where it is - rather than move to Politics of Ireland - likewise Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland, not Foreign relations of Ireland).

From what I can see the proposal I made before failed due to a sort of boycott by some "anti-ROI" editors. As we can see that was a dangerous game to play and it seems now that the proposal on the table is for ROI and little else. I would support the above to end this "collaboration" but I don't think it is in the best interest of our readers. I applaud you Masem for calling an end to the squabbling. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You think that adding more to the end of the squabbling = ending the squabbling? In an ironic sort of way it does but for the effect you are describing, I assume, only a non-discussion page on the Ireland naming dispute will sign out the beginning of the end of endless discussion, would you agree? One of the recurring themes of this squabble is "Now! This is the end of the squabblings!" ~ R.T.G 17:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, clarification please. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We need a page containing zero amount of discussion. If this is a page of squabbling this words are part of that squabbling. This is no end to it merely the search for it. Even if your addition to the end/page bottom of the squabbling was pointing out "This is the end of it", it only is until someone adds more to the end of the page. Get on to a page where we expect to see "This is it" and talk on the talk page if we must. Everytime I look at this page it is either still for days or grown five feet overnight. No place to be a mad man claiming "This is the end this time!" You are codded. It has you. This is our page. Give the naming debate and the call of its end a page of its own beyond those who may squabble or only call the end by blocking tham all and then you have a funny page, indeed! I said "End? LooooL!!" ~ R.T.G 18:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That requires a talkpage for 'this' talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)



? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Politics of the Republic of Ireland" for certain needs to be at ROI Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland seem appropriate although less required to be at that spot, but i accept the President of Ireland should remain at that locaation BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rhyme without reason deciding on preference, is going to be of equal use to arguing about stuff you made up. Deciding by expression of preference = pulled this stuff out of a hat ~ R.T.G 19:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of templates
Can I suggest that most of the standard disambiguations should be formulated into templates, which could be easily changed in future if the community decided to change its dab policy in relation to Ireland. So for instance a template RoI-Ireland might output Ireland, etc etc. Is that a goer? Fmph (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It can easily be changed by bots. There's no need to introduce another layer of complexity. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The end begins with... complete and unsigned information, please?
WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Ireland Naming Dispute Evidence

Can we have that page please? If no, can we have another sort of page like that? ~ R.T.G 17:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * All record of the naming dispute apears to be discussion and signed political or ARBCOM evidence statements.


 * Let's instead make a page with all the information we can find about the name Ireland.
 * Let's make it a page on which there is no discussion, only discussing on the talk page.
 * Let's include facts, maybes and even absolute rubbish that we can verifiy has been part of the Ireland naming discussions and/or the name Ireland so that nobody can hold these scattered facts that we can't really hold all in one place ourselves.
 * This type of thing would have been much more useful before any community votes so the editors would have an area of truly rounded knowledge for reference rather than loud mouths like me saying our peice BUT, the debate goes on. This page has been inactive for a few days but only a very easily led person could think that people haven't carried on or expressed anything other than promise/wish of continuing this debate sooner or later. Well let's have something to focus on and if you think we wont, I will be here when ye all start argueing again about scattered information and any of ye watching these pages for 2 or 3 years will have no excuse to say "It was all quiet, I didn't read that page any more." I have checked ye all and nobody is inactive. There should be no more naming debate without supporting the constructive in at least a minor way so construct something instead of jotting your ideas down first. When ye all start debating it again I will be insisting ye contribute to this evidence page or we shouldn't be listening to the reasoning. This could put my own opinions in the dark. Well my opinions are not so important as the concrete I am trying to stand them on. ~ R.T.G 21:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at Rann. Anaitnids words above, let's get all the layers of complexity into one space and bury a hatchet in it or let's just leave it running around headless? ~ R.T.G 15:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're printing. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah that was a bit incomprehensible. So far it is one big brainstorm and medley of politic. Let's have a consolidated reference please. I can see for myself the lack of quality in my own additions so far but I really think we should have the page as a collaboration project rather than this one alone for fighting and brainstorming. Anyone fancy to collaborate a bit? ~ R.T.G 02:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup. I spoiled the whole page occasionally yet persistently. How unsporting of may. Collaboration? Hell no way! Well, I did something constructive. I win, or someone/s can help fix it right. Otherwise why don't ye go edit Citizendium which is of course much more professional and respectable (I better keep an eye out). ~ R.T.G 05:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, rationality prevails there :


 * no further questions, m'Lud. --Red King (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And that's what makes Citizendium the 51,294th most visited website in the world (joking!). Nothing wrong with that arrangement of articles. Nothing wrong with the way we have them here. Just a different way of saying the same thing. All this fuss over nothing and we still haven't reached agreement on how to refer to IRE/ROI/NI in articles etc. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No Rannpairti, it is not really for us to decide but rather for us to explain. If you don't see that you are looking at a molehill as though it were a mountain. Why would you ask for a public vote if in reality "we" were going to decide...? Bring all the facts to one place, include reference on dubious claims, and use it. Otherwise you are all just talking about what you are all just been talking about and as we can see from the post below ("started again","started it"), people only want to roll the ball again. Nothing grows on a rolling stone except dirt. Lay a foundation. You can wait until only people who agree on the same things appear for a week or two and base outcomes on that. You can also fool some of the people some of the time and lie, ingore and cover things up. Let's hear what should or not be on the page please.. ~ R.T.G 09:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Flag template usage?
I thought the consensus was to use, and the standard flag templates (e.g.  or ) also render wikicode like this. But I noticed the new creation of that produces the equivalent of, and it is being used on articles where I wouldn't think disambiguation is necessary, especially since the tricolour is rendered next to the name. Is that consistent with naming conventions here? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't. If and until a final agreement emerges from here, then the status quo should apply, namely , and , or ). <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is referrin to the state, not it isn't. From my look through though seems to be being used on football related pages. In that case, Republic of Ireland is correct but should link to Republic of Ireland national football team. Is there not however a specific football team flag set though? (Under my previous account as "sony-youth" I recall wrecking your head about this.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we often use to produce 🇮🇪 ireland, and that is perfectly appropriate.  But I'm concerned about the  template that User:Fasach Nua created a couple of days ago.  At first glance, all the articles he's put it on (replacing instances of ) appear to be football-related, but in none of them does the actual instance refer to the national team. "Republic of Ireland" is used in every case to refer to the country. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I'd say ask him - if memory serves he's an approachable guy. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked, but got no response, so I have nominated it for deletion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Martin McGuinness
Does Martin McGuinness live in Ireland at the moment? ~ R.T.G 08:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bally
Why are so many towns on this island called a "Bally"? Is that because dancing was once popular like Picalilly Circus? ~ R.T.G 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ? It comes from the Irish Baile for town, which I would presume is from the same root as bailey and bailiwick. 10:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not seem to have an article Baile ~ R.T.G 03:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Try the Irish language wikipedia or Wiktionary. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are too many ballys for baile to be irrelevant to the English language ~ R.T.G 19:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In-article naming: what's happening?
I thought this project was supposed to move on to deal with this issue? Why has it stalled? Mooretwin (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think everyone forgot about it. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, of all things it was the one where there was most consensus. Can we look at this again? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's important. How do we get started again? Mooretwin (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you've already done so (started it), here. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, so you are all getting started again? It is not for you to decide it is first for you to explain. You can "look at this" again but it's basically a conversation, bar the poll and the ARBCOM rejection.  Let's have a page of solid information, please folks, including anything important that the layman might glean from or rely on.  Is that yet on your list of nessecary?  Well if it is not, you do not yet intend to be comprehensive enough for those outside the circle involved with this page.  Not, so far, even a simple outline outside of talk pages and statements (of faith i might add) and you are readying to go to war.  All you have is a poll, a bunch of political statements and the conversation for this and other pages. I do believe that is one scattered heap.  Men (apparently) are no good at multi-tasking so let's, again, have it all on one page so we can all reference what is being dicussed, nothing? ~ R.T.G 09:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What information do you need? I should have thought what we need to do is try to achieve consensus on one of the proposals that has previously been put forward and discussed. Mooretwin (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. RTG, our mandate to do so comes from the Arbcom decision.  What needs "explanation" in yet another page which will repeat the same information already available in links from this project?  <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * RTG, I don't understand your posts. Perhaps I've been working too hard, lately. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay Mooretwin, let's start by asking what information do we have, and where can we find it? We have debates and statements. Two defining aspects of that information is opinion and outbursts. That is at best an unfinished work lads sorry. Some of ye really know your stuff and put a lot of effort in so far but not all of it is reliable and nothing is agreed to be concise. Make a page of relevant information about use of the name Ireland, a fact and (possibly) conclusion page... It has raged on in the wind and you should anchor it into the ground. Bastun says "...repeat the same information already available in links from this project?", of course you should because finding information through links on this project is like going through boards.ie or sizing up electoral candidates. ~ R.T.G 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock vote
One confirmed sock vote in the final poll - User:Redking7 also voting as User:Staighre, which has no effect on the overall outcome. SPI report is here. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming Issues Information Page (Ireland)
I am just trying to suggest things to the project. Nothing really to say. ~ R.T.G 12:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What information should go there? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that was a good question. We don't have a page like that do we? As far as I have seen the only place that information about the matter has been gathered is in talk pages and personalised "statements" for ARBCOM and polling. I just want to see an actual page of information which gives some ground to what all these discussions and disputes are about rather than sifting through peoples endless opinions, rows and outbursts for little titbits. Objectivity. ~ R.T.G 03:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that. So, I, for example, post a point on that page saying "The vast majority of Irish people do not object to the use of the description 'Republic of Ireland'".  Immediately there'll be a demand for sources, or an edit war.  Same if someone else posts "'Republic of Ireland' is a POV-laden British imposition!", only the other way 'round.  We've all been there, for several years.  We all know the arguments on both sides.  Admittedly, those not from Ireland may not know all the nuances, but really - they've all been rehashed countless times.  We are now at the situation where the WP community has voted to retain the status quo for the Ireland articles.  Fine.  Now our remaining job is to sort out in-article(/template/category) use, to benefit the reader.  Knowing, for example, the ins and outs of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, or the number of times the term is used in Oireactas debates is of no use in relation to that.  Let's just get on with the job.  I've made a proposal, above, which didn't get agreement.  Someone else's turn... <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All I am going to say is that none of the "point"s you have mentioned here appear on a page which is not a) a talkpage or b) a list of signed personal statements/endorsements. ~ R.T.G 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what kind of "objectivity" can be applied. Objectivity demands more than simply sources. It demands that different weight be attributed to different sources of different value according to a predetermined schema (which demands that you have to judge the "value" of different sources and assign "weight" to them). It demands that the method in which you collect the sources you use does not discriminate against sources from one perspective or another. It demands that in the end you have a definite method in which you can say, our sources say X-2Y2/Z, therefore our answer is "this", and "this" only.
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia seems to work more often on an adversarial method - rather than genuinely "collaborating" we instead adopt positions and throw "evidence" in support of our positions until one or the other of us eventually falls down. An objective approach to sources would require genuine collaboration (and it would require at least some discussion, particularly before as to how we would be objective, and a little discussion during to niggle our way through the details that would arise)
 * I'm not putting your idea down. I'd like it, but it would require more collaboration - and less advisory - than we have seen so far in this project. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, a certain amount of objectivity would be required for a page but ultimately objectivity is big right here on this page. We just don't have a collaborative construction yet. Some folk know a lot about the topic but we only see their knowledge with support for one thing or another (as you seem to suggest also). Hmmm, I don't know about putting weight behind anything on a page rather than just listing relevant information of various implications. Wouldn't do to leave things out on purpose. Discussion about the relevence of weight already goes on here. It could be important to understanding discussions while not being intended as important to any outcomes. The discussions and rows probably wouldn't/shouldn't move from here. An important side-project would be much appreciated and assisted, if possible, by some folk. ~ R.T.G 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I understand it (1) you want the information handed to you on a plate, in your format, according to your criteria, (2) everybody else that has posted feels that they have all the information they need, and (3) you can't be bothered to trawl the various project pages and talk pages and collate the facts, the opinions and the sources yourself. This is all just a waste of talk page space!  There is a small possibility that people might begin to make progress if you didn't keep dragging them down this cul-de-sac.  I for one would like to help get things moving but I'm not going to try to suggest anything as long as this silliness goes on.  Scolaire (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In fairness, trawling though all the project pages would be murder. I don't think anyone want the project handed to them on a plate, but I do feel that there are many who feel "lost".
 * Is it right that the outstanding issue is what to call the state in articles (and article titles etc.)? We're done with the two main pages (for another two years)? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The titles of the 3 articles-in-question shall remain as they are, 'til atleast September 2011. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Holy ****, an edit conflict! It's been a while since that happened! @RA: We are, once the outstanding issues are sorted too. The outstanding issues being what name(s)/terms to use within articles, and on templates, categories, etc. Also, the title of "related article" pages - e.g., 'Religion in Ireland', 'Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland', etc. @GoodDay - nope, it's two years from the conclusion of the whole process. The clock hasn't started ticking yet, because we still have the other outstanding issues to deal with. So, at the very least, November 2011. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm content, as it's not before Sept 2011. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So basically ye don't want to do anything until 2011 when everyone is going to start argueing again. No collaboration. "(1) you want... ", "(2) everbody else... ", "(3) you can't..."? Maybe it's not a good idea for this arguement project but I do know the only collaboration to date has been to agree meeting in conflict (followed directly by refusing to meet, repeatedly). For trawling through these pages, I have found it admitted that long standing claims were not nessecarily reliable. There is no collected data outside talk and statements. Collaboration is the topic of this page. It's just an on-topic collaboration idea. Any one thing that should go on such a page, even something simple? ~ R.T.G 00:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And I must appologise for completely ignoring Rannphairtis support of the idea. I just learned quite a bit more about the topic from following these discussions and feel that it is quite interesting. Everybody might know the basics of something or relating topics but this is actually an interesting, and important, aspect rather than just some irrelevant disagreement. I maight have said before somewhere that I couldn't understand or even believe why some would think one thing or another but the truth is that maybe I do understand it and think of the issue as a good point. Push for the educative and informative value. ~ R.T.G 18:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding issues
The poll ended on September 13th, but while that decided the titles of the three main articles, there are outstanding issues to be decided before the process can conclude.

The outstanding issues appear to be:


 * Titles (except IRL/ROI/dab):
 * Use of ROI/IRL in article titles
 * Use of ROI/IRL in category titles
 * Redirects between ROI/IRL articles/categories
 * Dabbing of ROI/IRL
 * In-article use of ROI/IRL
 * Use of ROI/IRL in templates.
 * The first sentence of the Republic of Ireland article. (added 8th Nov).

Are there any other issues that need to be added to that list? <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the first sentence of the Republic of Ireland article, an issue I raised two months ago here. In any Wikipedia article the title of the article should appear in bold in the first sentence of the article.  There are very, very few exceptions and this is not one.  This has nothing to do with triumphalism, sectarianism or any other -ism; it is simply a matter of informing the reader.  The article is entitled "Republic of Ireland": explain why in the first sentence.  A statement at the end of the first paragraph that "the name of the state is Ireland, while the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used" does not inform, it only confuses.  Scolaire (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For the same reason that Pool Region begins with, "Pool is a department of the Republic of the Congo..." The proper name is Ireland, it's only located at Republic of Ireland for disambiguation purposes. I don't see what emboldening the (strictly speaking) incorrect name of the topic does for the reader. Or why beating the reader over the head with issues relating to the technical limitations of Wikipedia does for their understanding of the topic (i.e. if the article was at Ireland we wouldn't even be having this discussion). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Beating the reader over the head?? The reader wants to know why the article is entitled "Republic of Ireland".  It's because we are commonly (not "sometimes") referred to as the "Republic of Ireland".  In exactly the same way as "Paul David Hewson [is] most commonly known by his stage name Bono".  It's called information.  It's what encyclopaedias do.  Scolaire (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE: How does Bonos nickname relate to reducing Ireland? Does U2 also want called Bono? Does Bono want called U2? Maybe you can find something that it *is* "exactly" like but to do that you will need to take in the whole picture. Breathe it in... Breathe it out... Northern Ireland, commonly known as a part of Ireland. Is that sound information? It is still repetitively standard around here to fail even acknowledging this possible fact. ~ R.T.G 01:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "The reader wants to know why the article is entitled 'Republic of Ireland'." Because of the technical limitations of MediaWiki. We can explain why, given the technical limitations of MediaWiki we choose Republic of Ireland. We could link to this project page or the ballot page. That's the only reason it's at that page. If it were not for the technical limitations of MediaWiki, it would be at Ireland.
 * The article on Paul David Hewson redirect to Bono because that is the common name for the man. The article on the Irish state is at Republic of Ireland because of a technical limitation of the MediaWiki software. We don't need to feed our readers information we would not otherwise consider feeding them but only for a technical limiation of the software. That what I mean by beating them over the head with it. It's editor stuff, not reader stuff. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not because of a technical limitation of wiki; it is because in a wiki-wide poll there was a clear and unambiguous majority in favour of titling it "Republic of Ireland". It is because "Republic of Ireland" is a commonly used name (and yes, "name" is the right word) for the state. It is because "Ireland is a sovereign state in Ireland." sounds ridiculous.  It is because the reader wants to know where and what the Republic of Ireland is, not be told he has to learn about "Ireland" instead because there is no such place as the Republic of Ireland because a handful of editors find the name objectionable.  It's reader stuff, not editor stuff.  As an editor, I lost all my prejudices long ago.  If the article name had changed I would have lost no sleep over it.  It didn't.  Now we have to work on the article as it stands.  And the first thing is that the article title appears in bold in the first line as it does in the Bono article and virtually every other article.  Scolaire (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Pool Region says nothing except "#redirect Pool Department". Pool Department begins "Pool is a department..."  Article title at the beginning of the article.  Scolaire (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All of which is ultimately because of limitations of the MediaWiki software. Let me ask you, if that limitiation didn't exist, if the article was at Ireland, what would you write that would be different? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What would I write, if I just wanted to be factual and it wasn't going to lead to an edit war? "Ireland, often referred to as The Republic of Ireland, is a sovereign state..."  I would write that because it is true, because millions of readers would instinctively agree, and because other readers who were unsure of the distinction between "Ireland" and the "Republic of Ireland" would be informed by it.  That's if the article was at Ireland.  As it stands, if I wanted to be factual and it wasn't going to start another battle in the phony war, I would write "The Republic of Ireland (more commonly known by its constitutional name Ireland) is a sovereign state..."  I am not proposing that only because I know that a small number of editors would mistake it for triumphalism.  But taking out the fact that it is referred to as ROI just out of a sense of guilt that ROI won the poll is not on.  Again, this has nothing to do with software.  It's just humans communicating knowledge to humans.  Scolaire (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * True. There's a lot of stepping on egg shells because it might seem warring or triumphalism. That's writing for editors too, not writign for readers. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Factual is ok Scolaire, a lot of articles write at the top "Not to be confused with...". The current alternative simply ignores something of the larger island which just lacks something for the reader. I would make "Ireland" a link and in Scolaires second example, "The Republic of Ireland (more commonly known by its constitutional name Ireland) is a sovereign state...", or something very like it. People could still get confused but at least there was something because it is one of the interesting, if not fundamental, details of the topic. ~ R.T.G 12:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Added above. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is just something that ye are making up "The name of the state is Ireland" why is that? Because "Ireland" in the name of the state does not refer to the 26 counties. Only the powers exercised by the state refer to that area. It is part of our constitution that a goal of the state is to peacefully reunite the island in any ways we can. The honest thing to say is that "The state refers to itself as the government of Ireland." Adding anything to that fact has everything "to do with triumphalism, sectarianism " and possibly several "other -ism"s. The state is not the Island. Ireland is not the 26 counties. The state has no trouble in recognising this. What is the difficulty on Wikipedia? Would it be misinformation to provide that fact or misinformation to hide it? Sorry, this is the main outstanding issue. Polls on the article titles suggest that when it boils down people do not insist that the state is Ireland. Anybody going to turn coat and actually agree with the state? Sooner or later, accept it for what it is without tinkering with it. ~ R.T.G 13:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The state (on Wikipedia) continues to be called the Republic of Ireland. This hasn't changed. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No GoodDay the state continues to be called Ireland with a vengance, that hasn't changed. Only the page title says Republic and mention of that establishment is stunted at best, Ireland, "pipe" dream? Looks familiar? It was fine by me being a republic. Nobody has claimed the throne in a while so republic it is. If you think they are less Irish over the border you're just inexperienced or downright racist. Co-operative Survivalism, there is a political "ism" for you and it includes being nice to each other because people tend to be crazy with any excuse. The centenary of the republic is on us, a bit of respect!! ~ R.T.G 18:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If ya'll want to get rid of the 'pipe-link' stuff? that's fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Pipe linking ( Ireland ) is the way to go. I also don't see the need to stick rigidly with Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland (though I think in many cases a distinctive Northern Ireland article can be appropriate along side an all-Ireland article, even where no specific Republic of Ireland article exists) .--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if finding the appropriate title to be Republic of Ireland suggests that we should be almost strictly masking it as Ireland is the manner to respond to help push other topics to the "side"... I don't fully understand it but it is certainly good reasoning for getting around a few things. Is that what needs to be done, in case I edit something along those lines? ~ R.T.G 02:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Is that what needs to be done...?" It's my preferred solution, too, but we've yet to reach general agreement on it. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's certainly not my preference. I have no problems with the concept of a republic and acknowledging the whole as possibly greater than the sum of its parts, especially when I think to myself "Wow they're pretty good at something." I don't enjoy the focus on what we may have power with or limiting my views to a success rate. It's tunnel vision to insist that things go through the pipe. You simply don't care for Northern Irish and that may just mean you don't know them so well or what you do know is not all that encouraging but you should much rather look for something encouraging. I cannot see the pain in acknowledging the North and the Republic beyond a holding them both in low esteem. That amount simply doesn't make my quota. Why can't it be more convincing rather than trying to push it with some sort of strength? ~ R.T.G 06:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the last few days I made an edit to Republic of Ireland, how would you consider the idea that the information in that edit has not been available before? Is it not fundamental? ~ R.T.G 06:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "You simply don't care for Northern Irish and that may just mean you don't know them so well..." "I cannot see the pain in acknowledging the North and the Republic beyond a holding them both in low esteem."  What?  Where is anyone talking about... well, whatever it is you're talking about?  I've asked this before, R.T.G., and you didn't reply - but can you clarify for us whether English is your first language?  Because what you've written above is, no offence intended, incomprehensible.  And others have commented similarly on other things you've posted.  I really don't get what point it is you're trying to make.  Sorry.  <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So how do we progress these issues? Mooretwin (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should wait to see if this is a "troubles-related" article before doing anything? As for the "pipe-linking" might I suggest that we leave things as they are or the whole naming issue will be reopened 18 months before the next vote is due? I thought we had a compromise on this? And guidelines that work without much dispute? Sarah777 (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should we wait to see if this is a Troubles-related article?
 * Because if it is "troubles-related" it is subject to a rather strict Arbcom ruling that editors should be aware of - or get blocked.
 * This is a talk page. There are no restrictions on talk pages.


 * What does "leave things as they are with "pipe-linking"" mean?
 * Exactly that; leave the piping practices as they are. 
 * But the piping practices have caused edit wars. Indeed they were one of the reasons for this project being established.


 * To what compromise are you referring?
 * That except where is a clear need for disambiguation we use |Republic of Ireland|Ireland|
 * Yes, but there is no consensus as to when there is a clear need for disambiguation, with anti-ROI editors resisting any attempt to provide disambiguation.


 * To what guidelines are you referring and how do they work without much dispute, given the many edit wars that have taken place over the years? Mooretwin (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are very few disputes involving the pipe-linking that I'm aware of. Disputes are easy to avoid - that's how I generally work without any unless I fall foul of the dreaded "troubles"! Sarah777 (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops! Sorry about all the "ones"; not sure how to fix it. Sarah777 (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are very few disputes, because people have stopped disputing pending the outcome of this project.


 * You know, the guideline where they all pipelink Ireland and send sarah letters saying "You and lads are Irish Sarah, and all the rest are sux!", have they not sorted that one out yet? ~ R.T.G 13:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Commonly known as Ireland
I have asked something like this of Scolaire just now on his page but I think I want to ask all here... A lot of folk keep asserting the fact that many parts of the Republic are commonly referred to as Ireland (State departments etc..). Would referring to any part of the North as "not a part of Ireland" be a slightly sectarian issue? Would that be a sort of misinformation, or am I completely off the ball here? Is it clearly obvious that no part of the North is a part of Ireland or that all parts of it are miniscule in signifigance to the Republic?


 * I thought that the most signifigant counterpart to the Republic has been the North, but I have no study source for this "Who is more signifigant?". I also thought that claims of what Ireland was, if it were not the whole island, were purely matters of sectarianism and racism, something which there probably are sources for but they could be a little complex with a lot of "who", "why", and "for" type issues being focused. I am trying to establish the zero level of signifigance given to the North in the Ireland Naming Disputes. ~ R.T.G 01:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ireland is the sovereign country. (The is only one sovereign Ireland, simple fact). In the North there are many people who regard the six counties as part that country, but there is a majority who don't. Until such time (if ever) the majority people of NI decide to become part of the sovereign country the North remains Irish only in the geographical sense. That is what the GFA decreed. And Nationalist Ireland support the GFA by 90% plus, North and South. Sarah777 (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sarah, you don't know what you are talking about and you haven't answered the question I, the OP, asked. You are playing games, dear, but thanks for the effort. You do not know what this "majority" you speak of know or you are plain ignorant of it but I sincerely beleive the "don't know" option and for me, "The protestants up there think this..." or "What the Good Friday Says answers what you asked..." because you don't really and it does not. If you truly care for the subject outside of who scores what... answer the major question directly and save broad conclusion for the broader subject. ~ R.T.G 12:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * RTG - Both topics are commonly called Ireland. Only one topic has a common alternative name (Republic of Ireland). One topic (Republic of Ireland) is a natural sub-topic of the other (Ireland).
 * Sarah - Institutions created by the GFA - now or in the future - supersede the powers and functions of the Irish state, including executive functions i.e. government (cf. Article 3.2 and 9) and supersede the provisions of the Constitution of Ireland (cf. Article 9). So much for "sovereignty", eh? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Good Friday Agreement references
"Continuing... Equally legitimate..." some quotes from the Belfast Good Friday Agreement directly relating to the Irish Governments political position towards Northern Ireland, often referred to as the major contributor to a changing definition of the Irish Republic in relation to Northern Ireland and consequently as a major factor in the Ireland naming disputes which this project was conceived to solve.

This section is to explain what the Good Friday agreement says about Irish Government and Unionist (and Loyalist and Republican I guess...) political claims. On the 2nd page it starts with the declarations. Declaration No.5 begins... "5. We acknowledge the substantial differences between our continuing, and equally legitimate, political aspirations." They agreed on all sides that they will "continue" to hold their long standing "political aspirations" for relative parts of the island, that all of these aspirations were "equally legitimate". It goes on to say that they will do their things in peace, and various other things. Part of the agreement was that the government of the Republic would remove the old terriorial claim over Northern Ireland territories.

OK so, recurring Ireland Collaboration beliefs include that the Irish Goverment revoked Northern Irelands Irishness or acceptance as part of Ireland with the Good Friday Agreement. Clearly it says on the Good Friday Agreement that political aspirations are continuing, seen as legitimate, and vetoed as spot-on by 90% of the electorate all over the place.

Now, has anybody read this and still feels that the Good Friday Agreement in some way makes the Independant state "Ireland" any more than it was before and the Northern state "Ireland" any less than it was before, because I didn't really cover the bit where it says they all agree to "acknowledge the substantial differences", did I? Would anyone like to discuss which portion of the sentence was meant to be more or less important than the other part or something?

~ R.T.G 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless someone can explain what this discussion is contributing to the project, it'll be deleted. This is not a discussion forum.  If you want to argue over generic topics and interpret documents, find somewhere else.  If you're discussing this in the context of an article, can you let us know what it is?  --HighKing (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No it won't be deleted. A certain number of editors keep refering to things that are not true such as the Good Friday Agreement being proof that the Irish Government styles itself any lesser as a government of the island. Clearly the first mention of this particular topic in the Good Friday Agreement raises disputes with the accuracy of these long unchallenged Wikipedian claims. I believe you are one of the editors, Highking, that falls back on such claims and we personally have had this type point out before. Too many of you have gotten comfortable with your new view of what Ireland is and I am only around here to tell you that is because you are a) ignorant of Northern Ireland and b) misleading on MANY points... give support to too many lies and you will miss the truth.


 * It is contributing a study of the continuously and deceptively incorrect reference to the Good Friday Agreement as a document of proof that the Irish Free State no longer views its reference to Ireland as an island. It is a misleading assertion, quite clearly, and so often relied on that it is nothing but relevant to this project which was set up on the back of disputes about what Ireland may be if it were not an island.


 * Would YOU not be able to accept that if it were true, Highking? Check it out. The document *clearly says first* that political aspirtations of that time are equally legitimate and continuous. There is no uncertain terms in that and I would like to know, if the Irish political aspiration is not one of the view that Ireland is an island, why did they write about uniting the peoples of the island in the constitution and what actually were the political aspirations? Better late than never I think. As some of you say, 2011 is a ways off but don't worry, you are not alone and we can just gather the evidence of that along the way, no? ~ R.T.G 18:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ireland category in the middle of a more general restructuring of categories
We have been told in Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 18 that the decision on Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Ireland should be made here. The rest of our discussion has extended beyond this to a much wider restructuring of "maritime museums and museum ships" categories for all countries. Considering that we have to proceed with the extended nomination, this one case has also to be included. Please, discuss in the CfD to meet our concerns. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 00:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that the original nomination as "Delete" due to few articles has been bypassed and the discussion has moved to a wider categorization restructuring. Hoverfish Talk 07:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting discussion! I am reproducing below Hoverfish's overview of Irish "museum" categories.  It would be beyond me to untangle this lot, but maybe someone else is brave enough?  Scolaire (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Under Category:Museums by country I see a Category:Museums in the Republic of Ireland with four subcategories of the same naming. Also I see the later as subcategory of Category:Museums in Ireland, which does not have the "by country" as parent, but Category:Museums in Europe instead. So no problem until here. Then I see a Category:Galleries and art centres in Ireland which has as subcategory Category:Art museums and galleries in the Republic of Ireland and two lose articles. Here things are simply a bit messy. Yet I also see a Category:Art museums and galleries in Ireland with just one article and no subcategories, which appears as subcategory of Category:Art museums and galleries by country, which is not proper. In the same way, Category:Transport museums in Ireland and its subcategory Category:Maritime museums and museum ships in Ireland appear as subcategories of Category:Transport museums by country and Category:Maritime museums and museum ships by country. This is also not proper. Why not categorize these particular branches in the same way as with other Irish museums? Hoverfish Talk 23:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)