Line 383: | Line 383: | ||
:::"Not F" is not an option. You could say ''exactly'' the same thing for every other option. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] ([[User talk:John Kenney|talk]]) 22:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
:::"Not F" is not an option. You could say ''exactly'' the same thing for every other option. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] ([[User talk:John Kenney|talk]]) 22:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::Nah. On the ''insulting'' v ''non-insulting'' titles ''F'' v ''not F'' captures the essence of the debate. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 23:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
::::Nah. On the ''insulting'' v ''non-insulting'' titles ''F'' v ''not F'' captures the essence of the debate. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 23:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::This response demonstrates clearly that Sarah has no desire to reason with anybody. She has her conclusions—don't let the facts get in the way. The fact is that when we take into account second, third, fourth, etc. preferences, which is what STV is for, we still find that F wins. This is because there is no consensus that F is the worst option. Many would prefer it to some of the other options presented. Which demonstrates clearly that a good many voters, probably most, do not regard this as a an "F v not-F" debate. If that were the essence of the debate, as Sarah alleges, it would come across in the preferences. It does not. But instead of analysis, argumentation, or insight, we get the distraction of "insulting v non-insulting" with the transparent attempt to bait one of her opponents into a response in kind. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 00:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Desire for compromise - a straw poll == |
== Desire for compromise - a straw poll == |
Revision as of 00:47, 18 August 2009
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Probably a stupid idea
Using the DISPLAYTITLE function, we can make the title of Republic of Ireland display as follows:
- "Republic of Ireland".
I have tested it on the page, and you can see the effect here. If we do this, MOS will probably be updated to forbid it, but still... I just wanted to mention the possibility as one thing to think about during the cooling-down break, which I also intend to observe now. Hans Adler 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
PS: Now this is really stupid, but technically possible is also the following:
- "
Republic ofIreland".
- "
I just tested it with the preview function. (Didn't want to deface the article in this way, not even for a minute.) Hans Adler 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Does Republic of Ireland work? woops broke the break rule again lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Me too. Here it is: [1]. Hans Adler 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm if the outcome is the status quo id support that, doesnt make a huge difference but just another way to help highlight Ireland in ROI incase a few fail to read the first paragraph and just go on article title. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It's technically possible to have the title just display "Ireland". All you have to put is {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style = "display:none">Republic of</span>Ireland}}. Some devs might come around and kill people for the hack, but like I say, it's entirely possible, and of course it could be done in other ways, as it's possible to hide anything in the same fashion. For example, we could do {{DISPLAYTITLE:Ireland <span style = "display:none">(state)</span>}} and so on. I think you get the idea. Cool3 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Tried {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style = "display:none">Republic of</span>Ireland}}, and it didn't work for me. Maybe someone else test it out. Tfz 06:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Limited Options
I am sure that this was discussed earlier but I haven't been following the preliminary discussions closely enough. Still the question of how to properly divide the content between articles and how to disambiguate the article on the modern sovereign state (assuming it is not the primary topic) are at least potentially separate. In particular, I feel quite strongly that the official, self-selected description "Republic of Ireland" should be used in preference to a parenthetical disambiguator, but don't really consider the island the primary topic as it is define on Wikipedia. Thus F is my first choice, but I'd prefer E or C if they used RoI instead of Ireland (state). When this is discussed again in two years, I think that a more widely publicized debate on that issue would be a good idea. Having reviewed this talk page, I realize that this wouldn't assuage the concerns of those editors who object to RoI as unacceptable British POV, but no sollution will satisfy everyone. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would go with C as my first preference; but accepted alternatives as a compromise. Dismissing concerns of "some" editors is all fine and dandy until you consider that those "some" who object object to British pov beong imposed on the Ireland article actually represent a clear majority of Irish editors. F is not a sustainable option. Sarah777 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO, there was enough options to choose from. PS: my 24hr break ends. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Eluchil404, this should certainly be looked at again in 2 years time no matter which option is chosen this time. Without going over old ground there was agreement we didnt want too many options on the poll and at the time the options were being added i do not recall anyone pushing for other options with ROI on the ballot. Infact some of those who oppose the status quo seem to think that should not of been an option on here either. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- As R.A.'s tally shows, Sarah, a clear majority of Irish editors actually favour F. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- But then I reckon that while folk like J Kenny insist on making poisonous statements like "Sarah's whole argument here has been "British people are racist against the Irish and they use 'Republic of Ireland,'" without a shred of evidence to support it and then goes on to suggest that Irish editors be banned while he can continue to spout gibberish unchallanged we are going nowhere.
- I would seriously suggest Kenny recuse himself from this process before he does any more damage. DrKiernan set a good example which Kenny might emulate. Kenny also said, without sanction or referral to anywhere "it seems to me that Sarah should probably be banned from this page for making "anti-British remarks," since virtually all of her comments qualify as such." So, analysis voting patterns and pointing out the obvious are "anti-British remarks"? The legitimate view that "RoI" is a diminutive title for Ireland which is maintained by weight of non-Irish votes, though factual, is "anti-British"?
- While this sort of intimidation of Irish editors is on-going (sporadically supported by Admin actions and threats) - we have no process. Bastun: it certainly does not. I ceased to tally the votes when this process was effectively dissolved - at that stage F was the least favoured option among Irish editors. Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- By the way my silence since the bad block was while I tried to get officialdom to deal with personal attacks on me by Kenny, Egan and others. It appears that their language is OK; so I am now free to respond in kind. I'd be inclined to agree with Bastun that we should have some rules - but I sure ain't agree to rules that silence just one half of the debate. Sarah777 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- So its back to the enviornment we had a few days ago with certain editors making grossly misleading claims. Welcome back Sarah. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- You could at least spell my name correctly. And how on earth am I intimidating anybody? john k (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- You threatened to block me when I removed your vile personal attack. In the edit comment I think. Notice how many Irish editor's have left the building in my absence? Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did not threaten to block you, and I certainly never had any thought that I might conceivably block you. You had said that you would remove any statements I made because I was making personal attacks on you, and proceeded to remove a comment I had made. My statement was basically an observation - if you had carried out that threat to remove any statements I added to the talk page, I suspect you would have been blocked. But I was certainly not threatening to block you. john k (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not only is the process not "dissolved", but RA's tallies - and Valenciano's - have been ongoing from pretty much the start, and consistently show that F is the preferred option of non-Irish/non-British voters, and of British voters, and of Irish voters.[3][4][5] BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. Nul points. Wrong. RA includes British editors in his "analysis". And I don't really want to expand this argument to the J Kennies but I refer you to my explanations of systematic pov problems on "List of events called Massacres". (Previously called "List of Massacres"). Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- No true Irishman? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. Nul points. Wrong. RA includes British editors in his "analysis". And I don't really want to expand this argument to the J Kennies but I refer you to my explanations of systematic pov problems on "List of events called Massacres". (Previously called "List of Massacres"). Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- You threatened to block me when I removed your vile personal attack. In the edit comment I think. Notice how many Irish editor's have left the building in my absence? Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- By the way my silence since the bad block was while I tried to get officialdom to deal with personal attacks on me by Kenny, Egan and others. It appears that their language is OK; so I am now free to respond in kind. I'd be inclined to agree with Bastun that we should have some rules - but I sure ain't agree to rules that silence just one half of the debate. Sarah777 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Stalking?
I note that J Kenney has now followed me to Earl of Mayo and List of events named massacres having earlier followed my edit log to Shrule. Some irony here; he was demanding evidence that the name "RoI" was leading to disruption or "collateral edit warring"; now is is personally providing the proof! Sarah777 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- umm maybe im missing something? The edit history of Earl of Mayo says..
- 00:34, 13 August 2009 John Kenney
- 09:24, 13 August 2009 Sarah777
- The talk page history of List of Events...
- 23:04, 14 August 2009 John Kenney
- 23:37, 14 August 2009 Sarah777
- How did he follow you there? Am i reading these things wrong???BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as usual, you are. The migration of Kenney to "List of Massacres" followed me mentioning it on my talkpage; the Mayo edit warring followed his arriving at Shrule. Now BW, why don't you hop off back to the defence of British pov you are currently conducting at Talk:British Isles? (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yes, where you told him to look so thats hardly "stalking". Still two of those articles he edited or posted on the talk page before you. Thats very good stalking. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't tell him to look anywhere. Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Y'know BW, if you were half as smart as you think you are you'd be a bloody genius. And if you were twice as smart as you really are I could call you "Rover" and teach you to do tricks. Sarah777 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- "See the talk on List of events called massacres." you said that on the Shrule talk page. Sounds like an invite to me. As for the British Isles, i will happily comment in both places. We should not forget that you have tried to rename the British Isles article on atleast 2 occasions because you reject the name, hmm you are pushing for a name change here too :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- How nice BritishWatcher (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies. It wasn't meant to be "nice"; just evaluative. And I think you'll find I was addressing MrDowney when I referred to massacres. Kenney was not involved. Except he went off to do a bit of stalking. Sarah777 (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well it looks like ur comment was responding to him on the talk page. It was certainly AFTER hed made a post. I understand that after being reasonable in responding to that other matter (which i respect you for) you are now having to make up for lost time. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Uhoh, Masems posted on a noticeboard about this talk page... i think its time me and you went to bed Sarah (not together ofcourse). BritishWatcher (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well it looks like ur comment was responding to him on the talk page. It was certainly AFTER hed made a post. I understand that after being reasonable in responding to that other matter (which i respect you for) you are now having to make up for lost time. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies. It wasn't meant to be "nice"; just evaluative. And I think you'll find I was addressing MrDowney when I referred to massacres. Kenney was not involved. Except he went off to do a bit of stalking. Sarah777 (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- How nice BritishWatcher (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't tell him to look anywhere. Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yes, where you told him to look so thats hardly "stalking". Still two of those articles he edited or posted on the talk page before you. Thats very good stalking. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Okay, firstly, I did follow Sarah to Shrule, but not from her edit history. I was reading her talk page because she was threatening to get someone to block me, and I was interested in seeing if anyone had responded to you there. I came across the Shrule issue there. I was interested in looking at the article, to see what the dispute was. I did some research on the subject, and posted it on the talk page with lengthy quotes from secondary sources, for the hopeful improvement of the article. I did not edit the article, nor did I change any of Sarah's work there, as I figured that might be inflammatory, given that we haven't built up a good working relationship, to say the least. While looking into the Shrule situation, I noticed that a Viscount Mayo was involved. I looked at the Earl of Mayo page to see if we had an article about this particularly Viscount. We did not, but I also discovered that the article was oddly formatted, and didn't include dates for several viscounts. So I changed that. Sarah followed me there and reverted me, on the pretext of removing red links (which were completely valid in that instance, since all of the viscounts and most to all of the earls are plausible subjects for having their own articles). She also posted at Talk:Shrule with what I took to be a suggestion that I look at List of events called massacres. I looked at that, and found the introduction to be horribly written, which I commented on at the talk page. I don't see how I've done anything wrong here, certainly nothing to justify a claim that I am "stalking" her. john k (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK John. I withdraw the "stalking" claim. Your explanations seem reasonable and I've made my WP:POINTY. I'm sorry you didn't withdraw your dissing of my edit record or your "poisonous" claim - but such is life. I still don't see how you justify the Earl of Mayo redlinks mind. Also apologise to BW. And Evertype. Though I'm not exactly happy about the things they said. 01:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Country vs. State
Options C,D, and E all provide for naming an article Ireland (state). This may well have been discussed, if so please just point me in that direction, but why has the decision been made to use "state" rather than "country". A state is a political entity, thus in such an article one would expect to see articles on political and institutional arrangements. The article in question refers to much more than the political encompassing the cultural, economic, etc. As such, it is an article not about a state but about a country. I would further point out that at the moment the note at the top of Ireland reads "For the sovereign country named 'Ireland', see Republic of Ireland." So I ask, why use state when country is a better term? Cool3 (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting, for I proposed 'sovereign country' and didn't get the support to carry it through, and it's already used to describe the country, from your quote, "For the sovereign country named 'Ireland', see Republic of Ireland.". Agree, 'state' is a thin/shallow to describe the entirety of the country, ancient and modern. Tfz 05:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Prior to this poll, there was an internal poll at the IECOLL project to try to decide what options for disamb terms should be present (state, country, etc.), as each term would have added at least 3 options to this (so if we had "state" and "country" that would have 9 total options on this poll) so we wanted to minimize the number used. In that poll, "state" ran away with that vote, and thus was the only clear option to include. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- But it was not an internal poll, it was advertised in almost all the places and to the same people this main poll was. State had a strong lead, im not sure why (country) didnt do so well. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Prior to this poll, there was an internal poll at the IECOLL project to try to decide what options for disamb terms should be present (state, country, etc.), as each term would have added at least 3 options to this (so if we had "state" and "country" that would have 9 total options on this poll) so we wanted to minimize the number used. In that poll, "state" ran away with that vote, and thus was the only clear option to include. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- The current Ireland article is about the country of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland article is about the modern state that covers about five sixths of the country, and that may or may not still be here in thirty years. Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ohh yes that was the thing, some viewed the term country as meaning the whole island rather than the current sovereign state, something i never quite understood, but i seem to recall several people having those concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see, that at least sort of makes sense. The political scientist in me shudders, but the historian understands. Cool3 (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- What does the geographer, sociologist, cultural studies, sportsman, artist/author, theologian, tourist, etc. in you think? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- To me, that criticism applies equally to "state". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see, that at least sort of makes sense. The political scientist in me shudders, but the historian understands. Cool3 (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ohh yes that was the thing, some viewed the term country as meaning the whole island rather than the current sovereign state, something i never quite understood, but i seem to recall several people having those concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a good place to respond to Tfz [6]; the Village Pump certainly isn't. My concern is that Ireland referring to the island or the state according to context is one thing, but if we set things up so that the sovereign state is the primary topic and the island secondary, I would expect serious conflict with some people from Northern Ireland, and I wouldn't blame them for that. If the European Union renamed itself to just Europe, I would similarly argue against putting it into the primary position for this name, out of respect for Swiss and Norwegian people. If I am wrong about this and it's uncontroversial to see Northern Ireland as somehow a part of the Republic of Ireland, then I will happily change my vote again and put option B first. Hans Adler 20:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed there is no way the sovereign state should have the prime spot, i feel far more strongly about that than the article titles issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I completely agree with that. I would find that to be similar to when (usually American) media reports refer to the whole of Britain or the UK as "England". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Solution Found
[7]
Thanks to the expertise of user:Cool3, a solution has been found to the disambiguation conundrum, and here it is [8]. A piece of technology has made it possible to give both entities their proper title. Tfz 08:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- How is that being done? Definitely worth exploring. (Note, I'm seeing a 'nowiki' html code on the first line there). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- The code used is
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style = "display:none">Republic of</span> Ireland}}
- in other words, it suppresses the "Republic of" from public view.
- The code used is
- The problem with this solution is its effect on search and links. Readers unfamiliar to this discussion may well come to this article and assume that if they type Ireland in the search bar, they will come to this article - and will then be surprised to find themselves at a completely different one. Editors may assume that if they type the title of this article into their pipelink, they will actually get to this article. Neither assumption is unreasonable, but both would be wrong.
- Because of this, I think this solution considers the editors over the readers. The fact that editors cannot agree on a title is made more important than the potential for confusion of having two articles at (ostensibly) exactly the same title. Having an article that is difficult to find is not much better than not having an article at all. Pfainuk talk 10:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Surely your concern about editors typing the title of this article into their pipelink is an instance of considering editors over readers, as well? At any rate, I agree that it would be highly problematic to do this for this article alone, but I think it would be a fine thing to institute a general rule to allow it. john k (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Granted, it would perhaps be more accurate to say that this solution considers the editors involved in debating the Ireland naming issue over both readers and non-involved editors. My point is that such a system is likely to cause a lot of confusion, without any great benefit. Most readers, I would expect, do not care strongly whether the article on the Irish state is at Republic of Ireland, Ireland or Ireland (state). Neither do most editors. I would note that the advantage of a word in brackets as a disambiguator is that it is clear to everyone that it is a disambiguator - that's why E is my preferred solution to this. Pfainuk talk 13:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Pfainuk, to have two articles with identical titles may cause some confusion to readers. Im not against the idea and it may resolve part of the problem but would be too disruptive if this wasnt implemented on a far larger scale with more articles.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- On the opposite side to Pfainuk's argument is that most readers looking for the article named Ireland are in fact looking for the state, and they get the island. So why so important to one issue, and not to another! Tfz 15:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Reasonably simple: I put it that way around because the example noted at the beginning of this thread suppresses the "Republic of" in "Republic of Ireland". Ireland is already the article on the island, so if a user types Ireland in the search box, they get the article on the island. If the articles are moved, details change - but the fundamental point is identical. If the state ends up at Ireland, people reading the article on the island will now be misled into thinking that that is the article at Ireland. Any time you have two articles that appear to have the same title, you're going to have this problem. Pfainuk talk 22:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Pretty good idea to use a "display:none" tag for "Republic of". Forget about the "</nowiki>" tag, that can simply be removed.
I have no idea whether I should like this solution or not. First I liked it. Then I thought, if we do it that way anyway, it's cleaner to call the article "Ireland (state)" and hide the "(state)" part. And then I realised that the reason for hiding the parenthetical disambiguator in this case is only slightly stronger than it is for the average disambiguated page. In other words: If we do it, then it should really be done for all, or at least many, disambiguated pages.
I believe encyclopedias sometimes have two articles with the same name following each others. I think we might decide that we want something similar in Wikipedia.
How about this new guideline:
- A parenthetical disambiguator in an article title may be removed using DISPLAYTITLE and display:none. In this case the article should normally start with a short note explaining that it resides technically under a different title, followed by a disambiguation note for the displayed title (not the long title).
Example. [9] Of course such a new rule would have be discussed widely. I don't know yet whether I would support such a proposal, but it seems to make some sense. Hans Adler 11:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Hans, this is a proposal that I think that I would support. It has a lot of implications that will need to be considered, but I think that ultimately there's a lot to be said for it. In particular, as you note, other encyclopedias all are willing to simply use the same title for different articles. If there's no longer a technical limitation, I don't see why we shouldn't do the same, since it would eliminate a host of unattractive parenthetical disambiguators. It would also allow virtually all articles to display the most common name at the top of their article. If this could be agreed upon for the project as a whole, I would certainly support a move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state), provided that it displayed as "Ireland". I suspect there will be considerable opposition, though, on the grounds that it breaks the long-standing rule that the display title should always be the same as the real title. john k (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I have some more larger scale (outside the bounds of IECOLL) issues with this - it's a potential UI problem for newer editors (they'll believe that the page's name is Ireland, and will not be able to figure out why linking to that keeps getting the island/disamb page, unless they knew to look at the URL. However, it's also not an idea to throw away, and I think the best place to get input is at WP:VPP, which I will do now. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hans did note that, in addition to the URL, there should be a notice at the top mentioning that the display title is different from the location. And obviously our editing guides and the like could be edited to take note of this, so as to warn editors about the possibility. Obviously the transition issues would be tough, but I think once people get used to the new system, it wouldn't be any harder to deal with than what we have now. john k (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
People are possibly missing the point that if option F wins this vote by a substantial majority, as seems likely, the article is going to have to be rewritten to state once again what was always true, that the state is also known as the Republic of Ireland. People are not voting for the article to be at "Republic of Ireland" just so the title can be hidden. Scolaire (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Scolaire - personally, I am voting for "Republic of Ireland" because I prefer natural disambiguators to parenthetical ones. If we can eliminate the need for parenthetical disambiguators entirely - or, at least, for seeing the parenthetical disambiguators, that's a rather different matter. I support Republic of Ireland because it is the best title if Ireland is unavailable (which it is). If the article could be titled "Ireland," I would be happy to support that. This may not be true of everyone, of course, but I don't think it follows that everyone who is voting for it is uber-committed to having the title show as "Republic of Ireland." john k (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine for you, but I don't think we can assume that other voters had the same motivation. I voted for something completely different as my first choice, but I believe we must respect the wishes of the clear majority of voters, and not second-guess their intentions. Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's a solution that should be given serious consideration. --HighKing (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
(multiple edit conflicts) Hiding part of an article's title has severe usability implications that should be discussed in a more natural forum. I would suggest WT:NC and possible a WP:CENT notice. Powers T 13:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If we were to go down this route, why is there a need to move the article to Ireland (state) if the title is just going to display Ireland anyway? I think there are some problems with having two identical titles on two very similar articles like this which would lead to confusion for many people. And if we are going to have to put a note detailing the article names, such a note could be added ensuring everyone knows ROI is only a description not the official title of the state anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- It raises a few issues that need further broad discussion at WP. 'Educational and reader objectives' must be paramount at all times. Tfz 15:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC).
- Please note that a parallel discussion of this issue is in progress at the village pump. Cool3 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. What a nightmarish precedent to propose for this encyclopaedia. -- Evertype·✆ 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- We would need wide input before going down that route. It presents potentially serious UI issues for users. Any solution has to put the needs of readers first and the desires of editors last. I feel that this solution approaches the "problem" from the other way around.
- However, if people are serious about it I think this discussion should move to the Village Pump or to open a new WP:CENT discussion to get the wider input necessary for such an approach. - --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest that you both comment in the right place. [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Adler (talk • contribs)
- Thanks. (Less criptic note for other users: discussion is taking place at the Villiage Pump.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I have created a brief page at User:Cool3/Ireland that details the technical steps that would need to be taken and their effects. I invite others to add their own pros and cons to the page if they so desire. Cool3 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this is already being discussed at the Village Pump. If we don't get a global consensus that hiding part of a page title is admissible in principle, in certain cases, then this is not going to be a solution that is stable over 2 years. Simply because this is currently a loophole, and in a few weeks' time this bug will be fixed. I am currently aware of at least 2 substantially different ways to use this bug for mischief, and it will be exploited. Even a narrow global majority to use this feature would erode in such a situation, and currently there is a clear majority against.
- Moreover, your new discussion has already been hijacked by two extremists. (Or by one extremist and someone who tried to mirror the extremist to make point; I don't care because the effect is the same.) We are not going to get a constructive discussion there, but we already have one at the Village Pump. Hans Adler 10:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- But Hans you bring politics in, as in Village Pump quote, "We could disambiguate the island as Ireland (island) and give the state its natural name. But that would, in a sense, support the state's claim to the entire island; just a bit too much so to make me uncomfortable with the idea. " unquote. Politics should stay out of this page at least. If voters have some personal politics, that's a different matter and cannot be measured. This should have nothing to do with political claims, extremists, pov-pushing etc. It's about getting a proper disambiguation between Ireland and Ireland, nothing else. The state does not claim the entire island. Tfz 15:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- You already responded to the sentence you are quoting at the VPP. I felt that wasn't the right place, so I answered in the section above on this page. Sorry if you missed it, perhaps I should have told you. This page is about the best disambiguation structure. If we ignore all politics and internal problems of the pages concerned, it's easy: There are two dominant meanings, the island and the republic. They are about equally important, so per the letter of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Ireland should be a disambiguation page. However, the two are very close to each other in meaning, and the state can be seen as a subarticle of the island after which it is named and of which it forms a part. Therefore by the spirit of WP:Disambiguation it's better to put the island in primary position. Nobody looking for the state will be surprised by finding the Island instead.
- Putting the state in primary position is justified by neither the letter nor the spirit of WP:Disambiguation. The only reason it would make sense is because we can't agree on which way to disambiguate the state. But at this point politics and pragmatics have already crept in. It makes no sense to choose the second or third best option (I am not sure if Island primary is better than disambiguation primary) because the best option causes unrest, and ignore that this would likely lead to even more unrest.
- If Wikipedia had existed before German reunification, the problem Germany/West Germany/East Germany would have been very much analogous to the problem Ireland/[Republic of] Ireland/Northern Ireland. Up to the moment when it became clear that against all bets reunification was going to happen, and that it would happen essentially by annexion, it would have been absurd to put West Germany in primary position. Hans Adler 16:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note that this situation still exists with Korea. john k (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- True, but I felt that in this case the north and south have about equal weight, overall. For the two Germanies, outside an East European or sports context the west generally overshadowed the east, and it was considerably bigger by all reasonable statistical indices. So this seemed closer to a reasonable example. Of course Korea is a general geographic/cultural/... article, not one of the two state articles. But that's a pretty weak argument here. I think nobody here wants to compare Northern Ireland to North Korea. Hans Adler 18:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note that this situation still exists with Korea. john k (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Virginian solution
I note that if you search Wiki for "Virginia" you don't get the town of Virginia, County Cavan. Or the old colony of Virginia. You get the modern state of Virginia as the primary location. The newer state of West Virginia is called just that. Like Northern Ireland. Using this precedent the primary location of "Ireland" should be modern state. Of course unlike Northern Ireland it was West Virginia seceded from the slave state. But that's just a technicality. Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- The primary usage of "Virginia" is Virginia. The primary usage of "Ireland" is Ireland. So what are you getting at?
- Are you from Ireland? Perhaps this is the problem. I am only speculating. I know plenty of people from Ireland here in Canada. All of them just say they are from Ireland. Some, I happen to know, come from Belfast. Others I have no idea whence they came. The ambiguity in the word should be obvious, but perhaps this ambiguous use of "Ireland" is not common in Ireland (the republic) or on Ireland (the island). For example, "London" is usually unambiguous where I live: it refers to London. Sometimes, of course, it is ambiguous and one needs to be clear and say "London, England". This does not mean, however, that Wikipedia has it wrong. "London" is London. On another note, remember that "Ireland" is unambiguous and has only one meaning throughout most of history and that meaning is not found at Republic of Ireland. —Srnec (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, exactly right, and my experience with Irish expats in the US is the same as yours - the ones from Northern Ireland will just say they're from Ireland. Nobody in the present day would say that Wheeling is in Virginia. Because it is not in Virginia. Virginia no longer includes West Virginia. Furthermore, the secession is, I think, significant. Wheeling used to be part of Virginia, but then seceded and is no longer part of Virginia. This is like a territorial adjustment. There were towns which were undoubtedly part of Germany in 1937 but are no longer such. We don't say Wheeling is in Virginia because Wheeling seceded from Virginia and is now part of another state, and Virginia has never been a term which meant a particular territorial expanse, but rather a particular government - up to the 1780s, Virginia claimed a great deal of territory west of the Ohio, for instance. On the other hand, Ireland was a political unity down to 1922, when it was divided into the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland (I realize it's a bit more complicated, in terms of Southern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and so forth). The Irish Free State later changed its name to Ireland. But the older meaning of Ireland, which had been universal down to 1922, persisted. In fact, it was this formerly universal meaning of Ireland which the Irish government itself was trying to point to when it renamed the state in 1937 - it was part of a claim to the island as a whole, not a claim that Ireland only included the 26 counties. The very reason that successive Irish governments rejected terms that they themselves had come up with, like Irish Republic, Eire, and then Republic of Ireland, was largely because the British started using them to refer only to the 26 counties. Now, it seems, you want the term Ireland itself to refer only to the 26 counties. That this should be seen as an anti-British view seems puzzling to me. Certainly the main nationalist parties in the north would not take the view that in the current situation, Northern Ireland is no more part of Ireland than West Virginia is part of Ireland (which is to say, not at all - West Virginia simply isn't part of Virginia. The same cannot be said for Northern Ireland and Ireland. john k (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure you can say Ireland was a political unity till 1922. It was all occupied from about 1650 until 1920 (numerous rebellions apart). Why should 270 years of occupation out of 7,000 years of habitation define it's "political" extent? The primary current use of the term (the only relevant one in a naming issue) is to refer to the sovereign country. Sarah777 (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is simply not true that the primary current use is to refer to the state. There are all kinds of situations when "Ireland" refers to the island as a whole. Further, Ireland was, at least theoretically, entirely under the sovereignty of the King of England from the 12th century onwards. There was a lot of political disunity, obviously, until the 16th century, and then numerous rebellions and civil wars thereafter (I would say that the British had pretty clearly imposed their rule on the whole island well before Cromwell, even if that rule was increasingly unstable and weak the further you got from Dublin, and challenged by frequent rebellions), but certainly "Ireland" for all that period referred to the island. Until 1937, at least, "Ireland" still meant only the island - the state was the Irish Free State. So basically we have the last 70 years only during which Ireland has referred to something other than just the island. The state, it's worth noting, did not take the name "Ireland" in order to imply that the six counties were not part of Ireland - quite the opposite, it took the name "Ireland" to suggest its own claim to sovereignty over them. The British, on the other hand, did not accept the name "Ireland" because they thought the same thing - that it involved a claim to sovereignty over the whole island, which they believed a part of was rightfully there's. Which means that really, only since 1998 can anyone really be said to believe that "Ireland" refers to the 26 counties. Even since 1998, I see very little evidence to suggest that "Ireland" primarily refers to the 26 counties, as opposed to the island as a whole. Obviously in contemporary political contexts it often does, and in the context of contemporary international diplomacy, in particular, it usually does. But there are way, way more contexts than that, and in many of those "Ireland" or "Irish" tends to refer to the island as a whole. john k (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Edward Bruce was crowned King of Ireland in 13something when Scotland was trying to open a second front against England after the Battle of Bannockburn. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is true, but basically irrelevant. It doesn't really matter when Ireland became a single polity. The English claimed the overlordship from the 12th century, and gradually turned that claim into reality by the beginning of the 17th century or so, but this isn't so important. What matters is that "Ireland" has always referred to the island as a whole, right down to 1937, or even, arguably, down to 1998, and that it still frequently refers to the whole island. john k (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ireland always referred to the country and the island, after military subjugation, penal laws, massacre, cultural suppression, and famine the country left the UK in 1922, but UK still held onto 15%. I get awfully bored by these foreigners deliberating what Ireland is and what Ireland is not. Books have been written on this subject by eminent Irish scholars, and will be into the future. Tfz 15:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is true, but basically irrelevant. It doesn't really matter when Ireland became a single polity. The English claimed the overlordship from the 12th century, and gradually turned that claim into reality by the beginning of the 17th century or so, but this isn't so important. What matters is that "Ireland" has always referred to the island as a whole, right down to 1937, or even, arguably, down to 1998, and that it still frequently refers to the whole island. john k (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Edward Bruce was crowned King of Ireland in 13something when Scotland was trying to open a second front against England after the Battle of Bannockburn. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is simply not true that the primary current use is to refer to the state. There are all kinds of situations when "Ireland" refers to the island as a whole. Further, Ireland was, at least theoretically, entirely under the sovereignty of the King of England from the 12th century onwards. There was a lot of political disunity, obviously, until the 16th century, and then numerous rebellions and civil wars thereafter (I would say that the British had pretty clearly imposed their rule on the whole island well before Cromwell, even if that rule was increasingly unstable and weak the further you got from Dublin, and challenged by frequent rebellions), but certainly "Ireland" for all that period referred to the island. Until 1937, at least, "Ireland" still meant only the island - the state was the Irish Free State. So basically we have the last 70 years only during which Ireland has referred to something other than just the island. The state, it's worth noting, did not take the name "Ireland" in order to imply that the six counties were not part of Ireland - quite the opposite, it took the name "Ireland" to suggest its own claim to sovereignty over them. The British, on the other hand, did not accept the name "Ireland" because they thought the same thing - that it involved a claim to sovereignty over the whole island, which they believed a part of was rightfully there's. Which means that really, only since 1998 can anyone really be said to believe that "Ireland" refers to the 26 counties. Even since 1998, I see very little evidence to suggest that "Ireland" primarily refers to the 26 counties, as opposed to the island as a whole. Obviously in contemporary political contexts it often does, and in the context of contemporary international diplomacy, in particular, it usually does. But there are way, way more contexts than that, and in many of those "Ireland" or "Irish" tends to refer to the island as a whole. john k (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure you can say Ireland was a political unity till 1922. It was all occupied from about 1650 until 1920 (numerous rebellions apart). Why should 270 years of occupation out of 7,000 years of habitation define it's "political" extent? The primary current use of the term (the only relevant one in a naming issue) is to refer to the sovereign country. Sarah777 (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, exactly right, and my experience with Irish expats in the US is the same as yours - the ones from Northern Ireland will just say they're from Ireland. Nobody in the present day would say that Wheeling is in Virginia. Because it is not in Virginia. Virginia no longer includes West Virginia. Furthermore, the secession is, I think, significant. Wheeling used to be part of Virginia, but then seceded and is no longer part of Virginia. This is like a territorial adjustment. There were towns which were undoubtedly part of Germany in 1937 but are no longer such. We don't say Wheeling is in Virginia because Wheeling seceded from Virginia and is now part of another state, and Virginia has never been a term which meant a particular territorial expanse, but rather a particular government - up to the 1780s, Virginia claimed a great deal of territory west of the Ohio, for instance. On the other hand, Ireland was a political unity down to 1922, when it was divided into the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland (I realize it's a bit more complicated, in terms of Southern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and so forth). The Irish Free State later changed its name to Ireland. But the older meaning of Ireland, which had been universal down to 1922, persisted. In fact, it was this formerly universal meaning of Ireland which the Irish government itself was trying to point to when it renamed the state in 1937 - it was part of a claim to the island as a whole, not a claim that Ireland only included the 26 counties. The very reason that successive Irish governments rejected terms that they themselves had come up with, like Irish Republic, Eire, and then Republic of Ireland, was largely because the British started using them to refer only to the 26 counties. Now, it seems, you want the term Ireland itself to refer only to the 26 counties. That this should be seen as an anti-British view seems puzzling to me. Certainly the main nationalist parties in the north would not take the view that in the current situation, Northern Ireland is no more part of Ireland than West Virginia is part of Ireland (which is to say, not at all - West Virginia simply isn't part of Virginia. The same cannot be said for Northern Ireland and Ireland. john k (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- The difference is that there is little or no ambiguity about what "Virginia" means. Ireland is more comparable to Carolina or Dakota, highly ambiguous. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Insistence on compromise (or, on keeping the cookie)
It is often said that "compromise" is the situation where both sides give everything to gain nothing. I am concerned at the number of people that seem insistent on effecting a compromise. By all recent counts, option F wins. Option F also happens to be the status quo ante. The community has decided/been instructed to take a formal vote, and to accept the outcome. If the outcome of thst vote is option F, who would be offended by it may just have to live with it. From the various counts, most (but not all) result in F achieving quota (>50%) before all other options are eliminated. In almost all cases, option F has a substantial lead until the reduction of the field from three to two. In these circumstances, it seems inappropriate, even unreasonable, for people to be still suggesting acceptable concessions or proposing compromise positions. I don't mean this in a nasty way, but it seems rather like a child caught with their hand in the cookie jar suggesting scenarios in which they might keep the cookie. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- When is the poll! determined? 91.104.5.231 (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009" BritishWatcher (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
81.111.114.131 has taken the words out of my mouth. The time for compromise was before the poll was started. I for one would have been delighted to explore any compromise (or workaround) at any time up to 15:00 UTC on 2 August. But there was no talk of compromise then. There was to be a poll, and the results of the poll were to be binding. Once the poll was begun, therefore, there was a moral imperative on those who worked for it to accept the result, and not to try to influence it. As things stand today, Option F not only comfortably wins an STV/IRV ballot, not only has nearly three times as many first preference votes as the second-placed option, but has the largest number of total votes - only 36 out of 150+ failed to give it any preference, compared to 56 for the current second-placed option. If that is the final result, then the community will have been asked, and will have said that it wants the status quo to continue. That must be the outcome, then, however hard some people may find it. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but once it has been agreed to use a democratic method to decide an issue, there is no justification for ignoring or putting aside the clearly-expressed wishes of the community. Scolaire (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have explained the nature of the views of "the community". Tedious repetition of the obvious symptoms of the disease solves nothing. Option F is the least favoured option amongst Irish editors who live in the place the article is about. Because it is a political imposition of the majority pov on En:Wiki. Note that most other Wikis don't make the same mistake. Sarah777 (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- That was evaluative. I find the constant repetition tedious. We all know that British editors have an overwhelming majority. Using sexist terms isn't evaluative. What is worse, the constant repetition forces me to have to keep reintroducing the facts. Sarah777 (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Sarah777 (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's not necessary countering, it's endless repetition of arguments that simply don't make sense. I can respect that you have a slightly distorted view of certain things, see a clear situation where (almost?) everybody else sees no such thing, see a dispute where there is almost universal consensus. But you should at least react to the feedback you are getting in a meaningful way. If people don't believe you, you are not going to appear more credible by increasing the volume, frequency and amplitude of your accusations. Dim them all down and work on the quality of your arguments. Then you will have a chance to convince a few people. But what you are doing favours the status quo. Is that what you want? That everything stays as it is and nobody has the shadow of a doubt that you feel severely hurt by the fact? Most people would prefer not being hurt in such a way. Hans Adler 10:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- The majority of Irish editors object to "RoI" as a political imposition; if non-Irish editors cannot understand something that has been exhaustively explained over and over by numerous Irish editors (or don't care, or share the British pov) then that is a problem for the project. Not for me. The only thing that hurts me is biased Administration. Repetition of non-arguments I find tedious, as I said. As for discussion - you will note that the attempts at intimidation and bullying have apparently suceeded in causing a several of those Irish editors to abandon this forum. I have zero beleif in the validity of this process due to the censorship ongoing - but I stay here because I refuse to be intimidated. I don't remotely expect to convert any pov-pushers. Sarah777 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- As for engaging in the arguments - the same points have been made a thousand times by the "RoI" supporters; the reason they are wrong have likewise been posted as many times. Are you suggesting I should cut and paste my "official" statement here in response to every repetition of the RoI case? Sarah777 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing in policy or the intent of the poll says that there can be no attempt at further resolution on the issue once the poll starts. We should let the poll complete, yes, and we cannot just throw away the results of the poll and feedback as inconsequential, but further discussions towards compromise in light of the poll's results are perfectly fine. --MASEM (t) 12:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- If there were discussions i.e. people on both sides of the debate attempting to see if they could find a common ground, then it might be described as an "attempt at further resolution on the issue". That's not what we are seeing, but rather what 81 says: a child caught with their hand in the cookie jar suggesting scenarios in which they might keep the cookie. I think it's important to tell it like it is. Scolaire (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's no denying there are people entrenched on both sides of the issues. There is a point, however, where they need to realize if they refuse to move, the process might steamroll over them if there's a strong incentive by everyone else to compromise, even if that means to go by the results of the poll. I will say that before the poll, this was less likely to happen (at least, as moderator, I saw no way through it that would have taken the decision out of their hands), but I believe the poll has made some aware of a possible compromise position (backed by non-involved editors) and are willing to discuss it further, but there are still some that are likely not going to change. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Masem im still prepared to support compromise but it is impossible when Sarah is making her POV claims about one of the options. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Masem, what strong incentive by everyone else? There's no incentive, and there's no everyone. All there is is a handful of editors who pushed for a poll and then didn't get the result they expected trying to overturn a democratic decision and call it "compromise". It's unaccommodating and unsightly. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is a good example of an attitude I don't understand. So, up until the vote, we were talking about compromise, and the article title was pretty much a given for change. Then we agree a vote, and compromise discussions continue up to the vote. But once the vote starts, that's it. No more compromise?? Was the intention always to try to convince the community to enter a majority vote and then simply enforce the status quo? Except you've all forgotten that this vote is not a stand-alone vote. It is only binding once the rest of the "process" has been agreed. And given how many editors now feel, I doubt if anything further will be agreed. As I've been saying (hello? anyone out there?), a vote for "F" effectively ends any "process". It ends all discussions of compromise. Editors will retreat to old hardline positions. A vote for "F" solves nothing. It won't result in a 2 year lockdown, it won't result in less edit wars, it won't fix any problems. --HighKing (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, HighKing, I wasn't a part of this process between January and June, so you'll have to show me diffs for when this compromise was discussed or agreed. Between June and August I read the discussion every day, and I never saw any talk of compromise. A poll had been decided on, six (or nine, or twelve) options were agreed, and the status quo was one of them. I never had any sense that the holding of a vote was contingent on us agreeing not to vote for the status quo. Frankly, I find that idea bizarre, and I would have been quick to say so if I had ever had any sense that it was being suggested. So, diffs? Scolaire (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- For instance, here is a post you made to my talk page after I had linked to a statement in favour of option F. Surely, if I was in breach of some agreement that "the article title was pretty much a given for change" you would have said so? On the contrary, you told me you respected my opinion and I was right to state it. That's why I'm puzzled by your assertions now. Scolaire (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- The status quo was, from Day 1 of the process, always an option. And Sarah, you can repeat it as many times as you like, but there is no overwhelming British majority and there is a majority of Irish (not "Northern Irish British Unionists masquerading as Irish") in favour of Option F. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- What you say is factually incorrect. F is the least favoured option with Irish editors. I have demonstrated that clearly. I'd update my spreadsheet but I don't see many Irish votes added in the past few days. Sarah777 (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- [citation needed]. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how anybody has demonstrated anything about national preferences. We just have your assertions vs. Ran's, which can't really be tested unless names are named. john k (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- What you say is factually incorrect. F is the least favoured option with Irish editors. I have demonstrated that clearly. I'd update my spreadsheet but I don't see many Irish votes added in the past few days. Sarah777 (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Case proven: the problem is imposition of British pov by weight of numbers, not argument
As attack headlines seem to be tolerated and restored here is seems I'm going to have to provide some needed balance here too. Sarah777 (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Compromise is impossible when Sarah is making such offensive and UNTRUE claims. I have not looked at your latest spreadsheet, can you tell us how many British voters so far and how many total voters? Its obvious to everyone that the majority in this poll aint British so how can "British POV" be the reason F is in the lead? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have not updated the spreadsheet since the block as I regard that as having effectively killed off the poll. Out of 21 Irish editors five have now withdrawn so an analysis now is pointless. Sarah777 (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Im sure those Irish editors will re-add their votes before the end if F can be beaten. You said yourself on the collab page that the vote is fine if F loses, but its apparently completly invalid if F wins.. What double standards BritishWatcher (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- No idea what they will do. Ask them. Not my brother's keeper etc. One of the original six editors who withdrew has returned. This is not a collective action. Though I do note that the staged withdrawal of two editors allegedly over my spreadsheet led to it being censored. But six Irish editors withdrawing had no impact on the Moderator. Things like that get noticed. Sarah777 (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Those two withdrew over a specific issue. The others seem to of removed votes in protest over something. I asked the other day what were the demands of the protesters, but i have heard nothing back. How can mods take action if there is nothing to take action over. What can they do??? Its pretty obvious that 5 people moaning and staging a protest can not invalidate a vote which over 150 people have taken part in. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- It was run of the mill public domain data, and no editor was singled out for inspection. I couldn't believe the moaning and fuss that was created by some editors at the time. Some pro F editors have analyzed the Irish voters trends, and there was no fuss at all. Tfz 16:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Such counts were only done to prove Sarahs figures wrong, and there is a big differnce between postinng it on this talk page and in users own space. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is not classified information, and should not be treated thus, and is quite interesting information, and of enormous value. I think Wikipedia is welcoming to knowledge from all sources. Tfz 17:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Such counts were only done to prove Sarahs figures wrong, and there is a big differnce between postinng it on this talk page and in users own space. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- It was run of the mill public domain data, and no editor was singled out for inspection. I couldn't believe the moaning and fuss that was created by some editors at the time. Some pro F editors have analyzed the Irish voters trends, and there was no fuss at all. Tfz 16:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Those two withdrew over a specific issue. The others seem to of removed votes in protest over something. I asked the other day what were the demands of the protesters, but i have heard nothing back. How can mods take action if there is nothing to take action over. What can they do??? Its pretty obvious that 5 people moaning and staging a protest can not invalidate a vote which over 150 people have taken part in. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- No idea what they will do. Ask them. Not my brother's keeper etc. One of the original six editors who withdrew has returned. This is not a collective action. Though I do note that the staged withdrawal of two editors allegedly over my spreadsheet led to it being censored. But six Irish editors withdrawing had no impact on the Moderator. Things like that get noticed. Sarah777 (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Im sure those Irish editors will re-add their votes before the end if F can be beaten. You said yourself on the collab page that the vote is fine if F loses, but its apparently completly invalid if F wins.. What double standards BritishWatcher (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have not updated the spreadsheet since the block as I regard that as having effectively killed off the poll. Out of 21 Irish editors five have now withdrawn so an analysis now is pointless. Sarah777 (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- [citation needed]. Please provide some evidence for your claim. This may be a week old, but it contradicts you. When faced with the option of believing hyperbole from someone who is indignant (rightly or wrongly - I can't and won't be drawn to judge on this) or the actual analysis of the votes, I'm afraid I would have to fall with the facts. Remember that in a preference vote, comparing first preferences alone is misleading, and to suggest that the process is being tainted by bias on the basis of such misleading statements is a failure of good faith. In any case, let the poll run its course. You may not like the outcome, but you will have to live with it and accept it. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. I'm keeping a tally too, which I'll be happy to make available in userspace after the poll concludes. There are more than 21 Irish voters, for a start - and that's not counting Northern Irish as Irish, before that claim is made! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Democracy's alright as long as I win. Your profiling of "British" voters also seems to assume a homogoneous "British" view. I read an article in one of the papers today by a former UK Government cabinet minister and former depute leader of the Labour Party who states that he favours a united Ireland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry to say, but this is getting sillier by the minute. One side proclaims that the majority of "Irish" editors supports "F" and the other side proclaims "Not F". Most of us have no way of knowing the basis on which your assessments are made, so, do us all a favour, please: either name names -on your talk page, of course- or stop using a "statistic" that none of the rest of us can verify. The same is true of the "British" votes. Please, please, pretty please, please with sugar on it, please. If explaining is not possible, then I ask that the moderator remove all mention here of which nationality is voting which way. // BL \\ (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Unless they are from NI, I do not take their politics into account. Bastun is Irish regardless of his attitude and someone from the UK is British. Difficult concept to grasp I know. As for "after the poll" Bastun, why not now? You know of 32 Irish editors who have self-identified on their talkpage? List them. On the put or shut principle. Sarah777 (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- More accurately, one side says a majority of Irish editors supports "Not F", even though "Not F" based on first preference is a misleading description, "No F or F last" might be a more credible claim. The only other opinion in the public space is that, a week ago, F wins among "Irish" voters. The difference is that RA has shown the sequence of counting, and explicitly acknowledges that the selection is "people I think are probably Irish, by some arbitrary criteria". Sarah does not appear to be working through the sequence (as evidenced by the "Not F at first preference" claim), and apparently claims to know the nationality and residence of everyone taking part. Neither measure is precise, however, RA's analysis has at least some semblence of rigor, acknowledges its failings, and restricts any opinion to that which is within its purview. Of course, what we have here is a war, and anyone in the field of information will tell you that the first casualty of war is typically the truth. For this reason, any and all analyses should probably be taken with at least a pinch of salt. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever the detail, it boils down to a "they said; no, they didn't" with no agreement on who "they" might be. There is no argument for one being a "better" analysis than another when the basic flaws are shared. Please, may we either have "full, true and plain disclosure" or silence on the matter. // BL \\ (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- More accurately, one side says a majority of Irish editors supports "Not F", even though "Not F" based on first preference is a misleading description, "No F or F last" might be a more credible claim. The only other opinion in the public space is that, a week ago, F wins among "Irish" voters. The difference is that RA has shown the sequence of counting, and explicitly acknowledges that the selection is "people I think are probably Irish, by some arbitrary criteria". Sarah does not appear to be working through the sequence (as evidenced by the "Not F at first preference" claim), and apparently claims to know the nationality and residence of everyone taking part. Neither measure is precise, however, RA's analysis has at least some semblence of rigor, acknowledges its failings, and restricts any opinion to that which is within its purview. Of course, what we have here is a war, and anyone in the field of information will tell you that the first casualty of war is typically the truth. For this reason, any and all analyses should probably be taken with at least a pinch of salt. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- So sorry if identifying the "not F" vote in a count of 1st preferences upsets the IP community! It is revealing though, isn't it? The last time I ridiculed someone for asking what "not F" means, my comments were deleted. (Ah! Just love the neutral Administration!) So I'll merely say that if folk can vote #1 for one of A through F, "not F" means, astonishingly, those who didn't vote F. Sarah777 (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- As someone with a qualification in a numerate discipline, an active interest in politics, and first-hand experience of organising, counting and analysing STV votes, I think I'm sufficiently qualified point out that "not" counts are meaningless. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- To paraphrase Sarah, what I am asking and have been asking is that everyone (who is making claims about nationalistic voting and who) know(s) of (XX) Irish(/British) editors who have self-identified on their talkpage(s), list them. And to quote her directly: "On the put or shut principle", though I wouldn't have said it that way myself. Not an IP, but merely a // BL \\ (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed you wouldn't! But a weariness creeps being asked the same question over and over that you have actually replied to over and over. As for IP claims of superior numeracy - as someone who is obviously better qualified to analyze data than most IPs I point out that in this case the "not" counts explain a lot of the observed bias. Especially comparing the Irish and British "nots". You can be qualified to teach and be experienced at teaching and still be a very poor teacher. Sarah777 (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- None of this changes that fact that "not" counts are meaningless in this context, because in a preferential ballot there is no such thing as "not voting". Ballots A-B-C-D-E and A-B-C-D-E-F are equivalent when there are only six options (because you have at most five rounds). Ballot A-B effectively votes for all of C, D, E and F as "joint last" (known as a Langer vote). Counting only at first preference eliminates all those options where someone has voted for the option at second preference. It is also misleading by virtue of the fact that people can select more than one option. It's not unknown for candidates which have a large number of first preference votes to fail to achieve quota, or for candidates with low first preferences to achieve quota on second and third preferences (I have been involved in a count where this happened). Your numbers are unattested and unscientific. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a correct definition of a "Langer vote". A Langer vote is a deliberate way to cast a valid vote that only expresses some preferences in a compulsory full preference system by exploiting loopholes in the relevant legislation - usually by repeating numbers. It's not a general term for all votes that don't specify full preferences in other systems. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- None of this changes that fact that "not" counts are meaningless in this context, because in a preferential ballot there is no such thing as "not voting". Ballots A-B-C-D-E and A-B-C-D-E-F are equivalent when there are only six options (because you have at most five rounds). Ballot A-B effectively votes for all of C, D, E and F as "joint last" (known as a Langer vote). Counting only at first preference eliminates all those options where someone has voted for the option at second preference. It is also misleading by virtue of the fact that people can select more than one option. It's not unknown for candidates which have a large number of first preference votes to fail to achieve quota, or for candidates with low first preferences to achieve quota on second and third preferences (I have been involved in a count where this happened). Your numbers are unattested and unscientific. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed you wouldn't! But a weariness creeps being asked the same question over and over that you have actually replied to over and over. As for IP claims of superior numeracy - as someone who is obviously better qualified to analyze data than most IPs I point out that in this case the "not" counts explain a lot of the observed bias. Especially comparing the Irish and British "nots". You can be qualified to teach and be experienced at teaching and still be a very poor teacher. Sarah777 (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- To paraphrase Sarah, what I am asking and have been asking is that everyone (who is making claims about nationalistic voting and who) know(s) of (XX) Irish(/British) editors who have self-identified on their talkpage(s), list them. And to quote her directly: "On the put or shut principle", though I wouldn't have said it that way myself. Not an IP, but merely a // BL \\ (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- As someone with a qualification in a numerate discipline, an active interest in politics, and first-hand experience of organising, counting and analysing STV votes, I think I'm sufficiently qualified point out that "not" counts are meaningless. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- So sorry if identifying the "not F" vote in a count of 1st preferences upsets the IP community! It is revealing though, isn't it? The last time I ridiculed someone for asking what "not F" means, my comments were deleted. (Ah! Just love the neutral Administration!) So I'll merely say that if folk can vote #1 for one of A through F, "not F" means, astonishingly, those who didn't vote F. Sarah777 (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent). @Sarah: I don't think I said anywhere I'd counted 32 Irish? Up as far as the vote cast by Kernel Saunters, I make it as 28 easily identifiable Irish voters (as in, their userpage either now or in the past said they were Irish). @BL: If you've got email enabled I'd be happy to send you this list later, but I'm not publishing it on WP till after the voting concludes. I'll do so after September 13, in userspace. @anon-IP: a) Please register. b) Your analysis is quite correct. A tally of "not F" votes is meaningless without also including a tally of "not A", "not B", etc. c) Let's not go calling anyone a Langer, now ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think I can count 30, although I haven't visited all their userpages, so I may be wrong. But it is way more than 21 in any case. Fmph (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- @Bastun - I've email enabled .. can you send it to me please. --HighKing (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Done. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- @Bastun - I've email enabled .. can you send it to me please. --HighKing (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Moderator / Process / Outcome
How many moderators are there and who are they? Is the outcome of the poll! binding? Is there any further "process" involved? 91.106.31.220 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Masem plus Random Unknowns/"no"/"yes" Sarah777 (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sarah, what do you mean by bias? 91.106.31.220 (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
As listed on the project page, there are two - User:Masem and someone else who's turned up so little that I can't remember his/her name... The outcome of the process as a whole (not just the poll) is binding for two years. And there is more "process" - there will be discussion/agreement/consensus on related issues, such as in-article linking, titles of articles with 'Ireland' or 'Republic of Ireland' currently in the name, titles of templates, and so on. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- You think? As it stands, I predict the rest of the process stalemating. Although I'd love to be wrong... --HighKing (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
For all those moaning about the input of "British" users in this poll, I find it slightly ironic that the above link is, guess what, a disambiguation page. Quite rightly to, as there is significant ambiguity as to what "Britain" means, quite similarly to "Ireland" in fact. If there was some perfidious Albion movement on wikipedia, surely "Britain" would be a redirect pointed to the United Kingdom article? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also Great Britain is the article on the island keeping the prime spot rather than the former state Kingdom of Great Britain having it, or todays United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The options
- I'm not bothered about the outcome of this never-ending debate, but could someone let me know what the options are? I couldn't find them in the archives. Perhaps for the benefit of any new editors who may be interested they should be restated here. Mister Flash (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well the options are on the project page if those are the options you mean, but you can also read through the statements which cover many of the options with reasons for and agaisnt them here BritishWatcher (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think a summary of the options would be useful here; where is the ballot paper?Ok, I've found it. Thanks. Mister Flash (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)- Option D for me, with Option F a close second .. not that I care one way or the other, you understand. Mister Flash (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- lol, sounds like a good choice to me :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Go on then! How do I vote? Mister Flash (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- lol thats for u to decide, i meant it was a good choice though, i wasnt being sarcastic. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, I mean where do I go to vote on this - where's the ballot paper? Are there any qualifications to meet before you can vote? Mister Flash (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Go back to the project page and the instructions, including how to create a ballot, start under section 2.2. The only qualifier is that you have to have registered before June 1, 2009. // BL \\ (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, yes go to this project page and follow the instructions, if you edit the page then u can basically get the general idea by copying how everyone else has done it and just signing / rating ur prefs. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, I mean where do I go to vote on this - where's the ballot paper? Are there any qualifications to meet before you can vote? Mister Flash (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- lol thats for u to decide, i meant it was a good choice though, i wasnt being sarcastic. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Go on then! How do I vote? Mister Flash (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- lol, sounds like a good choice to me :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Option D for me, with Option F a close second .. not that I care one way or the other, you understand. Mister Flash (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well the options are on the project page if those are the options you mean, but you can also read through the statements which cover many of the options with reasons for and agaisnt them here BritishWatcher (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't listen to BW. He's well known for being a little delusional. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- lol only from time to time :) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't listen to BW. He's well known for being a little delusional. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yet another analysis, non-refundable
I have tallied all the votes, and worked out the preferences based on Condorcet rules, to create yet another view of the vote as it stands. Like all others, it should be taken with a dose of salt, not least because this counts the votes using a method other than that which will actually be used. It therefore provides a useful contrast.
Strictly speaking, a winner must defeat all other candidates, so it transposes the six-way preferences into fifteen two-way contests. The contest between A and B is "number of votes ranking A above B" vs "number of votes ranking B above A". This gives 15 scorelines, 5 for each option. The winner is the option which beats all others. Those items that are not marked on a given ballot are considered equal to each other, and lower than the preferences on the ballot, so an A-B-C ballot considers D, E and F equal last.
With these rules, F is the winner, beating all other options clearly. The rest fall in D-E-C-B-A. The only pairing that is anywhere near close is D vs E. The most convincing result is D beating A by 114-19. The most convincing result for F is also against A, where it wins 114-29. Contrast this with the actual counting method, in which D is (currently) eliminated at the second round. I am reluctant to put forward the actual pairwise margins for D, E and F, since this information coupled with knowledge of how others have voted leaves it open to tactical voting or manipulation.
What one can read into this is that there is general leaning in favour of keeping Ireland about the island, and not the state - without accounting for the distribution of voters as regards identity and politics (which I am not inclined to attempt). A final reminder that, like all analyses of the event in-progress, it is by nature imperfect. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- So what further "process" is required after the vote! closes? 91.106.31.220 (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- We have to agree on how to dab Ireland in articles text, in some cases using Republic of Ireland. There are general guides on when to use it and when not to but we need a clearly defined set of guidelines on when it can and cant be used. Also there are other Ireland articles, that have to be taken into account. For example Politics of Ireland or Culture of Ireland. IF F wins then there needs to be some ground rules of when ROI can be used in the title like Politics of the Republic of Ireland is currently used. If E wins and Ireland becomes a dab page then there has to be very clear guidelines on when a link should point to the island or the state (obvious in many cases but not in all). If C wins then wed have to agree on how to word the new article. Those are the sorts of things that have to be covered but there could be other things as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- If F wins and the status quo side does nothing but hoot triumphantly this nightmare will never end. You will never get agreement on those kinds of ground rules, if F wins, BritishWatcher. People on both sides are intransigent. That's why C, D, or E are the only possible solutions. I think that this Collaboration Project could achieve good ground rules for the use of RoI as a disambiguationr — but from what I hear from many people, that will never happen if the article about the state remains at RoI. (Masem, at least, I think, understands this.) -- Evertype·✆ 12:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- This kind of blackmail or claims that nothing will happen if F wins simply makes it harder to compromise because theres no way im prepared to withdraw my support for F in such an environment. As ive said elsewhere, E is not a compromise.. D is, followed very far down the line by C but certainly not E. If F loses i think u will hear just as much "feedback" from those who oppose F celebrating as you would from those who support F if it won, probably more because their constant moaning will have led to change, and they will move on to their next target. British Isles articles will probably come under far more attacks than normal for a start.
- Some have a problem with the article names, it went on for many years. You took it to arbcom, they pushed for a process to be set up, people set up the collaboration project, it went on for 6 months with no progress, we agreed on a poll, you yourself were one of the leading people pushing for the poll to start ASAP, the community is now deciding if they see a need for the status quo to change. If F wins.. the verdict is in. Under no circumstances if F loses can i imagine Republic of Ireland being kept as a title, yet the double standards are clear when quite a few feel we should simply ignore the verdict and adopt another option instead if F wins. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- If F wins and the status quo side does nothing but hoot triumphantly this nightmare will never end. You will never get agreement on those kinds of ground rules, if F wins, BritishWatcher. People on both sides are intransigent. That's why C, D, or E are the only possible solutions. I think that this Collaboration Project could achieve good ground rules for the use of RoI as a disambiguationr — but from what I hear from many people, that will never happen if the article about the state remains at RoI. (Masem, at least, I think, understands this.) -- Evertype·✆ 12:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- We have to agree on how to dab Ireland in articles text, in some cases using Republic of Ireland. There are general guides on when to use it and when not to but we need a clearly defined set of guidelines on when it can and cant be used. Also there are other Ireland articles, that have to be taken into account. For example Politics of Ireland or Culture of Ireland. IF F wins then there needs to be some ground rules of when ROI can be used in the title like Politics of the Republic of Ireland is currently used. If E wins and Ireland becomes a dab page then there has to be very clear guidelines on when a link should point to the island or the state (obvious in many cases but not in all). If C wins then wed have to agree on how to word the new article. Those are the sorts of things that have to be covered but there could be other things as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @BW - there are no such inferences if A, B, C, D, E or F "wins". This vote is on the titles of three articles ONLY (Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Ireland (disambiguation)). It is NOT about content of any article or about the titles of any other articles/categories, etc. That will be decided at another time (more than likely through consensus as normal). There is no need to rewrite any article based on what "wins" this vote. The vote is only about the location of the articles owing to technical limitations of the encyclopedia, it is NOT about their content.
- @Evertype - for someone who wanted a vote so badly, you sure changed your tune once the tallies started to come in. Now it's all "compromise"? I thought you had declared that that was impossible? Regardless of what it returns, the result of vote will be binding for two years - as you, of all people, had not only agreed to but had insisted upon before. Changing your tune now is not only disingenuous, it is inviting trouble later. The plan was a vote and a vote it is whatever the result may be. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I knew that F would win if it went to a poll. Agree with Sarah's basic analysis about the weight of UK voters cementing that outcome, and I said it very early on myself. Saying that, I don't believe it's conspiracy, it's merely because generally in the UK they call sovereign Ireland by RoI when they are not using Eire, God created a beautiful country, but sure messed up when he created the neighbours.) Joking aside, much of the input on this page has been politically driven, ArbCom has washed it's hands, proved itself to be a bunch of amateurs and dilettantes which they are, and done Wikipedia down to a sham. Tfz 13:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I know the current scientific theory is that if God created your beautiful country around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, then he first did so as part of a peninsula, which separated from the continent as the ice melted and the water levels rose, and then split into Ireland and Great Britain. The first settlers arrived when it was still a peninsula, and apparently they came to Cornwall and Ireland first because they followed the coast line. Hans Adler 14:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's an old joke I picked up in Scotland some years ago from a stand-up comic, and believe me the language was a lot stronger, and it pertained to the Sasanach. But at the 'end of the day', it's a piece of levity. Tfz 14:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I know the current scientific theory is that if God created your beautiful country around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, then he first did so as part of a peninsula, which separated from the continent as the ice melted and the water levels rose, and then split into Ireland and Great Britain. The first settlers arrived when it was still a peninsula, and apparently they came to Cornwall and Ireland first because they followed the coast line. Hans Adler 14:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well those are the things i thought we would be discussing after the poll. If F loses then there is some work to do before the articles are moved. I dont want the articles moved until after we have clear guidelines on things like that. If A or C wins, then the article must be written and agreed to before the move takes places. If E wins every single link to Ireland must be checked and directed to the right page before articles are moved. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- No one dictates this project, consensus does, though far from perfect. Tfz 13:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- These are all reasonable things that must be taken into account before the move happens. There is no way we can just create a dab page at Ireland without sorting all the links, and we need to ensure they are going to the right place. I do not want to see general Ireland topics / island matters being directed towards the sovereign state article. You think F will win this vote so most of it will not matter anyway if you are right. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- No one dictates this project, consensus does, though far from perfect. Tfz 13:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I knew that F would win if it went to a poll. Agree with Sarah's basic analysis about the weight of UK voters cementing that outcome, and I said it very early on myself. Saying that, I don't believe it's conspiracy, it's merely because generally in the UK they call sovereign Ireland by RoI when they are not using Eire, God created a beautiful country, but sure messed up when he created the neighbours.) Joking aside, much of the input on this page has been politically driven, ArbCom has washed it's hands, proved itself to be a bunch of amateurs and dilettantes which they are, and done Wikipedia down to a sham. Tfz 13:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- "If F wins and the status quo side does nothing but hoot triumphantly this nightmare will never end." What grounds have you for suggesting the status quo side will hoot? If F wins and the change side does nothing but cry 'foul' and demand change anyway this nightmare will never end. There is ample evidence for that. As far as I can see only Rannpháirtí, who is status quo, has tried to initiate discussion on the other issues, here. The response from the change side was "I do not know - serious damage has been done" here, and "Absolutely not. Pretty cheeky/disrespectful to stitch us up on this part of the current process and expect to continue with the rest" here. The remainder of the section is just another series of rants about why this vote is wrong and the status quo side have been dishonourable by voting for their choice. As BritishWatcher says, if you want us to behave reasonably you have to treat us with respect. You could start by respecting the decision of the community. Scolaire (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- People like BritishWatcher are already doing it. Indeed he accuses me of blackmail, when in fact I have been arguing for continued discussion and compromise since we first saw tallies appear. BritishWatcher seems to think that I am going to organize some sort of revolt. I'm not. I merely observe that if the status quo does not change, nothing will improve for the Ireland articles on this encyclopaedia. Therefore I even abandoned my own preferred Options, A and B, and have encouraged everyone who has voted A, B, or F to consider the wisdom of choosing compromise even now. And by that I mean the whole package. I can see nothing but continued polarization and woe for the Ireland articles if we don't actually learn from the growing results, and work together. -- Evertype·✆ 16:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- "If F wins and the status quo side does nothing but hoot triumphantly this nightmare will never end." What grounds have you for suggesting the status quo side will hoot? If F wins and the change side does nothing but cry 'foul' and demand change anyway this nightmare will never end. There is ample evidence for that. As far as I can see only Rannpháirtí, who is status quo, has tried to initiate discussion on the other issues, here. The response from the change side was "I do not know - serious damage has been done" here, and "Absolutely not. Pretty cheeky/disrespectful to stitch us up on this part of the current process and expect to continue with the rest" here. The remainder of the section is just another series of rants about why this vote is wrong and the status quo side have been dishonourable by voting for their choice. As BritishWatcher says, if you want us to behave reasonably you have to treat us with respect. You could start by respecting the decision of the community. Scolaire (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- But first, Evertype, you have to learn: working together is not about confrontation, or shouting, or telling other people what they "have" to do. BritishWatchers post, which you called "triumphalist hooting", was a thoughtful analysis of what needed to be done, depending on the final result. Your response was wholly inappropriate. No wonder he accused you of blackmail - emotional blackmail at least! If you abandoned your original first preferences that's your choice. If you can get down off your high horse and show other people some respect, people might start to listen to you. Scolaire (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Most people are voting F and E; what does this mean?
- F— A lot of folks think there's nothing that's wrong with the article configuration as it stands. They're entitled to that view. But those of us who have been trying to deal with the constant paralysis that the Ireland articles on this encyclopaedia have been in know better. Indeed every time before this poll when people have been talking about a "package deal". moving the state article from RoI has always figured as a probability.
- E— A lot of folks who vote for E, I think, do so because they recognize that the problem is that neither the Island nor the State can be proved to be "primary", and this is WIkipedia's most natural way of disambiguating.
That's why these two options are in the lead. F is not winning because of some ridiculous British POV wanting to slap down the Irish, either. By no means. F is an expression of natural conservatism ("the status quo is not so bad"). But it looks to me like half the voters aren't giving F any weight at all. 167 total voters less 92 F votes is 75 voters who don't like the status quo. That's 45% of voters who would like something else against 55% who are OK with the status quo. That is by no means a landslide. it suggests to me that we ought to continue thinking and working together. -- Evertype·✆ 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- And this is what I've been trying to point out - if there is a much clearer agreement on a second preference (like, 90% or more) compared to something that's just barely ahead via first preferences alone, then that is a good foundation to go ahead and to not blindly accept the first preference. But there's still a month on the poll and more discussion after it. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, there are types of poll that allow for second preferences to be more strongly considered. They should have been chosen when you all were deciding the vote. Secondly, who is to say that the status quo would result in any greater problems than any given change? Thirdly, 120-odd voters put F as one of their choices, not 92. john k (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's no reason we can't use a different counting method ; the core data - the order of user prefs - is still the same and thus can be adapted; and because we are not a democracy or any other form of government, we're allowed to bend the rules of process should it be consensus to do so. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, there are types of poll that allow for second preferences to be more strongly considered. They should have been chosen when you all were deciding the vote. Secondly, who is to say that the status quo would result in any greater problems than any given change? Thirdly, 120-odd voters put F as one of their choices, not 92. john k (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- This post-poll discussion won't be about the article titles, right, Masem? I mean, the poll page says this is binding for two years. We should be told if it is not. And as John K says, there is a chosen method for tallying these votes which takes into account voters' preferences. Why does it seem that F-as-first-preference voters are having their preferences discounted in favour of the second preferences of other voters? You cannot change the vote-counting method now: many F voters would probably rather remove their second preferences than have them used to negate their first preference (based on a "clearer agreement on a second preference"). 216.8.129.60 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. People would certainly have voted differently depending on the tallying method. Maybe not enough to change the results, but it's unfair to change the rules when people have already voted. Also, this seems like an effort to figure out a way of counting votes to get a desired result. What would be the justification for changing to a different method besides "the current method is coming to a result some people don't like"? john k (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- This post-poll discussion won't be about the article titles, right, Masem? I mean, the poll page says this is binding for two years. We should be told if it is not. And as John K says, there is a chosen method for tallying these votes which takes into account voters' preferences. Why does it seem that F-as-first-preference voters are having their preferences discounted in favour of the second preferences of other voters? You cannot change the vote-counting method now: many F voters would probably rather remove their second preferences than have them used to negate their first preference (based on a "clearer agreement on a second preference"). 216.8.129.60 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- "But those of us who have been trying to deal with the constant paralysis that the Ireland articles on this encyclopaedia have been in know better." - On the contrary. Counting only members of the WP:IECOLL project, "F" 'wins' by the same margin as what we see in the vote as a whole. Members of WP:IECOLL (and Irish voters in general) differ from the main body of voters in that they rank "E" last. (Among members of the WP:IECOLL project, "E" receives only 2 first-preferences votes out of 18 valid votes cast and is eliminated in the first round. "D" is the second-placed option among members of WP:IECOLL with 7 votes out of 18 after all transfers have been made - starting off with only 4 first preference votes compared to 8 for "F". "E", as you know, is your first preference.)
- "F is an expression of natural conservatism." - I don't recall any of the position statements that spoke in favour of "F" doing so because of "natural conservatism". You are setting up a "straw man".
- "45% of voters who would like something else..." No so. 77% of voters express a preference for "F" one way or another (127/164 ballots), more so than any other option. There are six options on the ballot: five of them cannot be conflated to mean "anti-F" just because you are. (If we did so, then we could equally say that 85% of voters were "anti-E", 84% are "anti-C" and 92% are "anti-D".)
- "...moving the state article from RoI has always figured as a probability. ...we ought to continue thinking and working together." You, more so that maybe anyone else, pressed for a vote because you declared that agreement was impossible. Now, when your favoured option looks unlikely to "win", it suddenly is? You are being disingenuous.
- --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- +1. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- As someone who has taken part in the poll I strongly object to my vote being considered in any context other than the terms the vote was made (i.e. To be tallied using Single Transferable Vote and for the result to be binding for two years.) If the poll is to be thrown out in its entirety that is one thing but to try and reverse engineer a solution by interpreting people's votes in a way they were never intended would be completely wrong. Who is going message the (likely) 200+ people saying "we didn't like the result so we've decided your vote means something else", will that really cause the situation to improve. Guest9999 (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- +1. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There are about a dozen people who have only voted F, whilst this could be for a number of reasons its likely they know F will make it into the final there for their second vote will not count and is not needed. Now if before the end of the vote i need to switch my vote i will, but it is totally unacceptable to be looking at second preference votes to decide a different outcome in such a way when there is a clear winner without informing those who ONLY voted for F, otherwise those people are not having their vote count. Im all for compromise on reasonable grounds but i totally oppose this idea for rigging the outcome against the verdict of the vote and if people think doing that will bring about peace by silencing one group of people you will simply stir up another group, myself included. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- It really doesn't matter how we count the votes.
- First preferences - F wins.
- First and second preferences - F wins
- 1st,2nd and 3rd preferences - F wins
- 1st,2nd, 3rd and 4th preferences - F wins
- 1st,2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th preferences - F wins
- Or we can look at it the other way, at options which are unranked by the least number of people in which case, guess what? F wins! Time people faced up to reality instead of trying to invent novel ways to rig the vote to produce a desired outcome. The voting rate has slowed down to just a couple of votes a day. There are probably only going to be 60 votes at most cast before the end and F currently leads any other option by at least 30 votes in a showdown. So if we want to talk compromise and the option that most people "can live with" it's F based on the votes and no amount of retconning nonsense on WP:IDONTLIKEIT ground will change that. Valenciano (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC
- First preferences - Not F wins.
- First and second preferences - Not F wins
- 1st,2nd and 3rd preferences - Not F wins
- 1st,2nd, 3rd and 4th preferences - Not F wins
- 1st,2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th preferences - Not F wins
- Do I have to point out everything to you guys? Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Can you do the same tally for Not A, Not B, Not C, etc., so it's actually meaningful? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Not F" is not an option. You could say exactly the same thing for every other option. john k (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nah. On the insulting v non-insulting titles F v not F captures the essence of the debate. Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- This response demonstrates clearly that Sarah has no desire to reason with anybody. She has her conclusions—don't let the facts get in the way. The fact is that when we take into account second, third, fourth, etc. preferences, which is what STV is for, we still find that F wins. This is because there is no consensus that F is the worst option. Many would prefer it to some of the other options presented. Which demonstrates clearly that a good many voters, probably most, do not regard this as a an "F v not-F" debate. If that were the essence of the debate, as Sarah alleges, it would come across in the preferences. It does not. But instead of analysis, argumentation, or insight, we get the distraction of "insulting v non-insulting" with the transparent attempt to bait one of her opponents into a response in kind. Srnec (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nah. On the insulting v non-insulting titles F v not F captures the essence of the debate. Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Desire for compromise - a straw poll
At least two people have said that since the poll started there is an increased desire on all sides for some sort of compromise solution. At least one editor has said that there already was agreement on a compromise before the poll started. Someone said that the people who voted F were really voting against titles with parenthesis, another that it was natural conservatism rather than an attachment to the title, or that deep down they'd really prefer E. I propose a straw poll to measure the strength of feeling on both sides for a compromise. The straw poll does not presuppose the outcome of the poll - there is still nearly a month to go and the current situation could be reversed. "Compromise" by my definition would involve overturning whatever the poll result was in favour of an alternative. Theoretically this could involve a victory for change being overturned by a compromise that keeps the status quo while making concessions to satisfy the "change" side. Answering yes to the first question precludes anwering yes to the second and third, but the second and third questions are not mutually exclusive. The fourth relates to what has already happened and is not dependent on the answer to the other three questions. Scolaire (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- A straw poll like this is bunkum. We agreed to conduct a vote and to be bound by it. Now that the tallies are coming in, and it is becoming clearer which option will likely "win", of course those who do not support that option are back-pedaling. Suddenly they are saying that "compromise" is possible - even those that cried most loudly that it was impossible before the votes started coming in. *shakes head in disgust* --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, I think we need to see whether people are agreeing to be bound by it, and to know just how many are "back-pedaling". We also need to test whether those who voted F "really meant" to vote F or not. When the poll is over, the evidence will be there for all to see. Scolaire (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- We did see that people were agreeing to be bound by it ... then the votes began and suddenly "compromise" is the word of the day, replacing ochón is ochón ó and caoineadh chun Masem. Shifting goal posts.
- In any event, holding a poll such as this on the ballot page itself gives mixed messages. The vote is on-going, we can agree to stop it, but let's not wash our lenin in public. This is a "private matter" for the members of WP:IECOLL since we are the ones that are agreeing to be "bound" by the vote. It' belongs on the main WT:IECOLL page not here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll agree with it being moved to IECOLL if all of the above "compromise" sections are moved at the same time. I am not prepared to have people, including Masem, say "it's perfectly fine to f*** with the result because that's what everybody wants", while a poll showing it's not what everybody wants is stuck away where nobody will read it or take part. Scolaire (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree.. cut and paste all this to the collaboration page right away please. This is simply going to confuse people who are coming here to vote in the main poll. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll agree with it being moved to IECOLL if all of the above "compromise" sections are moved at the same time. I am not prepared to have people, including Masem, say "it's perfectly fine to f*** with the result because that's what everybody wants", while a poll showing it's not what everybody wants is stuck away where nobody will read it or take part. Scolaire (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, I think we need to see whether people are agreeing to be bound by it, and to know just how many are "back-pedaling". We also need to test whether those who voted F "really meant" to vote F or not. When the poll is over, the evidence will be there for all to see. Scolaire (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Voters favouring the status quo
Voters who believe the outcome of the poll should be implemented, whatever it is
- Scolaire (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- BritishWatcher (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Voters who are willing to overturn the result in favour of a compromise involving change
Voters who are willing to overturn the result in favour of a compromise involving the status quo
Voters who believe there was already agreement to change before the poll was opened
Voters favouring change
Voters who believe the outcome of the poll should be implemented, whatever it is
GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)- With the caveat that a very close result should be looked to see if there is a more acceptable alternative. Rockpocket 17:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Per Rockpocket Pfainuk talk 17:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Given that certain people will be clinically unable to drop this issue regardless of how many hoops we jump through, we may as well reach a binding decision ASAP. ~ mazca talk 19:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Voters who are willing to overturn the result in favour of a compromise involving change
Voters who are willing to overturn the result in favour of a compromise involving the status quo
Voters who believe there was already agreement to change before the poll was opened
- Tfz 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- ClemMcGann (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Voters who believe this straw poll has been designed to cause needless polarisation
- Hans Adler 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- --Snowded TALK 19:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC) (although properly not intentionally, Agree with Evertype overall position on need for change to achieve any lasting peace
- Fmph (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Can't believe we are having a poll about a poll. Sarah777 (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Can't believe I'm agreeing with Sarah --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's not often Sarah and I agree - when we do, it's worth listening too ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I believe in miracles, where you been, you sexy.... Ahem, sorry. This poll adds nothing constructive. Jack forbes (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Hans, the way you've set up the last section is a contradiction. "unless a compromise is found before it's over" can only mean that if a compromise is "found", the outcome of the poll should not be implemented. Your vote is therefore "it should be implemented, or it should not", which is meaningless. Scolaire (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I assume Hans means that if a compromise is generally agreed to, the poll should not be implemented, but that if this is not the case, it should be. john k (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just what I said - it should or it shouldn't. Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Forget it, changed my vote. I realised that the straw poll seems designed to stress disagreements and polarisation. Hans Adler 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Or the lack of it, if it turns out (as I believe) that we actually do want to implement this poll. Scolaire (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I meant polarisation about what a compromise would look like. Your options are forcing people who would prefer a compromise to a narrow poll result to decide now what this compromise would have to look like. That's not how a compromise is found and leaves out all those who don't really care about the outcome so long as everybody else can live with it. Hans Adler 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- The way it is set up to an uninvolved editor the default current position appears to be the least disruptive to Wikipedia, unless you have intimate knowledge. We also have a lot of US editors who see "state" in their own cultural context so are uncomfortable with that option (although it was a near consensus before the poll. Personally I think the result of the poll should be eliminate extremes and then select from the second choices which have a chance of gaining support from all bar the extremes. To those who think that a majority vote for F will end the debates, sorry guys you are deluded, what will happen is proxy battles on multiple pages around this issue, British Isles etc. etc. Oh and thats not a threat as I have no intention of doing anything like that, its just the prediction of an editor with all too much experience of these issues, --Snowded TALK 19:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Define 'extremes'? Do you mean the 2 most popular options? If so then I oppose 100%. Fmph (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Several of us have defined them. F is one extreme, although it has moderate support it also causes offence to nationalists and undue celebration for unionists, it was also specifically withdrawn by the British Government as a name in the GFA so its tied up with some very complex political symbolism. At the other extreme using Ireland for the state is an extreme (reverses the above). The second most popular at the moment, is a compromise solution. --Snowded TALK 20:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Define 'extremes'? Do you mean the 2 most popular options? If so then I oppose 100%. Fmph (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- The way it is set up to an uninvolved editor the default current position appears to be the least disruptive to Wikipedia, unless you have intimate knowledge. We also have a lot of US editors who see "state" in their own cultural context so are uncomfortable with that option (although it was a near consensus before the poll. Personally I think the result of the poll should be eliminate extremes and then select from the second choices which have a chance of gaining support from all bar the extremes. To those who think that a majority vote for F will end the debates, sorry guys you are deluded, what will happen is proxy battles on multiple pages around this issue, British Isles etc. etc. Oh and thats not a threat as I have no intention of doing anything like that, its just the prediction of an editor with all too much experience of these issues, --Snowded TALK 19:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I meant polarisation about what a compromise would look like. Your options are forcing people who would prefer a compromise to a narrow poll result to decide now what this compromise would have to look like. That's not how a compromise is found and leaves out all those who don't really care about the outcome so long as everybody else can live with it. Hans Adler 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Or the lack of it, if it turns out (as I believe) that we actually do want to implement this poll. Scolaire (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Forget it, changed my vote. I realised that the straw poll seems designed to stress disagreements and polarisation. Hans Adler 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just what I said - it should or it shouldn't. Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- "[F] causes offence to nationalists and undue celebration for unionists..." Where? As an Irish nationalist I take offense at a British editor telling me what I am or am not offended at! Find me a reference that says that Irish nationalists are offended by it. Find me a reference that says that it is "celebrated" by unionists.
- Indeed, Unionists were historically very reluctant to call the state the "Republic of Ireland" and traditionally preferred "Irish Republic," "Eire," or "Southern Ireland." john k (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Where did you get that, I don't think you are correct. RoI is the preferred name used by unionists. I have never heard unionists use Eire all that much. Southern Ireland is another popular description with NI unionists. Tfz 21:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- See, for example, discussion in that oft-mentioned but clearly little read article, The Irish Free State/Éire/Republic of Ireland/Ireland: “A Country by Any Other Name”? (page 84): "...Sir Basil Brooke, Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, objected to the title 'Republic of Ireland,' because he claimed, it 'was intended to repeat Eire’s claim to jurisdiction over the whole island.'" --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's also very obvious if you read the Dáil records concerning the Republic of Ireland Act. And it makes perfect sense: In an English language context, "Eire" can be read as referring only to those parts of Ireland where Gaelic plays a significant role, and I guess that that is how it was read at the time. Hans Adler 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- See, for example, discussion in that oft-mentioned but clearly little read article, The Irish Free State/Éire/Republic of Ireland/Ireland: “A Country by Any Other Name”? (page 84): "...Sir Basil Brooke, Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, objected to the title 'Republic of Ireland,' because he claimed, it 'was intended to repeat Eire’s claim to jurisdiction over the whole island.'" --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Where did you get that, I don't think you are correct. RoI is the preferred name used by unionists. I have never heard unionists use Eire all that much. Southern Ireland is another popular description with NI unionists. Tfz 21:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, Unionists were historically very reluctant to call the state the "Republic of Ireland" and traditionally preferred "Irish Republic," "Eire," or "Southern Ireland." john k (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- "...it was also specifically withdrawn by the British Government as a name in the GFA..." Where? Here is the GFA quote me where ROI is "specifically withdrawn" by the British Government.
- "At the other extreme using Ireland for the state is an extreme (reverses the above)." What?? That is the name of the state. Internationally recognised. It is not an "extreme" POV in any sense.
- "The second most popular at the moment, is a compromise solution." It is the solution with the least support among Irish editors and members of WP:IECOLL.
- It's a shame there isn't less pontificating about history and politics and more attention paid to facts. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- The pro-F pundits have been pontificating and deliberating on this page for days on end, and never heard a whisper from you about it. Your credibility on that score has gone quite flaky. Tfz 21:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Methinks that someone doesn't understand the differance between nationalists and republicans. For the record, in very simplistic terms, republicans tend to have problems with the use of RoI, but nationalists often don't. /hides-in-the-corner-and-awaits-the-flak Fmph (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- It was specifically "nationalists" that it was said it was offensive to - I would, however, say that what is offensive to "republicans" is of a more transient and opportunistic nature. /joins-you-in-the-corner-and-awaits-the-flak --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Methinks that someone doesn't understand the differance between nationalists and republicans. For the record, in very simplistic terms, republicans tend to have problems with the use of RoI, but nationalists often don't. /hides-in-the-corner-and-awaits-the-flak Fmph (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- The pro-F pundits have been pontificating and deliberating on this page for days on end, and never heard a whisper from you about it. Your credibility on that score has gone quite flaky. Tfz 21:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
OMG, what on earth is all this.. Ive not read it all yet but what a mess. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Voters who believe there should be change, regardless of the outcome of the poll and Voters who believe there was already agreement to change before the poll was opened from the status quo section and Voters who believe the status quo should remain, regardless of the outcome of the poll from the Voters for Change section should be deleted.surely they dont apply? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I hope these options are supposed to be two variants of "I would prefer a compromise to implementing the result of the poll, and in my opinion the compromise must look like this: ...". That's exactly what I criticised above. But you are right, there is a more sinister meaning which is also what I saw at first. Hans Adler 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have changed the wording on the options, to make them less "sinister". Scolaire (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- lol, thanks for the changes it makes alot more sense now. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)