Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Ballot paper

Bold Edit
Anyone have any particular qualms with this edit?  M I T H  13:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, yesterday I argued strenuously against having any Pros and Cons in the poll as well. A number of people really wanted them. So I have tried, and will keep trying, to get some in there which are not problematic. -- Evertype·✆ 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"in alphabetical order"
They're not, actually. "Ireland (state)" comes after "Ireland (country)" alphabetically but needs to come before it on the page for the argument to make sense (Note: this will not matter if "Ireland (country)" is not included in the poll). Scolaire (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In my draft they were alphabetical. ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 15:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the argument in favour of "Ireland (country)". It doesn't make sense unless it follows "Ireland (state)".  That's why I swopped them around.  Alphabetical order is only a Good Thing if it doesn't interfere with the sense.  Scolaire (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha. -- Evertype·✆ 16:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Pros and cons: Republic of Ireland
On the basis that arguments against should only be arguments against that option, and not arguments in favour of another option, I would be inclined to remove " the only name of the political entity is specified in the Constitution of Ireland: 'The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland' " from the argument against "Republic of Ireland". Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But that is one of the arguments against the use of RoI, that the Constitution specifies (and some say requires) something else. I assume that advocates of various positions want to see their arguments expressed. (Boy I want this poll to go out.) -- Evertype·✆ 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed to voting template
Following suggestions during the "xxx" ballot, I have changed the ballot template. Now the template will automatically insert a # (and form numbered list), so there is no need to place a * at the start. Votes should be casts as follows:

I've updated the "draft" here to reflect this. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually had found the asterisk useful to downplay "the numbers game" and only changed it to manually a number (which was of course a simple global substitution of # for *) at the very end. -- Evertype·✆ 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah - OK. Fmph had requested a # be put in to the template on the template talk page. I thought you had asked for the same thing. I'll revert the template because I think you have good reasoning. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

At noon today I will delete "country" as it will not be in the poll. (Unless people start squawking in the next two hours. -- Evertype·✆ 08:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

12 month block
"Punishment for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry or otherwise manipulating the ballot (or attempting to do so) will be a 12 month block."
 * Has this been signed off by ArbCom? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge, but it came from your sandbox. This is a major ballot however which will be valid for two years, so the sanction for messing should be serious. -- Evertype·✆ 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is presumed there will be sanctions, then I don't believe we ought to state it at all. We want to encourage people to vote, not to put the fear of God into them.  Canvassers, forum shoppers etc. all know already that their actions will have consequences.  Scolaire (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a proposed edit? -- Evertype·✆ 09:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I put it in was because my thinking was that the fear of god was a good thing. I was thinking it was better to put the sh*ts up socks and didn't think it would scare off anyone else. I've asked Masem if ArbCom are OK with fix penalties, but a ban on "post-June 1 voters" and IPs will would solve sock/meat problem anyway. I still think some kind of "fear o'god" element would be useful to keep people in check, though. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote stackers and socks are not God-fearing people! They love it when you threaten them with dire consequences! It gives them an adrenaline rush.  It's only the law-abiding folks that are frightened by talk like that.  Do I have a proposed edit? Yes - delete it!  Scolaire (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the text as-is until Masem responds. I changed it to the less-specific "Non-trivial sanctions" -- Evertype·✆ 12:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Randomizing
I have six items on the poll, in alphabetical order:


 * A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
 * A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
 * Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.
 * The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state).
 * The island at Ireland. The state at Republic of Ireland.
 * The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).

Here is how I ranked them. I placed them in alphabetical order as you see, and then went to http://www.random.org/sequences/ and generated a random sequence of 1-6.

The sequence is 3, 6, 2, 4, 1, 5 — so


 * 1 A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
 * 2 A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
 * 3 Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.
 * 4 The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state).
 * 5 The island at Ireland. The state at Republic of Ireland.
 * 6 The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).

becomes


 * 3 Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland into one article at Ireland.
 * 6 The state at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island).
 * 2 A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
 * 4 The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state).
 * 1 A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
 * 5 The island at Ireland. The state at Republic of Ireland.

That's exactly the same procedure I used for the last poll. -- Evertype·✆ 08:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've applied this randomization to the ballot. In the event that "(country)" gets added back in, I will regenerate the randomization according to the same process. -- Evertype·✆ 12:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you put for an option you are strongly against?
If there is 1 option that you are strongly against, for example the Country article at Ireland do you put 7 or 0 in the vote? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 gives it your weakest support. 0 gives it no support at all. -- Evertype·✆ 11:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I clarified this in the poll instructions. -- Evertype·✆ 12:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't vote for it. If you give an item 7 then it will be your weakest support. If you don't want something at all then don't vote for it at all. Example:
 * A: Apple, B: Pear, C: Orange - I vote for A and B and I really don't want orange. If apple is eliminated, my vote might go towards pear. However, because I did not vote for C at all, my vote will *never* go towards giving support for orange.
 * Understand? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks clear now. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Republic of Ireland" is a name according to the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949...
An editor feels that this should be removed, and did so per WP:BRD. That would be "B". Another editor reverted it, per WP:BRD. That would be "R". Can we now please have "D", per WP:BRD, since I think the three-revert rule has been pass already. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're making progress over on the Main Talk page. I really don't think that WP:BRD applies to putting together a ballot document, which has to be done very carefully. -- Evertype·✆ 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but if someone is going to cite it, they might as well follow it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's melting down. MusicInTheHouse is turning this into a 3RR battle. In fact, though I reverted, I also made subsequent changes in order to help alleviate his concerns. He doesn't seem to have noticed. I had to revert his most recent "management" as well. He'd added an argument Against in the In Favour side -- just what he'd accused me of doing! :-) I'm trying to keep good spirits about this. -- Evertype·✆ 13:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice I don't revert your changes, but you revert all of mine. I don't think its me turning it into a 3RR battle. You were first to input the text, I reverted that addition. Nothing done wrong on my part.  M I T H  14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Scoláire wrote the text per HighKing, and discussed it on the Talk page. I put it in here seeing agreement. You just deleted it without commend or discussion. There was some back and forth. When you finally explained what you meant on the Talk page I made edits accordingly. Then you came in and mucked about with that, adding more stuff that wasn't relevant or discussed and was even in the wrong place. Come on! "Nothing done wrong on your part"? You're not trying to help or be cooperative. You're trying to make this into a battle that you can win because of WP:BRD. Is that helping us prepare this ballot for polling? Honestly, I think it is not. -- Evertype·✆ 14:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think your actions help either. I'm in the process of reporting you now for 3RR actually.  M I T H  14:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, good for you. -- Evertype·✆ 14:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

MITH says:"You were first to input the text, I reverted that addition. Nothing done wrong on my part." Not true, I'm afraid! Gaming the system is a technical breech of 3RR, and will get you blocked. So now that the process has begun, it's quite possible you're both heading for a block. So, while you're both still here, MITH, can you explain why you think referring to the 1949 Act is a Bad Thing? Note, as Evertype says, that HighKing was particularly anxious to have it included. Scolaire (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I still believe it's an important point that somehow gets lost in the debate. Within the UK, there's absolutely nothing wrong with using RoI as a name as per current UK legislation.  It's just that sometimes, perhaps, not every editor who mostly absorbs British media, takes into account the fact that it's just not OK outside. --HighKing (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this is very difficult. I have added in text which refers to the UK act, and also a parenthetical which points out that RoI is the reason we've got this long-standing feud. Comment? Sopport? Oppose? Please give rational reasons. We know what the POVs are. -- Evertype·✆ 09:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Can be ambiguous"
"Can be ambiguous" was changed to "is ambiguous" at Mooretwin's request. He correctly pointed out that ArbCom had stated it is ambiguous. At any rate, these are supposed to be statements of the proponents' (and opponents') views, and the proponents' view in this case is that "Ireland" is, not can be, ambiguous. Scolaire (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The argument is that it is ambiguous. You may disagree, but the arguers do not. Tfz's changes should be reverted. -- Evertype·✆ 15:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unproven statements. It can be ambiguous depending on the contextual use. Tfz     15:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen please. The argument made by people who think that it is ambiguous is "The name is ambiguous". This is supposed to reflect their argument. On the other side, their argument is "The name is unambiguous". Neither side argues "it can be" or "it can't be". They argue "is". That's why these sentences need to say "is" and not "can be". And it will say "is" on both sides, so both sides are represented fairly. All right? -- Evertype·✆ 15:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * " Imprecision in naming may lead to equivocal statements (such as "Dublin is the capital of Ireland", which may be true or not depending on how the word "Ireland" is taken). " unquote. The point is laboured, as we do not talk about the capital of a land area, if ever. The capital of South America? The capital of Africa? When talking about capitals we are talking about capitals of sovereign countries. Notwithstanding the fact that there cannot be two pages called Ireland at WP, it is still incorrect to claim that Ireland is ambiguous, as there is only one country in the world called Ireland. Wikipedia is here to educate, addling readers' brains with confused ideas doesn't advance that ideal. Tfz     00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know who came up with "Dublin is the capital of Ireland". The classic example of ambiguity was "Belfast is the second-largest city in Ireland" or "Cork is the second-largest city in Ireland".  Scolaire (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit assimilated, with wikilinks. This will help some voters understand the issue. Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 08:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland as dab page
Ireland as a dab page appears to have been omitted; offering Ireland (island) and Ireland (state). Also what happened to Ireland (country)? And Ireland (Republic of) is much more acceptable than "RoI" because it makes clear that Ireland is the name and "Republic of" is a dab. The arguments on the other page that "RoI" and Ireland (Republic of) are the same illustrates in the clearest way why "uninvolved" editors do not grasp the central issue; the issue that has caused this dispute to persist for seven years. Sarah777 (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Omitted where? It is one of the ballot choices. -- Evertype·✆ 10:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Avoid contention?
I'm not sure what's wrong with "constituent country", since that's what it is, but if you think that "part" is somehow better, Rannṗáirtí, I guess it's fine. -- Evertype·✆ 22:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know referring to NI as a country (constituent or not) it irks at some; and with all the talk of state/country/etc. I think it's better to avoid it. In general I think the summary is very good (the "constituent country" bit was just minor). The only complaint I would have is the line "(The use of this description has been a source of controversy for seven years.)" I think it tips the balance of fairness a bit by adding unnecessary commentary. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to delete it; it's there because of something Sarah777 said (see above). If you think it makes things unbalanced... -- Evertype·✆ 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be moved so that it doesn't "single out" one option or the other. (Arguably, it is equally been the desire to use something other that that description that has been a source of controversy for seven years.) Maybe move it to the start of the paragraph that begins, "The six most likely options..." And rewrite it so it reads, "What to call these articles has been a source of controversy for seven years. The six most likely options..." But ask Sarah777. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Splendid edit. I assimilated it. -- Evertype·✆ 23:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Both uses are considered equally valid and neither can" could be better phrased to "Both uses of the name 'Ireland' are considered equally valid and neither can etc ... ..." . Just in case readers think we are now talking about Northern Ireland, which was introduced immediatly before. Scolaire, are you allowed to edit? Tfz     12:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit assimilated. -- Evertype·✆ 16:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict with Northern Ireland
Given that this information is for the benefit of the uninformed, the statement, "There is also conflict with Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom..." needs to be re-written to clarify that it does not refer to an ongoing shooting war, but only to conflicting terminology. In fact, "conflict" is not the right word anyway, because NI itself is never called "Ireland". What is this sentence trying to say? That there is ambiguity in relation to NI? That NI is a complicating factor? That NI unionists have a political objection to the the use of "Ireland" for the "South"? I'll leave it to the rest of you how it should be phrased. Scolaire (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does sound funny. Maybe shift it up to after the sentence that says, "...the state that occupies about 83%..." And rephrase it to be, "Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, which occupies the remaining 17% of the island and comprises 6 counties." So the whole thing would read, "...26 counties, also named "Ireland". Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, which occupies the remaining 17% of the island and comprises 6 counties. Both uses are considered..." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's OK, though "which" in the NI clause needs to be deleted, and I have set it in parentheses because it is, in fact, a parenthetical bit of additional information. (Since the issue is island/state.) -- Evertype·✆ 08:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely better! Can I suggest one more small edit, that makes it less verbose and less like a maths problem: "...and the state that occupies about 83% of it and comprising 26 of 32 counties, also named "Ireland" (Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining 6 counties, is part of the United Kingdom)."
 * Note: I have already made a small change in punctuation. Scolaire (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Somehow I'd rather not attach 32 counties to the first sentence; do you really think it'd be that much better? -- Evertype·✆ 11:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. "26 counties" means nothing to the uninitiated unless you tell them how many counties make up the whole.  What does "6 states" mean in relation to Australia?  I wouldn't know unless I looked it up.  Scolaire (talk)
 * You've made a good case. Thank you. -- Evertype·✆ 12:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't like the part of the edit were you deleted the 17%. I think (maths or not) that will be helpful to the teeming masses (you know, the ones who think Wales is in England...) -- Evertype·✆ 12:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, unless you say "the remaining 17% [6 counties]..." Scolaire (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did it with just an "and"—I think it's clear. -- Evertype·✆ 12:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I also agree with Tfz that the first line is unwieldy: "The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities...". Any reason not just to say: "The name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous. In particular, it can refer to either of two entities..."?  Scolaire (talk)
 * I think we'll get push-back from the people who refuse to think/allow/believe/accept/whatever that it's ambiguous if we make an unqualified statement. -- Evertype·✆ 12:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mentioning the number of counties is only complicating things. Who knows how many counties there are in Wales, or Scotland, or England for example. It would have nothing to do with a Wikipedian naming issue. It's a red herring, and difficult to interpret why it's there, one way or the other. It's attaching a significance to something that is not significant at all. Tfz     14:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you. "The Six Counties" for instance is a fairly common phrase, and while you may know perfectly well how many counties there are on this island and how they are divided up, the Wikipedia Community at large may need the reminder. We're trying to make clear what the two political entities are on the island without using the name of one of them, so that's why 83%/26 and 17%/6 are listed. (Your reference to Wales and the rest is a red herring however.) -- Evertype·✆ 14:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, these statements should be as succinct as they possible can be. Readers who are unfamiliar with the area might be 'put off' from voting if they think there are extra complications involved. I'm seeing it from a voters perspective, it makes no odds to me. Tfz     15:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on, you just asked to add more words in the subsection above. You can't predict what people will do. Most people want this text to be unambiguous. That comes at the price of more words rather than fewer. -- Evertype·✆ 15:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also -- "Ireland (state), a disambiguation name, based on the fact that the country is a sovereign state and that the 1937 Constitution of Ireland sets forth that "The name of the State is Eire, or, in the etc "  based on the fact that  should be replaced with "because". And the Constitution says name is "Ireland" when speaking English, and this is EnWiki. No need to introduce citations from Constitution at this stage, as everything is supposed to be already vetted. Tfz     15:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with this text which has been in all the Pro/Con summaries and here for a week. Your assertion that there is "no need" to cite the Constitution is, I think, wrong. A key argument for years has been that text, and the wider community of voters needs to know it. I oppose your proposed change on those grounds. -- Evertype·✆ 15:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bizarre, re RoI, "It is also a legal name for the country per the UK's Ireland Act 1949, legislation still in force in the UK.". The UK cannot legislate to what the legal name of Ireland is. A rewrite is necessary there.  Tfz     15:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The UK most certainly can and did legislate what they are or were to call the country. Please read the Ireland Act 1949 article. -- Evertype·✆ 15:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence should state that. It's indistinct as to why the fact is being added. And why should the UK legislation be mentioned at all. Still bizarre. Tfz     16:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's there because one of the chief arguments for keeping the state article at RoI has been that the term is official in the UK. This isn't my argument; I'm just telling you that it has been one of the arguments. The sentence in question says "in the UK" twice, which is redundant but I left in the redundancy as a way to try to respond to your concern. -- Evertype·✆ 16:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Seven years and the specifics of "R of I"
Rannṗáirtí, the problem with that line is that while it is not entirely neutral it is the root of the problem. It's the status quo specifically which is the cause of the trouble. That's why that parenthetical "(This, the current location, has long been a source of contention.)" is there. Maybe Masem should rule on this, but in the past week the feedback I've had is that for some people it's particularly important that the Community At Large knows what the problem is. I invite discussion on this point. -- Evertype·✆ 13:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Maybe get Masem to give his take on it. I deleted it on a whim, half-expecting it to be restored. More a kind of testing the water to see if it could be deleted, but if not, that's cool. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there may be a confusion of issues here. What is being said in the ROI section is that the "name" of the state according to the 1949 Act—which is also the current location of the article—has been a source of contention (in the past) between the govts. of the UK and Ireland.  I don't happen to agree with that statement (although it has supposedly been "conclusively proved" by reference to "reliable sources"), but I'm happy enough for it to remain, as long as it is edited to make its meaning clear.  Scolaire (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggested edit:
 * It is also a legal name for the country per the UK's Ireland Act 1949, legislation still in force in the UK (this has led in the past to diplomatic disagreements between the governmnents of the UK and Ireland over the name by which the state should be referred).
 * Scolaire (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest we just strip out all mention of the UK's Ireland Act 1949 all together. It is irrelevant anyway. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a source of contention between the UK and Irish governments. The Good Friday agreement was 11 years ago and terms like "Eire", "Irish Republic" and "Southern Ireland" were much more the source of contention then (or particularly in the '80s), not "Republic of Ireland".
 * Is it not the location on Wikipedia that is being called "source of contention"? Which I think is unfair commentary. It is equally the desire to move the page away from that location that has been the source of contention. I think the sentence should be moved up and away from that part, which is what I asked for when the the following sentence was placed in the paragraph before it: "What to call these articles has been a source of controversy for seven years."--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well spotted rannṗáirtí, the "problem" is here on Wikipedia, not so much out in the "world". I was going to suggest the same, and that's where any emphasis should be. Tfz     14:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Scoláire's notion about the diplomatic disagreement is the issue. The poll says that Ireland, Ireland (state) and Republic of Ireland' are places the state article might end up. The text at RoI is there because some people who find RoI to be troubling have asked that some indication of the unsatisfactoriness (to them) of the status quo is given. Can this be finessed? -- Evertype·✆ 14:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It this OK? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it is, yes. -- Evertype·✆ 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think mentioning the UK Ireland Act is completely fine, but I think, now that I read this, we need to make a statement that this issue is here because the debate is charged by both Wiki-lawyering and politically charged discussion (and I just realized we don't have the ArbCom case linked it, which would help) Without bringing the point forward, this hopefully identifies that there reasons why the UK act may not be the best advice here (per some editors' reasonings due to the political nature of the disagreement).  We don't have to go into detail, just let the non-involved reader be aware there's a political/nationalistic contention at the core of this. --M ASEM  (t) 15:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made reference to the wikilawyering and politically-charged discussion. -- Evertype·✆ 15:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've added the ArbCom case as a "See also" on the voting page (easiest place to put it without making changes to the text agreed). I also "See also"-ed the WP:IECOLL and the Gdansk vote (since it is a precedent for an actual vote). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A little lost at the bottom but if that's what they did in the other polls that's fine. -- Evertype·✆ 16:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At risk of losing my arm I stuck it into the summary document. More prominent? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WHACK! goes the ruler. No, seriously, that's not bad. I added a bit of text to it. What do you think? (I think we're micro-editing and should get this locked and sent out.) -- Evertype·✆ 17:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye. Looks stable. I'll ask Masem. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Country
The Deacon complained about the ambiguity of this word. This edit addresses it. Overkill? It's not incorrect. Tfz will complain that it adds more counties, but what can you do. -- Evertype·✆ 15:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP edit was by me. Did you see you typo in the edit above, Evertype? "Country" on your mind? I've changed it to "state" since that is the word used elsewhere in the document. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah but I thought the subsequent "sovereign state" was needed. It's getting down to micro-edits and damage control, I think. -- Evertype·✆ 15:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland article names (Text for the ballot announcement)
A poll has been set up at WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Non-trivial sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will be applied. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 27 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST).
 * How is that for a draft? -- Evertype·✆ 17:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe post it on the IE:COLL main talk page. Maybe not everyone is watching this page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So much for my cunning plan, bwa ha ha ha. -- Evertype·✆ 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK ... now you're giddy. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And waitin'. -- Evertype·✆ 19:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference to UK Ireland Act
Snowded removed reference to the UK's Ireland Act. I don't object to that (in fact, I think it would be better without it). What I restored was the quote from the Irish Republic of Ireland Act. I propose that the section be removed, e.g.:


 * Republic of Ireland, the current location of information relating to the 26-county state, as "Republic of Ireland" is an official description (but not name) of the sovereign state as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." In the UK, "Republic of Ireland" is also a legal name for the sovereign state per the UK's Ireland Act 1949; this legislation is still in force in the UK. 

Would you be OK with that Snowded? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont think it needs the quote but you have deleted the section that caused me most concern. -- Snowded  TALK  20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on please this is going on on several pages. -- Evertype·✆ 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you just pointed to this page as the place for the discussion! Looks like there is agreement above.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The two paragraphs Ireland (state)/Republic of Ireland would then be balanced and follow, more or less, the same formula: both introducing the term and both pointing to Irish legislation where the term originates. I think several editors have now asked for the reference to UK legislation to be removed from the ROI bit, so would you be OK to do it, Evertype? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) It is not down to whether he agrees or not it is consensus that determines what goes in not Evertype.  BigDunc  Talk 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to rule here, but I want to make sure that what consensus we have isn't overturned just because some people don't want the 1949 act is mentioned when others DID want it. I'm trying to be fair, not just react to the latest bunch of editors. -- Evertype·✆ 20:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Evertype, he has been working quite hard all day (and for longer) to establish a genuine consensus and if all we are doing now is splitting hairs over whether to mention the UK's act then he's done a pretty good job it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's more than splitting hairs, I objected to this earlier and got cold shouldered, and agree with BigDunc re consenses. Tfz     20:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, I was trying to finish up on the other page and get to here. OK, the reason that is there is to GIVE balance. Please look at the discussion above, Snowded, and previously on the Project Talk page. People (HighKing I believe) had complained that it was UNbalanced to give the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act because that wasn't (in fact) the rationale which had kept the article at Republic of Ireland for all these years -- the argument was that even though it was a DESCRIPTION in Irish law it was a NAME in British law. You might not agree with the logic. I might not. But that's the argument. When we had no mention of the Ireland Act 1949 we were told that the argument was lopsided. So we came up with a completely redundant  In the UK, "Republic of Ireland" is also a legal name for the sovereign state per the UK's Ireland Act 1949; this legislation is still in force in the UK . Not those underscores there should make it clear that the UK Law doesn't apply anywhere else in the world but the UK, shouldn't it? I find this to be pretty aggravating, having worked on this text all day to have you, Snowded, just come in and ASSERT that it is unbalanced. What is unbalanced? Please describe your concern fully, and don't just say "it's unbalanced and by removing this text which I don't like it will balance it" because there's other folk who wanted that text in there. -- Evertype·✆ 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Several people did want the UK reference, didn't they? From back when we had to Pros/Cons outlined. Someone said that it was unbalanced to have only two arguments from Irish legislation because they felt that it would make it look as though Irish people liked both (which evidently they don't). That's why the 1949 act is there next to the 1948 one. OK? AT least please say you iunderstand that's the rationale for it. Maybe it should go, but if that makes other people remove their support we'd be in a bad place. -- Evertype·✆ 20:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Calm, Evertype. Snowded, is it really a deal breaker for you? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * HighKing and Scoláire discussed the fact that one of the arguments for RoI being used was UK legislation from 1949. That's how the text got there. (HighKing had said "Why is everyone ignoring the elephant in the room that is the 1949 Ireland Act (UK)? That is the main reason we are called RoI, and it has nothing to do with the 1948 act (Ireland). Trying to blow smoke in everyone's eyes about the reasons why the British use RoI is not acceptable. Using the 1948 act as justification is a red herring, especially since the 1949 act is still in force." -- Evertype·✆ 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think calm is needed. Evertype you need to understand that some of us have been working all day and not able to participate so I'd ask you to withdraw the accusations above. I got back from London this evening and looked at the ballot. It read to be as clearly leading the uninformed editor to ROI as a solution as it said the term stood in UK law and elaborated the full wording. It failed to mention that the Irish Government had rejected its use as a name, and that the UK government had agreed not to use it post GFA. Now all of that ends up as an essay hence my suggest of a very simple statement that it was a "description but not a name". That way both options have short statements of equal length and people can research further if they want. (and yes Rannpháirt your solution is OK although a stilll a bit long. As it stands it is a deal breaker)  -- Snowded  TALK  20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to make accusations or piss anyone off. Scoláire had said that he felt that it was wrong to ONLY cite the 1948 Irish law because it made it look as though the term "RoI" was used because Ireland specified it, when in fact (said Scoláire) it was the fact that the UK had passed its 1949 law which was why the UK media had been using the term "RoI" for so many years. It is to meet the concerns of Scoláire and HighKing that the text was put there. You say it's a deal breaker. Is there no middle ground? Can you at least respond to the rationale for it being there? I don't want to fix your deal-breaker only to have the result turn into someone else's deal breaker. See? That's why I'm suddenly worried. -- Evertype·✆ 20:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Snowded has voiced their concerns above and explained the reasoning for them. Also evertype you downt own this process and comments like latest bunch of editors are not helpful. BigDunc  Talk 20:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wondering... we had some previous text that looked something like In the UK, "Republic of Ireland" is also a legal name for the sovereign state per the UK's Ireland Act 1949; this legislation is still in force in the UK (though not in any other country) . -- Evertype·✆ 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again that ignores the fact that the UK has agreed to cease using the term and instead use Ireland. Its not false, but neither is it the complete picture.  I don't know what Scolaire and HighKing are attempting to achieve here but as it stands I think the phrasing is misleading.  ROI is (regardless of which act) a description of the state, but it is no longer used as a name.  That is what should be said, pure and simple.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * [ec]Maybe you haven't been here all day, but I have, BigDunc, and right now we have several people with one view about the text here all at once agreeing with each other. I'm saying that consensus includes other people who contributed to the text being what it is. And in the morning (if we get nowhere tonight) we'll have another "bunch" of editors here with a view different from your one, and I'd be anxious about that too. My role here has been to try to keep a balance, not just follow the current POV of whoever's online. I respect your view, but am asking for you to respect that others have a view too and all that, over the last week, led to the text that you objected to today. -- Evertype·✆ 20:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) When and who appointed you this role of keeping balance, you hae a strong opinion on what the article should be called so would have a POV just like I would have, this is a collaboration and Masem is the only editor with a role. I am not trying to push anything here. BigDunc  Talk 21:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you're saying, but even if the UK has agreed to do something, that doesn't mean that the UK media has agreed to do it, or that the reason that the article is at Republic of Ireland and has stayed there so long has been that people were citing the 1949 Act as making it all right. The summary isn't meant to give arguments for people to vote one way or another; it's merely explaining why we have the choices we have. -- Evertype·✆ 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of being appointed. It's about volunteering and putting in a lot of work to try to get a balanced view. -- Evertype·✆ 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And shouting at editors is trying to get a balanced view or are you not aware that using caps is deemed shouting. BigDunc  Talk 21:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly I was just trying to type FAST fast enough to avoid edit conflicts. -- Evertype·✆ 21:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will AGF with your response even though you have a habit of hitting the caps lock key when typing fast. BigDunc  Talk 21:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look below, please, at what is intended to be the goal of these statements. -- Evertype·✆ 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record I don't personally support the status quo configuration of the article titles. -- Evertype·✆ 21:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just can't see the rational of including the UK Act at all, as if it has some priority over this problem at Wikipedia, and it is a Wikipedian problem, not real world. What name does France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United States of America use in their laws. It's certainly not RoI. Tfz     21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is there to explain why Republic of Ireland is on the poll as one of the options. See below, please. -- Evertype·✆ 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It gives a false air of fact that the UK government use the description which they don't any longer. BigDunc  Talk 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't there to say anything about what the Irish or British governments are doing. They are there to say why options were put on the poll. The sentences have to do that. Are you saying that both are on the poll only because of Irish government legislation, without regard to previous practice in the UK? Because I don't believe that it's true that Republic of Ireland is the home for the article on the state only because of the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act. -- Evertype·✆ 21:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's there at RoI because an editor called 213.122.201.xxx created the page back in 2001, and that is the "only" reason. Any smart editor would have chosen something different. Tfz     22:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, a two point proposal for a solution: Would be OK by you, Snowded/BigDunc/TfZ? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave the UK legislation bit in but add the following to "Ireland (state)" paragraph: '"Ireland" is the state's internationally recognised name and, since the Belfast Agreement of 1998, is the name recognised by the UK also.'
 * Currently "Republic of Ireland" links to Names of the Irish state. It could be changed to link to Republic of Ireland Act. If so, then a sentence could be insterted below the two bullet points that siad, "(For more information see Names of the Irish state.)"
 * I have redacted this at the end of the section below. -- Evertype·✆ 21:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

the actual text as it stands
What to call these articles has been a source of controversy for seven years, and the debate is charged by both wikilawyering and politically-charged discussion. Many editors are in particular dissatisfied with the current location of the article on the state. The six most likely options from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below. All involve what content will be at the article titled Ireland, in addition to other articles that may be affected by it. This impacts what the name of the article on the 26-county state "Ireland" will be, should it not be listed at the article titled Ireland. In that case, there are two choices for the title of that article:
 * Ireland (state), a disambiguation name, based on the fact that the 26-county state is a sovereign state and that the 1937 Constitution of Ireland sets forth that "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."
 * Republic of Ireland, the current location of information relating to the 26-county state, as "Republic of Ireland" is an official description (but not name) of the sovereign state as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." In the UK, "Republic of Ireland" is also a legal name for the sovereign state per the UK's Ireland Act 1949; this legislation is still in force in the UK.


 * Do we need to go through this sentence by sentence? -- Evertype·✆ 21:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the state article isn't called Ireland, it could be called Ireland (state). Why is this option on the poll? Because the Constitution says the name is "Ireland" (text given).
 * If the state article isn't called Ireland, it could be called Republic of Ireland. Why is this option on the poll? Because the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act uses "Republic of Ireland" as a description (text given), and because the 1949 Ireland Act said that the name is "Republic of reland".
 * I believe that is what these say. They explain why the options are on the poll. That's the goal of these two sentences. Can we please, if we must revise the second sentence, do it in the light of that goal? -- Evertype·✆ 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * that is to say, neither of these sentences is, as Snowded said on my Talk page, "showing bias to one solution". These sentences aren't there to give an argument for choosing one thing over another. They're there only to explain why the options are on the poll at all. -- Evertype·✆ 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rannṗáirtí suggests:

(For more information see Names of the Irish state.)
 * Ireland (state), a disambiguation name, based on the fact that the 26-county state is a sovereign state and that the 1937 Constitution of Ireland sets forth that "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name and, since the 1998 Belfast Agreement, is also the name recognized by the UK.
 * Republic of Ireland, the current location of information relating to the 26-county state, as "Republic of Ireland" is an official description (but not name) of the sovereign state as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." In the UK, "Republic of Ireland" is also a legal name for the sovereign state per the UK's Ireland Act 1949; this legislation is still in force in the UK.

Snowden suggests some minor modifications

(For more information see Names of the Irish state.)
 * Ireland (state), a disambiguation name, based on the fact that the 26-county state is a sovereign state and that the 1937 Constitution of Ireland sets forth that "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name and, since the 1998 Belfast Agreement, is also the name used by the UK instead of Republic of Ireland
 * Republic of Ireland, the current location of information relating to the 26-county state, as "Republic of Ireland" is an official description (but not name) of the sovereign state as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." In the UK, "Republic of Ireland" is also a legal name for the sovereign state per the UK's Ireland Act 1949; this legislation has not been repealed.


 * The changes to the ROI part if very good, but it isn't true to say that, "since the 1998 Belfast Agreement, [Ireland] is also the name used by the UK instead of Republic of Ireland ". First, because the UK government still uses it. Second because the issue in 1998 (or more to the point in the '80s) was not the UK referring to the state as the "Republic of Ireland", it was the UK references to the Irish state as "Irish Republic", "Eire" and "Southern Ireland" that were far more of an issue. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment in the first part, change the end to "the name used by the UK government instead of "Republic of Ireland". Regarding the second part, there may be provisions in the Act which would probably not be repealed in any case; I think it is prejudicial (and presumptuous) to suggest that the Act will be or should be repealed—That is out of our scope. It is neutral to say that the law is still in force in the UK. -- Evertype·✆ 21:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sugesst: "since the 1998 Belfast Agreement, is also a name recognized by the UK government". ("A" name, not "the" name) -- Evertype·✆ 21:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why leave in the UK legislation, it's means nothing to anybody now? For example, in 1976 the British and Irish governments published the United Kingdom / Ireland Double Taxation Convention (SI 1976 No. 2151 and Protocols). (United Kingdom / Ireland Double Taxation Convention (SI 1976 No. 2151 and Protocols) ). According to JDB Oliver in the British version it originally referred to Ireland as the Republic of Ireland, while the Irish version simply said Ireland( Studies in the History of Tax Law, John Tiley (University of Cambridge. Centre for Tax Law), Hart Publishing, 2004, ISBN 1841134732, Pg. 177). However, in the 1998 Protocol no such problems existed, with specific reference by name to one country or the other and using the name Ireland. Oliver citing an Inland Revenue Press Release (Inland Revenue Press Release, Double Taxation Agreements: Hong Kong, Ireland and Malaysia. 9 November 1998) which states that “In line with practice following the Belfast Agreement, the term ‘Ireland’ is used in the Protocol whereas the term ‘Republic of Ireland’ was used in the 1976 Convention and previous Protocols.” During a subsequent debate in the House of Commons,on the draft Order, the change in wording was raised, with the Financial Secretary referring the Opposition spokesman to the Inland Revenue press release adding “the treaty thus reflects changing circumstances.”( Studies in the History of Tax Law, John Tiley (University of Cambridge. Centre for Tax Law), Hart Publishing, 2004, ISBN 1841134732, Pg. 179) The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office did refer to Ireland as the "Republic of Ireland" - however since 2000 it has referred to the State as "Ireland." The credentials presented by the British ambassador, Stewart Eldon, in 2003, were addressed to the President of Ireland.(A Country by any other Name, Mary Daly, Journal of British Studies, Jan 2007 volume 46 number 1)

Both the European Union and the United Nations, the term Ireland is used to refer to the Irish Republic. The President is know as the President of Ireland, the Government, as the Government of Ireland and Ambassadors, as Ambassadors of Ireland.( The Catholic Ethic and Global Capitalism, Bryan Fields, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003, ISBN 075463745X, Pg. xiv). Today, the European Union, which Britian is a member note that the names of the Member States of the European Union must always be written and abbreviated according to the Interinstitutional Style Guide rules and that neither “Republic of Ireland” nor “Irish Republic” should be used when referring to the Irish State. (European Union Interinstitutional Style Guide.Constitutional Law of 15 EU Member States (edition 6), L. Prakke, C. A. J. M. Kortmann, Hans van den Brandhof, J. C. E. van den Brandhof, Kluwer, 2004, ISBN 9013012558, Pg.430). So the question, based on the above is valid, why leave it in when no one uses it? -- Domer48 'fenian'  21:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it explains why the text is on the poll. I've said this three times. This text is not supposed to encapsulate a thesis on the names of the Irish state. It is to explain why Republic of Ireland is on the ballot. -- Evertype·✆ 21:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Domer, it's just not true that "no one uses it". This] was published by the Northern Ireland Executive last month. -- Evertype·✆ 22:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is barely readable, Domer48. It really isn't necessary to include ISNB numbers on talk pages. It's not even necessary to cite sources - at this stage we are all familiar with the facts, it is which facts to include that we are discussing. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please respond to this.
 * If the state article isn't called Ireland, it could be called Ireland (state). Why is this option on the poll? Because the Constitution says the name is "Ireland" (text given).
 * If the state article isn't called Ireland, it could be called Republic of Ireland. Why is this option on the poll? Because the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act uses "Republic of Ireland" as a description (text given), and because the 1949 Ireland Act said that the name is "Republic of Ireland".

This is what these sentences have to do. That's all they have to do and they are not supposed to be trying to do anything else. -- Evertype·✆ 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Because the Constitution says the name is 'Ireland'" - Because that is the state's common and internationally recognized name in Enlgish (contrast with Burma). "...and because the 1949 Ireland Act said that the name is 'Ireland'." Really? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * [ec]No, that last was a typo I just fixed. -- Evertype·✆ 22:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Evertype, That's not why it's in the ballot, RoI should not be even a choice in the ballot. It's Alice and Wonderland stuff from the past, and has no place in a modern enlightened world of communication and education. And it doesn't matter if someone still uses the term, or use queen of England.It's passé.  Tfz     22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't help you with your POV. I know you don't want to have RoI on the ballot. It's going to be there. Your not wanting it there, or even my not wanting it there, isn't going to get it off the ballot. We have to give a reason; Masem drafted this, it's been edited all day, and much of yesterday, and I regret to say that what you're saying isn't helping us move forward. -- Evertype·✆ 22:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Two options
Variation of Current (For more information see Names of the Irish state.)
 * Ireland (state), a disambiguation name, based on the fact that the 26-county state is a sovereign state and that the 1937 Constitution of Ireland sets forth that "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name and, since the 1998 Belfast Agreement, is now the formal name used by the UK in respect of the state.
 * Republic of Ireland, the current location of information relating to the 26-county state, as "Republic of Ireland" is an official description (but not name) of the sovereign state as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act and was the name of the sovereign state in the UK's Ireland Act 1949.

Variation on new proposal from Evertype
 * 1) If the state article isn't called Ireland, it could be called Ireland (state). Why is this option on the poll? Because the Constitution says the name is "Ireland" (text given) and because its use has been controversial and source of conflict until the UK agreed to use Ireland as the official name in the Good Friday Agreement.
 * 2) If the state article isn't called Ireland, it could be called Republic of Ireland. Why is this option on the poll? Because the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act uses "Republic of Ireland" as a description (text given), and because the term continues in common use within Britain and Ireland.

I am happy with either, preference for the second (I think Evertype is on the right track here). I have balanced the GFA with the fact that the term continues in common use. -- Snowded TALK  22:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't proposing to rewrite them as paraphrases asking "Why is this option on the poll". that was just to help get you guys to focus on the goal of these sentences. Regarding your edits... I'll let Rannṗáirtí speak to whether he thinks that "is now the formal name used by the UK in respect of the state" is accurate. Regarding the second one, I don't like it, because the 1949 act is still a law, like it or not, so "was" isn't correct. However, see below. -- Evertype·✆ 22:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Two issues with the first version:
 * If we are going to quote the consitution then we should quote the ROI act too for balance
 * "... was the name of the sovereign state in the UK's Ireland Act"? Has that act been repealed?
 * Otherwise, fine.
 * The second version is too different from the "original" (and it's too close to the line now) to even consider. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Evertype proposes (edit conflict): (For more information see Names of the Irish state.) Is this better? -- Evertype·✆ 22:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ireland (state), a disambiguation name, based on the fact that the 26-county state is a sovereign state and that the 1937 Constitution of Ireland sets forth that "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name and, since the 1998 Belfast Agreement, is also a name recognized by the UK government.
 * Republic of Ireland, the current location of information relating to the 26-county state, as "Republic of Ireland" is an official description (but not name) of the sovereign state as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." In the UK, "Republic of Ireland" is also a legal name for the sovereign state per the UK's Ireland Act 1949; this legislation is still in force in the UK, alongside the 1998 Belfast Agreement which uses the term "Ireland".


 * Fine with that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's got Belfast Agreement in both halves. Shall I put it on the poll, Rannṗáirtí? At least it's better than the previous version. -- Evertype·✆ 22:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd take Snowded's "Ireland (state)" and your "Republic of Ireland". But can you change the link on Republic of Ireland Act to point to Republic of Ireland Act? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, from yours, cut 'which uses the term "Ireland"' because it's repetitious. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is "the formal name used by the UK gov't" accurate? -- Evertype·✆ 22:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, look at the above reference to Ambassadors, and there is also material from the House of Lords. Agree with talk:Rannpháirtí  -- Snowded  TALK  22:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done it. "...the formal name..." is certainly accurate. They may use other names, but certainly not formally. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You and I were making the same edits at the same time. The only difference was a superfluous full stop on your part. Well, Masem said we should go live after midnight.... -- Evertype·✆ 22:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't like the link to Names of the Irish state at all! It's a badly written and totally POV article, and I hope it will be properly re-written once the naming issue is decided. We had, not one, but two pages of arguments and counter-arguments before; they were both thrown out - well, fair enough - but now this crap article has been lobbed in with a couple of hours to go and nobody had any decent chance to agree or disagree. Scolaire (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Full edit protect
If all is well and good, I've asked Masem to fully edit protect this page ahead of the vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that. Assuming the poll starts tomorrow. I have pushed the end date from 27 to 28 July. -- Evertype·✆ 22:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK with me and I'm going to bed as I have an 0630 target to leave the house to get to Wales for a workshop, will check in first thing and late evening. Pleased we got there.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks Snowded. Good work! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Protected. --M ASEM (t) 23:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please revert the two edits made by Tfz before you protected. He added in text which we had just agreed to take out. -- Evertype·✆ 23:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was agreed to be included, or the sentence makes no sense. Tfz     23:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Throw in a few curve balls (see above) at the last minute and then get the page protected! Of course, you're not asserting ownership, but can you really not see why some people accuse you of it? Scolaire (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you grousing at me? What curve ball? The Names of the Irish state article which you dislike was not proposed by me. It was proposed at 21:30 by Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid. I don't know if it is "awful" or not. Best get editing if it is. My complaint is that we (Rannṗáirtí and I, who have been driving this forward) saw consensus, and asked Masem to protect the page. Between that and the protection, Tfz added in text which had been agreed to leave off. My request for Masem to revert that stands. -- Evertype·✆ 23:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I am requesting Masem to revert the Names of the Irish state reference. Things like that should not be introduced by anybody at the last moment.  Scolaire (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The "which includes "Ireland" statement for the ROI part is confusing; yes, if that ROI piece was a standalone section, it would be needed, but the previous paragraph about Ireland (state) explains this. I think including it is not necessary. --M ASEM  (t) 23:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Masem, I think your comment here refers to Tfz's edits. Scoláire is not happy about the paragraph in parentheses which follows the two bullet points. For my part I have no great attachment to that sentence. -- Evertype·✆ 23:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Its the best article for people to read if they want to understand the issue, it should stay in -- Snowded  TALK  23:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do understand the issue, until I read that article! Scolaire (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You two are at loggerheads. I can only suggest that Masem look at Names of the Irish state and decide for himself if it ought to be linked in the ballot. His choice is fine with me. -- Evertype·✆ 00:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My gut on the names article is that our voters are WP editors, they will be smart enough to understand that it's a tad undersourced and (based on the reasoning for this poll) may have some inaccuracies or POV statements. However, it does link to the primary sources on naming, so it is potential useful if readers want to read further. But again, my gut also tells me most are going to look at this as pragmatically as possible, presuming that we've correctly come to the conclusion there's confusion and no "right" answer, and thus will vote to make things consistent as best as they see fit. --M ASEM  (t) 00:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, so. I'm content to listen to your gut.  Scolaire (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The reasoning for this poll being based on a small group of editors POV it does have many inaccuracies and POV statements. That this process has been notable for it's unsourced inaccuracies and POV statements is down to as pragmatically as possible poor leadership. Per ArbCom,Naming conventions, a longstanding policy, provides that:"Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." As Masem indicated above, "our voters are WP editors" and the reader is simply ignored likewise our policies. -- Domer48 'fenian'  08:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mark Anthony would have summed it nicely with "O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason". Wikipedia has reached rock bottom on this issue, where scholarly learning has been substituted for casual opinion. It would be in order that a sub-page be created, that those who object to this very questionable process can register their objection with a vote, and a comment.  Tfz     10:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont know why you two are still moaning, this vote is going to lead to the Republic of Ireland article being moved from the Republic of Ireland slot, you should be happy. More delays simply means it stays there longer. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Call it what you wish BW, but it's usually the 'moaners' who ever made any worthwhile contribution in the history of events. All the great people in history had it and were persecuted, Socrates, Christ, Galileo, Luther King, Mandela to name a few. Tfz     11:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the evil in the world is done by moaners too, people always blaming others for something, from a wife beater to Hitler himself. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your cup is half empty, stop moaning please.0 Tfz     11:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Im not moaning, im responding to ur moaning thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree Tfz, scholarly learning has indeed been substituted for casual opinion, but we can now add gut feelings also. I would also agree with your suggestion on creating a sub-page to deal with this very questionable process. It could possibly form a chapter in this essay here, or possibly on WP:GAMING. -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Text removed
The Moderator has removed text when there has been no agreement to do so, see here. The draft includes the text, and should stand. I'm asking Masem to reinstate the draft text please. Tfz    23:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid requested that the text be removed here, stating that the text was repetitious, which it is. Read the two sentences out loud and you will see this. -- Evertype·✆ 23:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not very well worded for a protected 'document', repetition can be a feature of official documentation, so that was not a problem. I was more than surprised when Masem followed your 'orders' without question. Your ownership has been a feature of this page for far too long. I may go to ArbCom about this later in the day.  Tfz     23:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Give over. -- Evertype·✆ 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the change before reverting, and I feel it is the correct change because it is repeative and confusing in context of the whole document, not just that one sentence. This is not to say the fact "it includes Ireland" is wrong, but it's already stated and putting it there, if anything, weakens the ROI argument (this should not be taken as my support for either option, it's just an unbiased writing POV). --M ASEM (t) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem that was anything but unbiased writing POV. As is clearly illustrated in this post the UK no longer use RoI. Your edit removed this clarity, and is simple POV. -- Domer48 'fenian'  07:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relax, Domer. Read the two sentences out loud. You will see that, taken together, it is quite clear that the Belfast Agreement uses "Ireland". The clause "which uses the term 'Ireland'" was removed only because it was repetitious. No ill is being done here. As to your insistence that "RoI" isn't used any more, why do you persist in mendacity? I responded to your posting with this, a document written 11 June 2009 by the Northern Ireland Executive (one of three devolved governments in the United Kingdom). You try very hard to "prove" your POV, but since you ignore evidence that doesn't support your POV, your credibility is low. -- Evertype·✆ 07:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The text should be reinserted as without it, it gives the impression that the GFA backs up the previous act. BigDunc  Talk 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Id like to see the fact the countrys own football team is called Republic of Ireland added as well, it clearly shows the Irish government is not as obsessed with doing away with the term as some of the people here. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So we have 4 editors now saying the PP was done to quick with still discussion to be had, the owner of the article needs to stop cracking the whip and the monkey stop jumping to it. BigDunc  Talk 16:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that people are edit warring on the instructions for a poll to try to seek an end to edit warring is enough to establish protection to stablize it and get it out the door. This should not be this hard. --M ASEM (t) 16:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A fact check please: as best as I can read through and understand the arguments/documents:
 * Both the UK's Ireland Act and the Belfast/Good Friday Act are both active politic documents
 * The Belfast Act, though stating the country should be called "Ireland" does not specifically negate the Ireland Act nor seems to offer language to deal with conflicting issues
 * Thus, technically, there are two conflicting laws about how the UK named the country.
 * Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I will rework that line to avoid POV but still make sure the correct status is applied here. I think it's important to present the right basis of arguments, but from a standpoint of WP naming, this just sets the grounds for why there's been a dispute for so long and likely won't impact most voters. --M ASEM (t) 16:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But the problem is that it now looks like the Belfast agreement is backing up the 1948 Ireland Act, as alluded to by BigDunc and myself above. Everytype says to read it out loud, well I guess most editors don't read out loud, and that's a 'red herring'. What is the problem about using precise language. It's always the same with Evertype, he insists on his detail, but accuses other editors of mendacity when editors ask the moderator to make a few corrections.  Tfz     17:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I accuse people of mendacity when they lie, not when they ask the moderator to make changes. Tsk. -- Evertype·✆ 17:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who has lied Evertype? BigDunc  Talk 17:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible additional process to overcome these issues
My original amendment said that the 1948 act had not been repealed (maybe that should have be qualified to say in respect of the name). While the act is in force, it is defacto negated in respect of the name by the Belfast Agreement. We should remember that English Law is not restricted to statue. I think we improved the text last night and I think it can be lived with, but it could still be improved.

I would like to make a suggestion to move forward on this and there is no reason why the poll can't be held for a week. Its important that no one disputes the fiarness of the process. My suggestion is for the advocates of each solution to agree a 250 word summary of their argument WITHOUT the participation of others. Those could be working pages - if the editors don't agree within a week then their's is not published. To prevent sabotage only established editors can take part, and participation means that you have cast your ballot. -- Snowded TALK  17:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For my part (and you may not care about my opinion) I oppose this suggestion, for the simple reason that there is many years worth of archived discussion here, and on dozens of other related pages for people to review if they so desire. I think we're seeing a scramble from people all afraid that their brilliant arguments will not be heard, but at the end of the day, that's true with any election. Masem thought we might start by midnight last night. A day or so delay is one thing, but a week? For people to write more and more POV paragraphs? You really think most voters will want to read them? -- Evertype·✆ 17:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No one in their right mind would want to wade through all the material. However neutral editors would I think welcome a summary of the arguments, which can not be done on one or two sentences.  Please read the proposal, it gives the editor groups a week to put to gether 250 words not to write more and more POV paragraphs.  A week is neither here not there in the process and your suggestions of a "scramble" is taking place is not helpful.  The idea is to make it easy for editors to assess the arguments and come to a considered opinion.  At the moment there is a concern about the wording which is not fully resolved and probably can't be within the existing structure.  The above proposal is designed to overcome this.  As I said please read it rather than just reacting against anything which implies a delay of any type.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like a fair proposal one question what is an established editor? 6 months on wiki from this point would be a good starting place. BigDunc  Talk 17:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I really haven't got a clue what this proposal is for. Now we are owning the options? Now we have separate working groups? Now we are giving each other approval to publish? wtf. People should have just listened when I pointed out what would be the obvious result of allowing pro/con statements, which morphed into a short info box, which morphed into this wierdness. Rip it out, put the poll up, vote. Enough already. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have a go at that Snowded, but as to the fairness of the process I've made my views very clear. Dunc also makes a good point, how long before your considered an established editor?-- Domer48 'fenian'  18:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly support a delay in holding the vote for a few days or a week, i have big concerns we are rushing into this vote too quickly. I came on this morning after a few days off and it looked as though the vote was going to be taking place in a couple of hours time, way too quick in my opinion.


 * Im not sure what the best way forward is, but i think we should discuss this on the main project page to get everyones attention so they can give their opinions. I had concerns about a single statement above the vote and no arguments for each option. I think the current statement is well written but i have concerns it doesnt explain the core problems with the options. So this does need to be agreed to in more detail before we go forward. Please lets talk on the main project talkpage thoughh, coz not everyone will of put this on their watch list yet its happened so quikcly. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewording the country statements
I have reworded the two country differences as follows after thinking about the point that the poll should be trying to capture, and specifically on the point that some see the ROI term as weighted toward the UK, and specifically pointing out The Troubles as part of the background of this.


 * Ireland (state), a disambiguation name, based on the fact that the 26-county state is a sovereign state and that the 1937 Constitution of Ireland sets forth that "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." The name "Ireland" is the state's internationally-recognized name.


 * Republic of Ireland, the current location of information relating to the 26-county state, as "Republic of Ireland" is an official description (but not name) of the sovereign state as per the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." However, the term can also seen to be politically charged, relating to the United Kingdom's influence on the country during The Troubles; the term "Republic of Ireland" was the UK's official name for the country defined in the 1949 UK Ireland Act; with the 1998 Belfast Agreement that concluded The Troubles, UK now officially recognizes the country as just "Ireland".

Yes, it is a negative statement, but in this case it is a potential landmine that editors should be aware of; that's a necessary weight to consider for this. (It's vastly different if this was Ireland (state) vs Ireland (country) as there's no harm with either set of words). --M ASEM (t) 19:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow i dont like that change sorry. the mention of the troubles is a POV, everything else is fact, why such an unbalanced addition to the statement? I also think it should point out more clearly in the sentence that it was the IRISH government that introduced the Republic of Ireland Act, people may be confused and think that was a British government Act. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent job Masem -- Snowded  TALK  19:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that is complete historical bunk. The issues during the Troubles were with the names "Eire", "Irish Republic" and "Southern Ireland". The term is *not* seen as politically charged except by a few extremists that are limited to Wikipedia. I strongly oppose this proposal. It is utterly biased and lacking in a any genuine understanding of the history/politics of Ireland and the UK save for that was garnered from the influence of a handful of (frankly speaking) nut jobs here on Wikipedia. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It was seen as politically charged enough for its use to be part of the GFA, so its hardly confined to editors here (and lay off words like "nut jobs" they are not helpful). However that reaction illustrates why I proposed some negotiated statements in the proposal above. -- Snowded  TALK  19:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...its use to be part of the GFA..." It was not a part of the Good Friday Agreement. Read the Good Friday Agreement. It's very short. Is the name of this team politically charged? No. The issue in the '80 was in relation to "Eire", "Irish Republic", "Southern Ireland" and other such names. The idea that the term "Republic of Ireland" is politically charged is the original research and synthesis here on Wikipedia. No where else. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So the suspicious SPA who has been on wiki for 44 days is starting to show their true colors with personal attacks. BigDunc  Talk 19:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I made clear before, I've been editing for a *very* long time and contributing to this project for longer than 44 days - as an IP. If you suspect anyone of sock-puppetry, there is a place to rise it. not on a talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If that biased statement against the ROI being used is to stay, people also need to be informed about how awful an option like Ireland at Ireland is which has just as many landmines if not more. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is important to note that Britain was by the mid 1960s, the only country not to refer to the state as Ireland.(A Country by any other Name, Mary Daly, Journal of British Studies, Jan 2007 volume 46 number 1) and the wording above restricts this to the UK and Ireland, what about Europe? The European Union note that the names of the Member States of the European Union must always be written and abbreviated according to the Interinstitutional Style Guide rules and that neither “Republic of Ireland” nor “Irish Republic” should be used when referring to the Irish State. (European Union Interinstitutional Style Guide.Constitutional Law of 15 EU Member States (edition 6), L. Prakke, C. A. J. M. Kortmann, Hans van den Brandhof, J. C. E. van den Brandhof, Kluwer, 2004, ISBN 9013012558, Pg.430). On the Republic of Ireland Act it should also be noted that the descriptive term was only secondary to the fact that the Act marked the point of Ireland leaving the Commonwealth. Using a point that was basically incidental in this way is very misleading IMO. -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also strongly oppose this proposal per Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid. -- Evertype·✆ 21:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning Evertype is that a bunch of nut jobs are ruining your masterplan because the rest provided by the SPA is a nice bit of OR. BigDunc  Talk 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Your personal attack is ineffective, because I don't know what it is that you intend to say by "SPA". Thank you for your attempt, however. It is uncivil of you. -- Evertype·✆ 21:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Masem, please take note. The arguments given by BigDunc and Domer48 aren't about the poll. They are about politics external to this encyclopaedia. I ask you to consider whether attempting to cater to their arguments is worth jeopardizing this project for. -- Evertype·✆ 21:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets all use big text so the moderator can see SPA is that clear for you now and as you were asked above don't speak for me I am able to make my own points. And I fail to see what you are harping on about with rubbish like politics external to this encyclopaedia. You don't know my politics and I am very sure you would be very surprised if you did.  BigDunc  Talk 22:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Dunc has got a valid point. A SPA account, who’s first edit was to this project seems odd? I'll not respond to any accusations which assume bad faith. -- Domer48 'fenian'  21:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For Domer
You may wish to complain to Revenue about the following. -- Evertype·✆ 11:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement of randomized order
The ballot paper currently does not make it clear that the order of the options was chosen randomly. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. that's right. I think the Pros/Cons drafts previous did. (I'm pretty sure the ballot in the Local and European Elections was in random order but didn't state that it was randomized. The announcement of the Ballot DOES say that it's been randomized. Do you think that it is very important to say so on the Ballot as well? -- Evertype·✆ 17:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I was asking. I did leave a note on Masem's page about it. -- Evertype·✆ 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a statement to this effect, as it is important to state. --M ASEM (t) 18:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see it. Ah, I see you've written "The six most likely options from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below, presented in no particular or preferential order." -- Evertype·✆ 18:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Restriction on additional comments
People should be allowed to link to personal rationales in their vote if they want to, this is standard practice, and should not be disbarred as a 'comment' per the current instructions. MickMacNee (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please could you give evidence for this "standard" practice in Wikipedia polling? The (xxx) poll went well without such rationales. Current instructions allow people to make comments below the ballot or on the Talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just pick a random Rfa/Arb election. It is standard. MickMacNee (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree I can't see any reason why a comment if editor feels they need to add after their vote is cast as Mick says like any RfA. BigDunc  Talk 18:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean a link to another page, not a text comment on the paper. MickMacNee (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * edit conflict This isn't an RfA. The current rules for the Poll, by the way, are as originally drafted by Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid. They are also the same rules what we used during the Ireland (xxx) poll, and this did not seem to trouble anyone. I guess Masem should rule on this one. Personally I support the rules as they are. -- Evertype·✆ 18:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example? -- Evertype·✆ 18:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments need to be allowed, but my suggestion is to direct people to the talk page of the poll page, or in a section after the vote list, so that discussion can be made without making is difficult to find the votes through the comments. Disbarring any comments is inappropriate, as there may be editors that want clarification without reading too much, or that there may be other ideas that people may come up with that if we have to go back to the drawing board we can explore. --M ASEM  (t) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then the statement Sign and date your vote but do not append any comments to your vote; they will be removed. needs to be emended to give a formula for pointing to the other place. (If this isn't specified, then the ballot will become a soapbox.) I'll have a think about this. -- Evertype·✆ 18:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose: Sign and date your vote. If you wish to append comments, please do so by stating Further comments at a section on the Talk page. But do not append any comments to your vote; if you do, they will be moved to the Talk page. I hope this helps. -- Evertype·✆ 18:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about comments, I am talking about a link to a personal rationale for your vote. e.g. WAOIFENAW per my rationale MickMacNee (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Linking to one's wikispace is fine as well (there's nothing against it), but again, we need discussion space outside of the voting area, there's no reason to not include one's personal reason there and centralize it, barring if you've got a nice lengthly essay all ready to go for this. --M ASEM (t) 18:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm i dont think any links or comments should be allowed in the voting section, its going to make it too messy.. it should be reserved for votes and only votes. I dont have a problem with another section for links to "other arguments or reading" something along those lines, but keep it out of the voting section please. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The great downside to comments in the voting area IMHO will be the inevitability that they will descend into argument, heated exchange, accusation and counter accusation. We want to have an environment where people can vote freely. One way to do that is to separate the place where we discuss from the place where we decide. It prevents harassment and allows people to make clear decision. Of course the reasons for that decision are important - and those reasons can be stated, and should be stated, either on the talk page or in the comments are below. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anybody who replies to a link in the voting section will be moderated off the page pretty quickly. Links to outside rationales are one hundred times more usefull than 'see my rationale buried in the shitfest below, filed under 'Discussion'. People who are smart can use a comment link to that section, but thats pretty advanced stuff. MickMacNee (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, what about adding a parameter to the balloting template to allow a link to somewhere that the voter has written up a rationale? The link would be something small like the following:
 * A B C D (see my rationale) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No response would be allowed. That way people would be able to leave link to a rationale, without mad POV-ish link titles, we would be able to keep a handle on "discussion" in the voting area (by not allowing it), but no-one's rationale would get lost in the "shitfest". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid. I think we should not change the rule. I prefer NO comments or links at all. In a real election, you mark your paper and put it in the box. No soapboxing. We've had years of everyone defending their views. Now that we're up for a real vote, we see people scatter, frantic that they might "lose". I really don't want to see the ballot turned into a POV slug-fest. I think what we did with the Ireland (xxx) poll which banned comments worked very well. I think we should stick with it. And I think we should start this poll, not harangue and wring our hands and worry any longer. It's ready, warts and all. -- Evertype·✆ 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please STOP attributing motives to other editors based on your own perspective, its not ready yet warts or not and you should stop trying to force the pace, it will undo the good work you have done todate. -- Snowded  TALK  19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. What's not ready about it? Rannṗáirtí and I tried to write neutral Pros/Cons. That didn't make anyone happy. The two of us and Scoláire and others tried to polish a generic intro. That didn't make anyone happy. Now we're looking at pausing so that a whole set of new POV arguments can be put on the ballot. I can't see that that is in any way wise. So what's not ready about it? -- Evertype·✆ 20:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For a start the proposed change earlier which mentions "the troubles" in an attempt to rig the vote against use of Republic Of Ireland without any equal warnings for other options will be unacceptable to many. A pause is the only option right now, lets see how the statements look after a week. If we cant agree on them then the vote should just go forward with no explanation note or statements at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The current text doesn't mention "the Troubles". If someone proposed it but it is controversial, reject the proposal. Wait a week for more people to write more POV statements? They're not going to be any better than the neutral ones we tried to craft to make everyone "happy". Worked hard on that, too, and then gave it up when Masem proposed a generic solution. Worked hard on that too. What was the point? Try to serve this community soberly and fairly, and all that's offered back is grief. -- Evertype·✆ 20:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Masem made the suggested change - shortly before posting on the project page that the process should be put on hold. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I had missed that suggested change. (As you see above, I must oppose it.) -- Evertype·✆ 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I could support Rannṗáirtí's suggestion (see my rationale) above. -- Evertype·✆ 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that should be used even if we go ahead with pro / con statements. allowing people to make a more detailed statement (like the original big ones people did ages ago) if they want. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I mean there should be no pro/con statements, but if people want to link to any kind of screed at all that would help. As of now, I have no confidence that this project will ever succeed in putting up a poll that isn't a farce. Maybe tomorrow I will feel differently. When I see the kind of political abuse that's not so very far higher up on this page, I sorely wish that Masem had stuck to his guns and instructed us to send out the neutral poll last night or earlier today. As of now, I can't believe that what is being planned will be in any way "balanced". And that's from someone who's spent a lot of time wrestling with this. For what it was worth, I don't know. -- Evertype·✆ 22:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Either way allowing people to provide further details in that (see) method linking to their own space is a good idea and allows people to express all of their points without cluttering up the vote section. As for the vote starting earlier, im glad it didnt. I hadnt been on the past day or so and i was stunned the vote was close to going live, it seems too rushed. If this pro / cons thing fails then the vote should just go live without any arguments provided (either in a single text or pro / con statements). BritishWatcher (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As per Snowded above Evertype, please stop attributing motives to other editors based on your own perspective. -- Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  23:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I waited this long, so what's it gonna hurt to wait 'longer'. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

List of position statements
''Add a link to your statement at the bottom of the list. Please do not put any comments in this section.''


 * Statement incorporating arguments for and against each option by -- Evertype·✆ 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct summary statement...
Can we please get the correct summary statement on this poll page. I thought we agreed to have the neutral introduction which didnt mention any of the options, rather than the current one displayed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We did agree on an info-box. It just takes Masem to unlock the page for us to make the move. This will happen before the poll, worry not. 07:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 August 2018
Mismatched closing tag is causing the whole page to be underlined.

Please change Ireland</i> to Ireland  160.3.226.157 (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅, there were two instances, both fixed. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 13:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)