→My little spreadsheet: update for the midnight voters |
|||
Line 230: | Line 230: | ||
==My little spreadsheet== |
==My little spreadsheet== |
||
'''This is a tally of #1 votes ''only''.''' |
'''This is a tally of #1 votes ''only''.''' |
||
Keeping on eye the systematic bias angle: ''' |
Keeping on eye the systematic bias angle: '''74''' votes so far. There are 33 users whose nationality I cannot identify '''or''' they are non-British/Irish. |
||
*British editors ( |
*British editors (28): voting 12 (not for F) - 16 (for F). |
||
*Irish (the sovereign country) editors (13): voting 9 (not for F) - 4 (for F). |
*Irish (the sovereign country) editors (13): voting 9 (not for F) - 4 (for F). |
||
*Unknown/non-British/Irish editors ( |
*Unknown/non-British/Irish editors (33): voting 22 (not for F) - 11 (for F) |
||
*As things stand the vote is |
*As things stand the vote is 31 for F v. 43 not for F. |
||
*Without the British input there would be |
*Without the British input there would be 46 votes; 15 for F v. 31 not for F. |
||
I'll keep this updated. |
I'll keep this updated. |
||
[[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 23:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC) |
[[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 23:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:15, 4 August 2009
Commencing of the Poll
'Tis great to see the commencing of the Poll. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Ireland (republic of) and similar configurations
Why does only the "no change" option allow us to continue using Republic of Ireland rather than Ireland (state)? john k (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- 'Cause, that's the current name of the country article. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- What I mean is, there's no option for, for instance, having Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland as our two articles, which I would prefer to most of the current options. john k (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- That was an option that didn't make the cut, during the process. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- ...and there'll almost certainly be redirects covering the missing options, so your preference may well come to pass indirectly. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ireland (Republic of), which dabs and also makes clear that RoI isn't the name of the country was dropped by the closing Admin because he "couldn't see any difference". This is part of the problem with overcoming systematic bias on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- If "Republic of Ireland" doesn't remain the "Ireland" holding space, I have a cunning plan to create an article there, about the descriptive term. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why wait?! Sarah777 (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Because there's currently a different article at Republic of Ireland. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Be careful not to get knocked over in the rush. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- If there's content ready to go, great. Article or redirect, I would imagine john k will be happy so long as "Republic of Ireland" exists in one form or another, and points readers in roughly the right direction. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- My assumption was that there was no possibility that Republic of Ireland wouldn't at least be a redirect. john k (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Considering the number of votes for the article to remain at ROI, if that option does lose i find it very hard to believe it would not be a direct. This is something that would have to be confirmed and agreed to following the vote before any move takes place though. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- My assumption was that there was no possibility that Republic of Ireland wouldn't at least be a redirect. john k (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- If there's content ready to go, great. Article or redirect, I would imagine john k will be happy so long as "Republic of Ireland" exists in one form or another, and points readers in roughly the right direction. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why wait?! Sarah777 (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Ireland (Republic of) ... was dropped by the closing Admin because he 'couldn't see any difference'." - !? It got dropped because it didn't win |the vote. It didn't win the vote because you (like most people) didn't vote for it. The "closing admin" or "systematic bias" doesn't come into it. You didn't vote for it so it's not on the ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- If "Republic of Ireland" doesn't remain the "Ireland" holding space, I have a cunning plan to create an article there, about the descriptive term. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ireland (Republic of), which dabs and also makes clear that RoI isn't the name of the country was dropped by the closing Admin because he "couldn't see any difference". This is part of the problem with overcoming systematic bias on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- ...and there'll almost certainly be redirects covering the missing options, so your preference may well come to pass indirectly. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- That was an option that didn't make the cut, during the process. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- What I mean is, there's no option for, for instance, having Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland as our two articles, which I would prefer to most of the current options. john k (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- How inaccurate can you be? I did vote for it; third preference. The closing Admin went with only two preferences because he reckoned Ireland (the Republic) was the same as RoI! That is the problem. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fourth preference in a vote where there we had decided in advance that, at the most, only three options would be going forward. As it was, "Ireland (state)" was the run-away winner so it would logically follow that "Ireland (state)" would finish ahead of any alternative that put forward to this vote. "How inaccurate can you be?" I could say it was dropped because the closing admin "couldn't see any difference" and blame it on "systematic bias" rather than admit that the reason it didn't go forward was because I didn't vote for it? Just thought. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Third; where we had agreed 3 would go forward. Option G; Ireland (republic). Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed in advance: "Results of the vote will yield two (or possibly three if the numbers clearly warrant it)..."
- Choice on ballot: "C: Ireland (Republic of)"
- Your vote: "A F G C B D E" (Fourth preference highlighted.)
- Your claim above: "Ireland (Republic of) ... was dropped by the closing Admin because...he 'couldn't see any difference'."
- "Ireland (Republic of)"" is not an option here because you (like most people) didn't vote for it in the preliminary ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Third; where we had agreed 3 would go forward. Option G; Ireland (republic). Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fourth preference in a vote where there we had decided in advance that, at the most, only three options would be going forward. As it was, "Ireland (state)" was the run-away winner so it would logically follow that "Ireland (state)" would finish ahead of any alternative that put forward to this vote. "How inaccurate can you be?" I could say it was dropped because the closing admin "couldn't see any difference" and blame it on "systematic bias" rather than admit that the reason it didn't go forward was because I didn't vote for it? Just thought. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- How inaccurate can you be? I did vote for it; third preference. The closing Admin went with only two preferences because he reckoned Ireland (the Republic) was the same as RoI! That is the problem. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ireland (republic) = Ireland (Republic of) = Ireland (The Republic) = Ireland (Republic) = Ireland (the Republic) but none of them = Republic of Ireland. Period. Cut the nonsense; the unacceptable status quo has a huge advantage when set against numerous acceptable alternatives. Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Final Poll is barely a few hours old, let's not make assumptions about the outcome. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- LOL. You didn't vote for it = it's not on the ballot. ("Ireland (Republic of)" was my first choice in the preliminary vote by the way.)
- "...the [...] status quo has a huge advantage when set against numerous [...] alternatives..." That's why we are using preferential voting. It doesn't explain why you didn't vote for an option then blame the closing admin for not choosing it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did. There are a dozen permutations of "Ireland (republic of)" - one is enough to represent the whole. Stop being silly. Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Two such permutations were on the preliminary ballot. They were your 3rd and 4th preference. The best placed one ("Ireland (republic)") came 3rd in the result. Your vote did not count towards it because your 1st preference ("Ireland (country)") came second and your 2nd preference ("Ireland (state)") came first by a landslide. What are you complaining about? One of your higher ranked preferences topped the poll and is therefore in this ballot. You got what you voted for. If you preferred a permutation of "Ireland (Republic of)" over "Ireland (state)" or "Ireland (country)" then you should have ranked it higher. No-one is a mind reader around here.
- I did vote for "Ireland (Republic of)", by the way, and "Ireland (republic)" was included on the ballot at my request. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did. There are a dozen permutations of "Ireland (republic of)" - one is enough to represent the whole. Stop being silly. Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
IF "Republic of Ireland" doesn't remain the "Ireland" holding space, I have a cunning plan to create an article there"" Ummm you will not!!!! this vote makes very very clear that Republic of Ireland is to be a redirect if option F is not chosen. That is binding for 2 years.. so ur cunning plan will have to wait till then :) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Damn it, ive been looking at the move -> things thinking they meant redirect also. I guess it was never agreed the future of that article if there was a change. someone did try creating text for that article some time ago. Anyway that would fall within the scope of the stuff that needs sorting out before any of the changes happen. To think that is going to be anything other than a redirect is alarming though and if the articles are to be moved, i can imagine months of disputes about the ROI being a redirect. But the poll info does make clear for sure that those remaining things will be sorted BEFORE a move. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd kind of assumed that whatever was decided, all the usual suspects for redirects would be done - so, if "F" (say) wins, "Ireland (island)" will redirect to "Ireland", etc. You're right, though - any discussion about anything other than the current poll is probably best left until later. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- How come nobody mentioned that the "cunning" edit has already been done? Scolaire (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- But Ireland is the state and island, and that's what the 'Ireland article' is about, reads the same! Tfz 20:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid alluded to it, above (kind of: Domer moved, as I understand it, the "cunning" from article space to a sandbox). Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 20:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- How come nobody mentioned that the "cunning" edit has already been done? Scolaire (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments on My Little Spreadsheet
- Im sure you will BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Count on it. Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- In your next update please remove Irish editors as well just out of interest. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hardly! The article in question is about Ireland. D'oh! Sarah777 (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. :) wooops.. Northern Ireland i mean, see what happens when u just say Ireland instead of Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- And nobody is trying to call NI by a "description"; despite "The Failed Entity" being a pretty good one. Sarah777 (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. :) wooops.. Northern Ireland i mean, see what happens when u just say Ireland instead of Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hardly! The article in question is about Ireland. D'oh! Sarah777 (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll keep an eye on those who support Options G-Z (as they'll be slightly confused). GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- In your next update please remove Irish editors as well just out of interest. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Count on it. Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way: - I assume there is a rule that nobody who wasn't registered before today is prevented from voting? We wouldn't want a plethora of "Irish" citizens new to Wiki finding their way here. (Or any other sort). Sarah777 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Aye, it says above Users who registered after 1 June 2009 may not vote (per Project consensus) but may contribute comments on the Talk page. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 22:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- The excitements getting too much for me. I'm away to lie down for 42 days. Jack forbes (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why not do it on a weighted scale? People's votes could have more value depending on their "Irishness" rating e.g.
- Born in Ireland, can trace ancestry back to 3 May 1241 or earlier = 10pts
- Other born in Ireland = 9 pts
- Gave money to Noraid in 1987 = 8 pts
- Irish granny = 7 pts
- Picked mushrooms in Kilkenny for a year to fund flatbuy in Krakow = 6 pts
- Goes to Irish bar once a month = 5 pts
- Downloaded Enya album within last 3 months = 4 pts (+possible sympathy bonus point for those who admit it)
- etc? Valenciano (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever. Sarah777 (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- But all I'm looking at is: Irish Citizen/Not Irish Citizen. As an indicator. That too complicated for you? Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- And don't worry V, I've included as one of the Irish voting for the British solution. One of the three so far. Sarah777 (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Whew! That's mostly what I *was worried* about. Thanks. :) It might all be academic anyway, F is ahead but only about 50-55% in the final analysis, still 41 days left. Valenciano (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- And don't worry V, I've included as one of the Irish voting for the British solution. One of the three so far. Sarah777 (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- But all I'm looking at is: Irish Citizen/Not Irish Citizen. As an indicator. That too complicated for you? Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever. Sarah777 (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- The excitements getting too much for me. I'm away to lie down for 42 days. Jack forbes (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, when you talk of people "in favour of" F, are you just referring to those with it as their first choice, or what exactly? Just making sure I'm not being counted as someone in favour of it given that it's my 5th choice! ~ mazca talk 23:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- First choice only; I also exclude 2nd choice as well as 5th - so it should still give a reasonable indication. Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- So you are counting people as "against F" even if that is their second choice? lol BritishWatcher (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sarah keep this up and you'll have half the voters uploading passports scans out of panic! Valenciano (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Only one has chosen F as their second choice, so far. Oh, and I could apply for my Irish passport. Could I get one within 42 days? Jack forbes (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- V, it's not rocket science. I'm going by what folk say on their User pages. BritishW; I'm counting "not F #1" as...well...."not F". Sue me. Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Jack like Sarah I'm also keeping my own little tally and there are two second prefs for F but tonnes for D an option which so far is completely bombing. Valenciano (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- D could be the dark horse in the race. Nobody likes it much be it might be the alternative to "F" least disliked. As the various permutations of "Ireland (Republic of)" have been eliminated before the vote. Sarah777 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- In fact. if "F" doesn't get over 50% I might suggest some variant of "Ireland (Republic of)" be given as a compromise. Sarah777 (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would of thought D would be doing better than it is at the moment, last time i looked not a single first vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- But....37 out of 47 have C, D or E as 1st or second preference (or both), that's nearly 80%. What they all have in common is that "RoI" would be replaced by "Ireland (state)"! Sarah777 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I could live with that. A and B are the only ones I actively opposed and they're getting nowhere. D is the least hated option but no one's voting for it! Valenciano (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) To be fair that's probably at least partially because for some reason the RoI equivalents of C and E are not included in the poll. The only direct comparison of RoI vs. (state) is D vs. F. I still don't quite understand why that is the case. Guest9999 (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I could live with that. A and B are the only ones I actively opposed and they're getting nowhere. D is the least hated option but no one's voting for it! Valenciano (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- But....37 out of 47 have C, D or E as 1st or second preference (or both), that's nearly 80%. What they all have in common is that "RoI" would be replaced by "Ireland (state)"! Sarah777 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would of thought D would be doing better than it is at the moment, last time i looked not a single first vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- In fact. if "F" doesn't get over 50% I might suggest some variant of "Ireland (Republic of)" be given as a compromise. Sarah777 (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- D could be the dark horse in the race. Nobody likes it much be it might be the alternative to "F" least disliked. As the various permutations of "Ireland (Republic of)" have been eliminated before the vote. Sarah777 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Only one has chosen F as their second choice, so far. Oh, and I could apply for my Irish passport. Could I get one within 42 days? Jack forbes (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sarah keep this up and you'll have half the voters uploading passports scans out of panic! Valenciano (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- So you are counting people as "against F" even if that is their second choice? lol BritishWatcher (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- First choice only; I also exclude 2nd choice as well as 5th - so it should still give a reasonable indication. Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I am keeping in mind as I look at the votes that there will likely be some vote changing over the next 6 weeks as people choose a strategic #1 or #2 just to ensure a specific last choice does not become the winner. Nothing here is cast in stone or even written on archival paper. // BL \\ (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I am neither British nor Irish. I voted the way I did based entirly on the strength of the arguments presented. Bonewah (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's surprising that you didn't take in to account that a lot of people who live in the state really find "Republic of Ireland" to be problematic if not offensive. It's that which is why we keep coming back to this dispute, which has gone on for seven years. Vote as you like, of course. But it's surprising to me to see "non-partisan" votes for the status quo. -- Evertype·✆ 07:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Tnk Bonewah - I have taken your vote out of the unknown category and added it to the "not British or Irish" category. And updated my little spreadsheet. Sarah777 (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Evertype, the Irish Taoiseach, government, institutions, media, and general public must really be going out of their way to offend people with their continued use of an "offensive" term. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, i originally agreed that the title should be changed from ROI and thought what is now D was a reasonable alternative. That was only becauase i was misled by certain editors that the term ROI is deeply offensive and pushing British POV. Considering 1000s of examples from the Irish parliament including government ministers and the fact the countrys football team plays under Republic of Ireland, i really do not see how that claim can be true which is why i voted F. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm well aware that the Taoiseach etc use the term, Bastun. That doesn't mean that there aren't still a lot of people who find it problematic for whatever reason. The status quo just gives them two fingers doesn't it? I mean, seven years of discussion? I don't think they're all cranks, either. So even though a lot of people have no problem with it, some people really do, and really the status quo votes don't seem to me to be a step forward, not at all. -- Evertype·✆ 08:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, i originally agreed that the title should be changed from ROI and thought what is now D was a reasonable alternative. That was only becauase i was misled by certain editors that the term ROI is deeply offensive and pushing British POV. Considering 1000s of examples from the Irish parliament including government ministers and the fact the countrys football team plays under Republic of Ireland, i really do not see how that claim can be true which is why i voted F. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sarah, if you are including Valenciano as an "Irish" editor voting for F, then I count five at the time of your first post, not three. For myself, my first preference will be eliminated early on so my vote will go to F - and that is just what I intended - so that makes six. 7-3 is maybe just a certain amount of wishful thinking?
- Evertype, there have been plenty of "reliable sources" quoted over the last year, but I have yet to see one that says that in the real world the person on the street in Ireland finds "Republic of Ireland" problematic. I have literally never heard that view expressed outside of Wikipedia. And people expressing their choice after careful consideration of the arguments is not "two fingers" to anybody or anything. It's what we decided to ask them to do. Scolaire (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Bastun, Guliolopez and RA. Now that I check I have V down as British and you down as voting for "A". Sarah777 (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- And Djegan? That makes six-six by my count. Scolaire (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think Sarah counts anyone that doesnt have F as their first choice as against F even if its their second choice, slight flaw in her little spreadsheet there lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- And Djegan? That makes six-six by my count. Scolaire (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Bastun, Guliolopez and RA. Now that I check I have V down as British and you down as voting for "A". (Sorry about that V, I mislead you in error, but your page states you have never lived in the South, only the North). This article is about the name of sovereign Ireland. And yes Scolaire, as explained I am counting 1st preferences. I'll check on DJ, I thopught he was from NI? Sarah777 (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- No it says I lived in Ulster (the Province) and I'm an Irish passport holder by birth so if you don't include me, I'll sue you for emotional distress ;) Valenciano (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's six-six, Sarah. Creating your own pigeon-holes for people doesn't alter the fact. There is no united mass of Irish struggling under the weight of British oppression. End of. Scolaire (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- No Sarah this is not just "about the name of sovereign Ireland". It is about the Island as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- The island is at "Ireland" - I have no serious problem with that, though per WP:COMMONNAME it probably should be at Ireland (island). It is the name of my country I'm concerned about. Y'know - that place the "RoI" article is about? As per the Good Friday Agreement, NI folk who self-identify as nationalists are obviously Irish (of the non-British sort). Otherwise we must assume they are British for the purpose of detecting bias. After all, NI Unionists are amongst the most pro-British in these islands. Fact. If you don't like it find a PC shoulder to cry on. Sarah777 (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- No Sarah this is not just "about the name of sovereign Ireland". It is about the Island as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Bastun, Guliolopez and RA. Now that I check I have V down as British and you down as voting for "A". Sarah777 (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
My spreadsheet seeks
- (1) to see how citizens of (and living in) what you call the "RoI" are voting
- (2) attempts to see people who are British are voting
- in order to put a bit of perspective on the vote. It is doing this rather well.
Why should you wish to avoid knowing how people living in and citizens of "RoI" think of this description you'd foist on us? Why would you be concerned at identifying how British editors are voting? Censorship has always been the first weapon of folk who dislike Irish nationalism, I guess. Leopards, spots maybe? ? Sarah777 (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Description I'd foist on you? I'm a citizen like anybody else. Dislike Irish Nationalism? I'm an Irish nationalist. Knowing how people living in and citizens of "RoI" think of this description? see above. Scolaire (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually people in the street normally refer to their country as "Ireland". Full stop. For "dab" purposes they will use "The North" or "the South". Or some variant thereof. And these street people will often "dab" by saying Northern Ireland and Ireland. In the same sentence. And everyone knows what they mean by Ireland. The sovereign state, of course. And these street people, if they want to emphasise all-Ireland, will often say "the whole island" or "the island of Ireland". Sarah777 (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- None of which I would dispute for a moment! Well, apart from the suggestion that when people say Ireland they are never referring to north of the border, which is ludicrous! But you've stopped short of saying that people on the street find "Republic of Ireland" problematic. They don't. There is no problem in the real world. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think sometimes that people munge a load of different issues together. Specifically, I object to the name of the article being at "Republic of Ireland". But I've must less of a problem when RoI is used as a dab in the right context. So if someone says to me that he visited Dublin in the Republic of Ireland, my alarm bells go off, because it's not used as a dab. But if someone says they're touring Ireland and staying 2 days in Northern Ireland and 3 days in the Republic of Ireland, I think that's fine. Mooretwin had some useful distinctions some time ago most of which I though made good common sense. So when you say there is no problem in real life, I'd say that there is, when it's used completely inappropriately.... If you read my position statement, I'm only asking that the article title is put at the right place. I'd hate to think that some editors here are arguing on a wider scope.... --HighKing (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Love that word "munge" ;-) Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously, though, in real life do you hear someone say that he visited Dublin in the Republic of Ireland? I've had the experience of people on the phone in England talking about "here on the mainland", but I've never encountered that use of "Republic". If they did do it it would be an issue in the RW, but if they don't it's not. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think sometimes that people munge a load of different issues together. Specifically, I object to the name of the article being at "Republic of Ireland". But I've must less of a problem when RoI is used as a dab in the right context. So if someone says to me that he visited Dublin in the Republic of Ireland, my alarm bells go off, because it's not used as a dab. But if someone says they're touring Ireland and staying 2 days in Northern Ireland and 3 days in the Republic of Ireland, I think that's fine. Mooretwin had some useful distinctions some time ago most of which I though made good common sense. So when you say there is no problem in real life, I'd say that there is, when it's used completely inappropriately.... If you read my position statement, I'm only asking that the article title is put at the right place. I'd hate to think that some editors here are arguing on a wider scope.... --HighKing (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- None of which I would dispute for a moment! Well, apart from the suggestion that when people say Ireland they are never referring to north of the border, which is ludicrous! But you've stopped short of saying that people on the street find "Republic of Ireland" problematic. They don't. There is no problem in the real world. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't live there like you guys (never have), but I do visit family on a regular basis. When talking about their country they always refer to it as Ireland. They don't I'm sure think on it too much, but if I constantly referred to their country as "the republic" or republic of Ireland" they would ask me why the hell I wasn't just saying Ireland. Jack forbes (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not saying it is slightly different to being deeeply offended by its use as some claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't live there like you guys (never have), but I do visit family on a regular basis. When talking about their country they always refer to it as Ireland. They don't I'm sure think on it too much, but if I constantly referred to their country as "the republic" or republic of Ireland" they would ask me why the hell I wasn't just saying Ireland. Jack forbes (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- @Jack, they would ask why the hell you weren't just saying Ireland? Or why the hell you were using such an offensive term? There's an important difference. I always refer to the state as Ireland. I don't bristle when somebody calls it "the Republic", nor does anybody else I know. Scolaire (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Next time I see them I'll ask. Jack forbes (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- @Jack, they would ask why the hell you weren't just saying Ireland? Or why the hell you were using such an offensive term? There's an important difference. I always refer to the state as Ireland. I don't bristle when somebody calls it "the Republic", nor does anybody else I know. Scolaire (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
As for "perspective", saying that I am opposed to F is a blatant falsehood; saying that Djegan is British is a blatant falsehood. If that's how you get your perspective we don't need it. Scolaire (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. 40 out of 59 prefer 'F' to some degree or other, so far. That's what PRSTV is for - recording preferences, most preferred to least. But even the least preferred is still a preference. If an option is omitted from one's vote, you're saying its something you wouldn't prefer. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have tweaked the wording of my little spreadsheet to meet some of the objections a quarter way. Sarah777 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also interesting to see the only votes with only one option....and all the conclusions that can be drawn... --HighKing (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes the conclusion that Option F will make it to the final round there for people voting for that option will not have their 2nd, 3rd, 4th prefences counted anyway.. so why bother? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also interesting to see the only votes with only one option....and all the conclusions that can be drawn... --HighKing (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have tweaked the wording of my little spreadsheet to meet some of the objections a quarter way. Sarah777 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that I'm doomed myself to being added to the spreadsheet as being a Brit boting the Brit way, I should like to make it clear that I would be quite happy to have the three articles called Ireland (32 counties), Ireland (26 counties) and Ireland (6 counties) with the latter beign a redirect from Ulster (6 counties). ;-)--Peter cohen (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes Pete from the Occupied Territories - but that ain't what you voted for. Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Userboxes
This user was on the edge of their seat for 42 days in the Summer of 2009. |
Just for fun, I made a userbox: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Userbox1}}
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Surely you mean "on the edge of his or her seat"? -- Evertype·✆ 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- "...on the edge his or her seat." - So, assuming a strict understanding of "or", that means that a male subject may be on the edge of her seat? Who is she? :-) (Singular they.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Changing votes
Is there guidance for changing one's vote? If this is done should the previous vote be removed and a revised vote placed at the bottom of the list, or should the previous vote be stricken and new one provided at the end, or previous vote changed with only the signature with date stricken to be amended with a second signature at the end of that line? Sswonk (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's been a source of debate but the consensus is it's OK. The problem was the worry that the outcome could be manipulated by "strategically" switching votes, not with people changing their vote "innocently".
- I think it's best to just delete your old vote but cast your new vote in the same place on the list. That way it will not disrupt the flow of votes but will stand out in diffs and the date will be out of sequence with other dates in the list indicating that it was changed. I'm doing a running tally and that's the way I'd like it to be done anyway.
- However you do it, I think it's best to avoid strike-throughs etc. Don't make a fuss about it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is logical. I think it might be worth placing that guidance on the voting page, so any vote changing is not done using strike through tags. Sswonk (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I somehow messed up my numbering in my vote, so I just fixed it in place.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is logical. I think it might be worth placing that guidance on the voting page, so any vote changing is not done using strike through tags. Sswonk (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
A tally
Current tally on 58 votes: the status quo has it on the fifth count with 31 votes. Option C comes in second with 20.
Having voted for the status quo, I'm guessing/hoping that it doesn't mean that we can't change the Ireland to the all-Ireland article it suggests, as it's just a content rather than a naming question. I certainly can't see much point in having both an all-Ireland article and an "Ireland (island)" article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Same in my tally. But let's not give running tallies. They can only serve to crank the tension up higher. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- My tally has the same except it doesn't have the unnecessary count that yours does. A and D can be eliminated together since even if all D's voters choose A, A is still eliminated due to having less first prefs. Valenciano (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely. But I'm not counting by hand. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- My tally has the same except it doesn't have the unnecessary count that yours does. A and D can be eliminated together since even if all D's voters choose A, A is still eliminated due to having less first prefs. Valenciano (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- If current trends continue this will be a shoot-out between C and F. So anyone opposed to F should really make sure to put C before it in their list; putting A,B, D or E before F but not C before F carries a high chance the vote won't count in the shake out. Sarah777 (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank God we have 42 days to get the anti-F consensus fully expressed:) Sarah777 (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Stop misrepresenting reality. 40 out of 59 (as it was earlier) expressing a preference for 'F', first or otherwise, is hardly an "anti-F consensus". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank God we have 42 days to get the anti-F consensus fully expressed:) Sarah777 (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- If current trends continue this will be a shoot-out between C and F. So anyone opposed to F should really make sure to put C before it in their list; putting A,B, D or E before F but not C before F carries a high chance the vote won't count in the shake out. Sarah777 (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly recommend avoiding any publicly-discussed mid-course tallies. The votes are there, people can add them up for themselves if they want, but I don't believe that having any assessment of the tally pre-calculated is going to be useful, and if anything will rile up those who may find their preferred option losing or their most-detested option winning. The less said about how the vote is going, the better. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Counting the Votes: Evaluation
Would someone please point me to the discussion/decision about how the votes are to be counted? Are all first-chosen to be given a number of points etc.? // BL \\ (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I assumed it would be the same method as the previous poll, except with only one eventual "winner". Some details on counting are here, particularly here. It seems to involve salt and hops, which sounds like really bad beer. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I assumed this would be counted in a reverse weighted fashion, i.e. a vote for first preference gets 6 points, second 5, third 4, fourth 3, fifth 2 and sixth 1. Thus my vote, BAC, would add 6 points to B, 5 to A and four to C, with no points going to the others. Sswonk (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- No. It's using the Proportional Representation - Single Transferrable Vote system (which is well worth a read). The actual count will be done using a software program, as outlined on the [[talk page of a previous poll used to determine some of the options appearing in this final poll. That PRSTV article explains things better than I can, but in essence, you have one unweighted vote, which transfers to your second- (or third-, or fourth-, etc.) choice if an earlier preference of yours gets eliminated. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, if I had paid attention I would have noticed that earlier. Similar to the election of city councils in Cambridge, Massachusetts - [1]. Sswonk (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes - except they seem to have a rule that anyone getting less than a certain number gets eliminated at a set stage, which doesn't apply here. And the extra wrinkle here is that as we're only selecting one winner, the first to reach the quota wins. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that is a little confusing. I can't tell from what you've written or the links what "the first to reach the quota" means. What determines the quota, and how is it determined what choice is the first to reach it? The assumption is if there are more first choice votes for a given choice, that one wins, and the STV kicks in if there is a tie - otherwise why would proportional representation be needed at all, since there is only one possible winner? Sswonk (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, we should've been restricted to supporting only 1 option. Oh well, it'll all get straightened out by September. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- From what i understand although i find this system very confusing, its the first option to 50%+1 that wins. So if the leading option fails to get over 50%, options with the lowest votes are eliminated and those who voted for it have their second preferences added and that process continues till one reaches over 50%. (from what i understand, i may be wrong). BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, we should've been restricted to supporting only 1 option. Oh well, it'll all get straightened out by September. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that is a little confusing. I can't tell from what you've written or the links what "the first to reach the quota" means. What determines the quota, and how is it determined what choice is the first to reach it? The assumption is if there are more first choice votes for a given choice, that one wins, and the STV kicks in if there is a tie - otherwise why would proportional representation be needed at all, since there is only one possible winner? Sswonk (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes - except they seem to have a rule that anyone getting less than a certain number gets eliminated at a set stage, which doesn't apply here. And the extra wrinkle here is that as we're only selecting one winner, the first to reach the quota wins. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, if I had paid attention I would have noticed that earlier. Similar to the election of city councils in Cambridge, Massachusetts - [1]. Sswonk (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- No. It's using the Proportional Representation - Single Transferrable Vote system (which is well worth a read). The actual count will be done using a software program, as outlined on the [[talk page of a previous poll used to determine some of the options appearing in this final poll. That PRSTV article explains things better than I can, but in essence, you have one unweighted vote, which transfers to your second- (or third-, or fourth-, etc.) choice if an earlier preference of yours gets eliminated. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- The idea is that people can go with minority preferences and still have their votes count. The quota - as I understand it - means that no choice wins until it is the first remaining preference of 50%+1 voters.
- So, for example, if it came down to a choice between C and F, those voters who preferred C over F would be counted as votes for C, and those who preferred F over C would be counted as votes for F. It wouldn't matter whether the voter chose C and F as first and second preferences or fifth and sixth preferences, the preference would still be registered. Pfainuk talk 18:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I tried counting with votes frozen at 64, and now understand. This set the quota at (64/2)+1 = 33. At that point, disregarding any changes since for test purposes only, the elimination process removed D, then A, then E, then B. When B was removed, 7 voters were eliminated because they listed neither C nor F at all, and this reduced the quota to (57/2)+1 = 29.5 and thus F won with 32 to 25 votes. Please correct me if this is not right, not the total but the method overall. Sswonk (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC
- Almost. You're right except for the quota. That doesn't change. It's quite possible that an option will win without reaching the quota due to votes not transferring. Valenciano (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I tried counting with votes frozen at 64, and now understand. This set the quota at (64/2)+1 = 33. At that point, disregarding any changes since for test purposes only, the elimination process removed D, then A, then E, then B. When B was removed, 7 voters were eliminated because they listed neither C nor F at all, and this reduced the quota to (57/2)+1 = 29.5 and thus F won with 32 to 25 votes. Please correct me if this is not right, not the total but the method overall. Sswonk (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC
- Yes - that looks right to me. My only correction would be that the winning threshold at the end (from 57 votes with preferences remaining) would be 29, not 29.5. The rule is the winner has to have more votes (excluding eliminated votes) than all other options combined - not a strict 50%+1. Sorry, that's probably my fault! Pfainuk talk 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Apparently I misused the word "quota" - oops - corrected. Pfainuk talk 20:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- There's only one "seat" so there is no "quota" or "threshold". If any item reaches 50%+1 they are guaranteed to win, but that is different to a "quota" or "threshold". The winner is the options with the greatest stack of votes after transferring all preferences. 50%+1 is merely the mark after which any option is guaranteed for that to be the case.
- It was discussed about adding an extra proviso that a winner must reach a certain threshold before being declared binding, but consensus was not to attach any such proviso. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds different from my example and the two responses. This has to be a semantics problem I am having, but to me there has to be a threshold, otherwise no preference would be eliminated in the process. In other words, the "threshold" is, don't finish last during the count. To simplify this, is the method I outlined in an example above, where lowest total first preference votes are thrown out one step at a time until only two possible outcomes are left, with the higher of the two chosen, correct? Forget what I wrote about quotas, just that there is a process that eliminates lowest total as a valid first preference vote, recalculate, then eliminates lowest of five remaining, etc. Sswonk (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. "lowest total first preference votes are thrown out one step at a time until only two possible outcomes are left". Correct! Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yip. The least popular options are removed one-at-a-time (and the votes for them are transferred) until only two options remain. The most popular of those two options is the winner. See it worked out here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds different from my example and the two responses. This has to be a semantics problem I am having, but to me there has to be a threshold, otherwise no preference would be eliminated in the process. In other words, the "threshold" is, don't finish last during the count. To simplify this, is the method I outlined in an example above, where lowest total first preference votes are thrown out one step at a time until only two possible outcomes are left, with the higher of the two chosen, correct? Forget what I wrote about quotas, just that there is a process that eliminates lowest total as a valid first preference vote, recalculate, then eliminates lowest of five remaining, etc. Sswonk (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The weakness of STV
As noted above, and before that as well, the clear favourite in terms of total votes is likely to be the first to be eliminated. It is popular with both pro- and anti-status quo, but only as a second or lower preference. This is a weakness of STV that I think none of us anticipated when we were setting this up - that the best "compromise" option would be the biggest loser. But what can you do? Scolaire (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- We could all move D higher in our votes ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 18:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- If people prefer D, they should vote for D. It's that simple. Rank your preferences. It's that simple. If D doesn't end up tops, it's because people prefer other options before it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hey! Don't panic! 41 days to see which way the wind blows. Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Get the user box :-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Cool! I've got it :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- btw; V - the committee have reviewed your case and have decided to accept your (unlikely) tale of being an Irish passport holder. Sarah777 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm off to celebrate as we speak Sarah. Thanks. Valenciano (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking, do we have a help line set up for those editors who are going to feel depressed over the final result? Aftercare can be crucial in these situations. :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm off to celebrate as we speak Sarah. Thanks. Valenciano (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- btw; V - the committee have reviewed your case and have decided to accept your (unlikely) tale of being an Irish passport holder. Sarah777 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Cool! I've got it :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Get the user box :-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hey! Don't panic! 41 days to see which way the wind blows. Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
My little spreadsheet
This is a tally of #1 votes only. Keeping on eye the systematic bias angle: 74 votes so far. There are 33 users whose nationality I cannot identify or they are non-British/Irish.
- British editors (28): voting 12 (not for F) - 16 (for F).
- Irish (the sovereign country) editors (13): voting 9 (not for F) - 4 (for F).
- Unknown/non-British/Irish editors (33): voting 22 (not for F) - 11 (for F)
- As things stand the vote is 31 for F v. 43 not for F.
- Without the British input there would be 46 votes; 15 for F v. 31 not for F.
I'll keep this updated. Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Questionable vote?
Special:Contributions/Kavathes - 7 edits in total prior to today. All made on 1st May, all an addition (in Cyrillic) to user talk pages. Technically, yes, the account was created prior to the deadline of 1st June, but seems to be a WP:SPA. User:Masem, could you rule on this one? (All other votes look legitimate up to that one). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Surely he gets some credit for omitting the British POV solution (currently supported by a massive 4 Free State editors)? Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Masem, can you also do something about the above editor and the constant baiting? I'm well used to Sarah at this stage, but it amounts to voter intimidation. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- As you have already voted how can I "intimidate" you? Of course I realise you'd rather the graphic reality of RoI=British POV could remain concealed. I am providing evidence for those who may be confused by folk (such as your good self) who dismiss my forensic analysis of what is maintaining the status quo. Surely you are not advocating censorship? Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't try putting words in my mouth, either. Your "forensic analysis" is flawed, as pointed out above. Your argument is false - if "RoI=British POV" then someone really needs to inform our Taoiseach, politicians, institutions, media outlets, and those Irish-speaking Brits who seem to have managed to get away with naming the Irish-language WP articles in question as Poblacht na h-Éireann (RoI, for the state) and Éire (for the island), as pointed out here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- And this - accusing me of canvassing (which would see my vote removed and me subject to "# Non-trivial sanctions will be imposed for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry or otherwise manipulating the ballot (or attempting to do so); # Votes by sock puppets or meat puppets (and their masters) or similar will be removed from the balloting area" certainly seems like intimidation to me... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't try putting words in my mouth, either. Your "forensic analysis" is flawed, as pointed out above. Your argument is false - if "RoI=British POV" then someone really needs to inform our Taoiseach, politicians, institutions, media outlets, and those Irish-speaking Brits who seem to have managed to get away with naming the Irish-language WP articles in question as Poblacht na h-Éireann (RoI, for the state) and Éire (for the island), as pointed out here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- As you have already voted how can I "intimidate" you? Of course I realise you'd rather the graphic reality of RoI=British POV could remain concealed. I am providing evidence for those who may be confused by folk (such as your good self) who dismiss my forensic analysis of what is maintaining the status quo. Surely you are not advocating censorship? Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Masem, can you also do something about the above editor and the constant baiting? I'm well used to Sarah at this stage, but it amounts to voter intimidation. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
His edits are in Greek, not Cyrillic, and they are about Macedonia. I see nothing wrong with his choosing to vote here. I suggest it is possible that he saw the announcement of the poll on the Europe project or similar where we did advertise the poll. No reason not to Assume Good Faith here. -- Evertype·✆ 00:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest we advertise this poll on various European projects. Especially to those who don't contribute much to En:Wiki. It might moderate the British POV problem which is starkly illustrated by my spreadsheet. (Sorry Bastun, but of the editors who can be clearly identified as citizens of the "Republic of" Ireland they stand 9 - 4 "not F". No flaws. Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest we stick to the agreed consensus, arrived at after much discussion on the project page. It might also be time to remind you of this. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I advertised this poll on all of the venues that we agreed to advertise it on. (Or at least I tried to.) I do not agree that it should now be extended to still other forums. I was only making the point that this Greek voter's vote does not seem to me to be sock-puppetry. -- Evertype·✆ 08:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- e/c You trot that out every time I question you. Myself, I pay it no heed. Maybe report me? Sarah777 (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Masem agreed that it should be advertised in each EU country project, can't see why this was not done. Does it now make the poll 'null and void'? And please assume good faith to Kavathes. Tfz 04:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- e/c You trot that out every time I question you. Myself, I pay it no heed. Maybe report me? Sarah777 (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussing the merits?
Is there a place to discuss these issues on the merits, rather than strategizing about voting and lots of obnoxious whining about how British people are skewing the vote?
In case anyone is reading this page who hasn't yet voted, or might change their vote, I just thought that I, as an American of Irish Catholic descent, would explain why I think the status quo is the way to go here. It is true, of course, that the state which comprises 26 counties of Ireland is properly named Ireland rather than the Republic of Ireland. There is a significant problem, however, with locating the article at Ireland. "Ireland" is ambiguous, referring both to the island and to the state which occupies most of the island. In cases of ambiguity, our first duty is to determine if there is a primary meaning. If the state is the primary meaning, then it should be at Ireland and the island should be at Ireland (island. It seems clear, though, that the state is not the primary meaning. The island is. Not only do all references to "Ireland" prior to 1937 mean the island; in addition, the island still remains the primary meaning. If the state were the primary meaning, then the sentence "Belfast is not in Ireland," would make sense and not seem absurd. But, in my view at least, such a statement would be ridiculous - Belfast is in Ireland, if not in the Republic of Ireland. This is the same situation we have with China, but I think the case for the state not going at "Ireland" is actually stronger than the case for the article on the modern state not going at China, given the extent to which Taiwan is de facto its own country, and its connection with the mainland has always been somewhat tenuous.
So, now, we've resolved that the article on the state can't go at Ireland. (I'll get to where the island should go later). Where should it go? Well, we should look at WP:D, our guidelines for disambiguation. It provides the following guideline: When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used. Is not Republic of Ireland another term which is equally clear and unambiguous? We should only go to parenthetical disambiguation (i.e., to Ireland (state) or Ireland (republic) in the absence of such a term. But there is such a term - it is Republic of Ireland. It is clear and unambiguous, and in fairly common usage, and means the same thing as Ireland (state). True, it is only the "description" rather than the "official long-form name" of the state, but I don't see how that matters. It seems fairly clear that if the article on the state cannot go to Ireland (and I think it cannot), it should be at Republic of Ireland rather than Ireland (state).
This leaves the question of where the article on the island should go. Here I am less certain. The island is probably in some contexts the primary topic - certainly historically it would be. But probably in other ways it is not. I think it would be fine to turn Ireland into a disambiguation page and move the article on the island to Ireland (island). But Republic of Ireland should stay where it is. Anyway, that's my opinion. john k (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well said, certainly agreee on the ROI bit the fact that the Irish government and parliament often use the term proves the claim made by some here that ROI is a British POV term imposed on Ireland as false. Although i would say i consider the island the primary topic and think it deserves the right to be at Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Belfast is unambiguously in Northern Ireland, as currently recognised by both political entities on the British Isles. It happens to be located on an island which is called Ireland, but geo-politics is more significant than simple geography (which is of secondary importance). Culturally, politicially, internationally (in terms of recognition), nationally the state with its capital located at Dublin has supremacy over the term Ireland unqalified, including in popular (common use) discourse in the English language. People who live there are just Irish, not "Republic of Irish".
There is an Irish Embassy in London, but no Republic of Irish Embassy in London, it tells us;[2]
- "A warm welcome to the Irish website, where you can obtain information about the Irish Embassy in London, other Irish embassies worldwide, Irish visa requirements, visa application forms for Ireland, tourist information, weather, maps of Ireland, public holidays in Ireland, telephone area codes and much more travel information about Ireland can be found here. The Irish Embassy in London is the official representative body of the Irish Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Irish Embassy in London and other Irish consulates in United Kingdom are listed below."
There is also a British Embassy in Ireland, but no British Embassy in the Republic of Ireland, it tells us;[3]
- "Welcome to the website of the British Embassy in Ireland. On our site you will find news about Britain, information about the UK's relations with Ireland, details of the services offered by the British Embassy for Britons in Ireland and services for UK companies seeking opportunities in Ireland and for Irish companies looking to do business with the UK."
- Yorkshirian (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Missing the elephant in the room again....
We've heard all that before from pro-RoI folk (mostly British as we can see); so as you seem to have dumped a re-hash of the "RoI" arguments into this page let me provide a more informed perspective; which is in keeping with WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME - I will ignore your characterisation of my analysis of the systematic British bias, which has my country saddled (on Wiki) with a "description" masquerading as a name.
Ireland is the legal, official and most commonly used name of the sovereign country which has its capital in Dublin. Unarguably it would be the only name allowed for the article about the State per WP:COMMONNAME, were it not for the fact that the geographically entity, the island of Ireland, is also frequently referred to as simply "Ireland". In order to disambiguate the country Ireland from the island of Ireland (of which the sovereign country occupies 83%), Wiki currently employs the name that was the legal British name until the Good Friday Agreement in 1997.
The article was first called "Republic of Ireland" shortly after its creation in 2002 and in the 7 intervening years this name has been continuously contested, mainly by editors who live here, on the grounds that it is not the official name of the state nor is it the common name of the state. "RoI" has led to edit warring not just in the main articles (the island and the sovereign country) but has sparked edit wars throughout Wiki where there is a reference to the country.
The numerous attempts to correct this situation have been repeatedly blocked by a small group of hardliners who reject any compromise. When votes are taken they swing the issue with the help of a preponderance of British editors who either don't fully understand that the "RoI" is politically loaded (or in some cases support it because of that). As there are at least 15 times more British than Irish editors it takes only a few of them to keep the status quo intact - in the face of all Wiki policies and principles, not least WP:NPOV.
In 1948 an Irish law said that "Republic of Ireland" was a description of the state; it was never used as a name. Yet it was only after five years of debate that the pro-RoI lobby on Wiki were finally obliged to accept the fact that "RoI" is not the name of the sovereign country. They then switched tack and defended the legal British name, "RoI", as the "best" dab name available.
In law, in the United Nations, the EU, in common speech, in nearly all international bodies where Ireland is represented the country is known as "Ireland".
So how do we disambiguate the island from the sovereign country?
Certainly not by using a title that only in British law was regarded as a "name" in a manner that clearly implies the description is actually a name. The is what the current article does.
There are various acceptable alternatives that solve the WP:NPOV problem; including calling the primary "Ireland" article the one about the sovereign country. It has been clearly demonstrated that when readers type in simply "Ireland" they are usually looking for the Country, not the island. But in a spirit of compromise those opposing the use of a "description" as the country's name on Wiki have suggested that "Ireland" could become a dab page giving the two main options. This was rejected.
In a further spirit of compromise some those who found "RoI" demeaning to the State suggested names such as Ireland (Republic); Ireland (State); Ireland (the State) etc as disambiguations that would (a) remove the WP:NPOV issue by not adopting a British name (which, btw, Britain no longer uses since 1997) and (b) would make clear in the article title that "RoI" was not the name of the country - rather than propagating a politically biased name that is not longer used in most circumstances. And thus restoring the principles of WP:COMMONNAME.
All attempts at compromise have been rejected. Until we agree on some alternative (of the many suitable options) to the toxic title "Republic of Ireland" this issue will never be laid to rest.
While by no means my favourite solution I recommend you vote for (1) Ireland (State) and continue on down the list omitting only the "Republic of Ireland". THAT is the problem; that is the cause of seven years of war on Wiki. Time to end it.