This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I propose a radical shortening of the history section. We have it across all these 5 places - here, Ireland (state), History of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and History of Northern Ireland. I propose a reasonably long section introductory paragraph summarising Ireland and NI, then another paragraph on early pre-cultural history. Offering all the "Main article:" links of course. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:D i love ireland! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.86.96.10 (
talk) 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest no more that a paragraph on culture/cross-culture (if any at all?). The more we put, the harder it is keeping it small (and under control - as people will naturally add to it if is too tempting to do so). Some of it could go to Ireland (state) - it is in more depth here than there, but there may be a problem with the length of that article. I don't think Ireland (state) has Dance. And to NI too should get stuff back, if it doesn't have most of it already. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) In addition, the links in the music section should be checked. "Dervish" needs to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dervish_(band), not just the word "dervish." -- Mth089 ( talk)
I don't think this article is the place for this - it is intrinsically subjective, and the kind of thing you would naturally expect in the main state article. As a rule of thumb, I feel we should think twice about including forked material that might deter people from following the main links, or make them forget that this isn't the main Ireland state article! (which, in all seriousness, can be easily done at times on Wikipedia). -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A lot of this is covered in the politics section - I suggest deleting it (and maybe moving some of it into 'All-island institutions'. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with a general section that explain cross-cultural things, like sport. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
They should put a section on currency. im canadian and its a big lost of money if im going to move there. a big loss! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.96.10 ( talk) 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This is worthwhile, but perhaps could be shortened a little in places. I favour using "island of Ireland" in this article, and "Ireland" for the state (which we would have to pipe here). -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Energy network looks interesting, but I would delete Cities (it just gives sizes) and have a genreral 'Cities and transports' section (best name?), offering the mainlinks, and making it less forked.-- Matt Lewis ( talk)
It was in the infobox (surely not the right place) - so I move it to the section actually convering the traditional counties, and made a variant for the top corner. This isn't a 'perfect' graphic perhaps, but it can always be improved or changed. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If this section is to be kept in this article, and even if it is to be moved somewhere else, the map used in this section is really of poor quality when one looks at the different ways in which various kinds of routes are shown: the distinction between the colours or shades of colours is not large enough. I know my eyesight requires permanent wearing of glasses, but it isn't that bad that my comment here isn't going to be shared by many other people. The map needs re-drawing with colours that can be more easily discriminated used to represent the different kinds of routes. A perhaps lesser problem is the use of the chevrons: although I guess this represents hills or mountains, it isn't clear that this is the case, and I wonder whether in this kinds of map they are needed at all, since they add a further distraction to the already difficult task of discriminating between the different kinds of rail routes. DDStretch (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
An RfC on the recent multi-page move has been opened at Talk:Ireland#RfC: controversial multi-page move. -- 89.101.221.42 ( talk) 10:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why the "sobriquet" belongs in this article. It's absurd. And please explain why my hatnote was reverted. Thank you. -- Evertype· ✆ 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(De-indent) OK. I tried a few things and failed at them all. As a "stop gap" I tried tinkering with the parameters locally. To at least make the text smaller, etc. As per the Wisconsin example, the text probably shouldn't be bolded - given that bold is reserved for proper/commonnames. But I can't seem to jerryrig it to either make it smaller or un-bolded. As the "stop gap" didn't work, I also had a look (and a play) with the Infobox template, and - long story short - I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the inheritance model it uses to be able to move the "native name" and "sobriquet" texts to a less prominent position. (Like possibly under the image in a "name" section. Not unlike the "demographics" section). I've given up I'm afraid, and would possibly recommend maybe leaving a note on the Infobox talk page requesting the change. Guliolopez ( talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why my hatnote was reverted. "Not to be confused with Ireland (state)" seems very brusque. Thank you. -- Evertype· ✆ 14:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There are no Irish editors editing the Ireland(island) article. There is a Welshman, an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an American. That tells how popular this move is, and not very popular indeed. PurpleA ( talk) 14:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Matt, I have just gone through your editing pattern for last night, and I see you were doing a lot of reverting. Maybe you fell asleep at some stage and dreamed of those "miraculously appearing Irish editors", cause I can only see a few reverts. "Those particular Irish often seem to object the most.", just love your generic views on your next door neighbours. The bottom line is that you can rant and rave, but "those other particular types" cannot; you do get a little carried away at times. Don't forget about all those piping links that you have to change. Now is as good a time as any to get started. BTW, Northern Ireland is Irish, sure it's in Ireland;~) PurpleA ( talk) 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm an Irishman! I am from Northern Ireland, and strongly object to this continual attempt to change all references throughout Wikipedia of 'Republic of Ireland' to say simply 'Ireland'. 'Ireland' is foremost the name of the island in the English language, and will always be, no matter the political situation. I am not from the state occupying the southern part of the island, and detest the implicit PoV that is introduced that either implies 'you can only be Irish if you are from the southern state', or that 'the southern state has a territorial claim to the whole island' (which they supposedly dropped in response to the 1998 Belfast Agreement in a change to the Republic's constitution). Jonto ( talk) 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Everytype says, "What is unnacceptable about that?". Well if you look at various comments made by Matt Lewis after the recent botched move to Ireland/Ireland (state)/Ireland (Island) (you can read this comment for example, but there are others), you will see that he had actually intended by this solution, to keep the vast majority of references to Ireland on wikipedia pointing to the Ireland dab page permanently. This proposal was pushed in the name of following policy, specifically the Disambiguation policy and guidelines. Well, permanent linking to dismabiguation pages is against the Disambiguation policy and guidelines. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one happy (kinda) with the present arrangement? Most of the articles I'm working on or interested in link to Ireland before partition, so a straight link to Ireland (as at present) is grand. And Ireland was around for about 10,000 years before partition. "What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet" Hohenloh + 16:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Evertype asked: "What exactly is unacceptable about that?" First off, if I answer this, I would then like you to tell us what is unacceptable to you about all of the island being at Ireland. Secondly, I am not an edit warrior; I will accept consensus. And even when there was no consensus for moving this page (neither at the taskforce nor here) but the page was moved anyways, I said that I would work with it, so, in that sense, it is not 'unacceptable' to me. As for why I don't want Ireland (island): 1) I don't actually think 'island' is all that good a word for this page. The fact that the emergence of this Ireland (island) suggestion was accompanied by talk from a number of Ireland (island) supporters about 'landmass' and 'lump of rock' and other such dismissive terms about what this page represents says quite a bit. Just this last weekend I was asked by a relative who was watching a golf tournement on TV (the Golf World Cup where players compete as teams for their country) why Ireland was being represented by someone from Northern Ireland (Graeme McDowell). The answer to that question certainly isn't because Ireland is a "lump of rock" nor is it even because NI is part of an island named Ireland. In this specific case, the answer, I believe, is because the Irish golfing association is pre-partition and was never split and is, therefore, tied up in the 'country'ness of this *particular* island. 2) The disambig. page thing scares me. Look at what happened when it was moved there? People trying to remove the map; wanting to remove a link to NI; wanting to skim it down to a bare-bones, strict policy sort of thing. Even today Una Smith, who as far as I know has no POV issue with the Ireland issue itself, is again stating at the Arb request that the map should go. Maybe she is right about policy or maybe she is wrong, but it means the possibility of having to fight these issues. Bringing people directly into content here at least allows a lot of freedom to explain the nature of this particular island and to lay out the state/province/countries(whatever you want to call them) upon it, so people can make the most informed decision about what further info. to seek. 3) I think having Ireland be directly ALL of Ireland is the best way to introduce the concept of Ireland to readers. Why initially send them only to a part of it? Or to a potentially sparse disambig page that won't get at this 'country'ness of the island that I mentioned above? All of Ireland is the superset. It's the place from which you can link to the other Irelands (Republic of and Northern)--going in the other direction isn't going to be as easy (as partly evidenced by your not very successful attempt to have NI hatnoted at the state page) and it won't be as explained. It's a NPOV way to lay out the whole of Ireland and let the reader decide if they want to get 'jurisdictional.' Nuclare ( talk) 01:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Ireland = country, Ireland = island, this isn't rocket science. If two things share the same name then it calls for a disambiguation page as the main article. The Republic of Ireland is not the correct name of the country. The constitution says it, the government says it, my passport says it, my birth cert says it. Is this some type of joke? -- T*85 ( talk) 23:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
"What's "unacceptable" is that neither side is right or wrong". So, in other words, you are not going to answer my question. :-) I agree about right or wrong, but there can be better or worse. More helpful in explaning the *whole* concept of Ireland and less helpful. More inclusive and less inclusive, etc.
"There are essentially two camps, as far as I can see.". No. I disagee. I do not see any 'two' camps to this. 5 or 6 camps, perhaps.
"B. There are those who want Ireland to be the article about the island and nation; these leads to an "overuse" of Republic of Ireland." As I say, I am not in this camp. I would never argue that this article is about the nation or even a country. I also don't know how having Ireland here "leads to overuse of ROI." This article being at Ireland in no way necessitates that the state's article be called ROI. I support the state article being changed to Ireland (state), in that respect you and I are perfectly equal. Texually there is going to be a demand for ROI usage regardless of what the state's page is called. It's a question of defining overuse. Your definition would appear to be any use that isn't 'sparingly.'
"Regarding the map, I don't think there should be a map on the disambiguation page whether the title of that page is Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation)" I do. Sorry. Why don't you?
"It would make a lot of people happy. But I believe it would make a lot of people (for instance many in Northern Ireland) very unhappy." So, is the equivalent the same for you? If the ROI title issue didn't exist, does having all of the island at Ireland make you very unhappy? Nuclare ( talk) 01:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
A compromise proposal on the Ireland naming dispute is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin ( talk) 10:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Since this article is protected, I'll mention it here. In second paragraph of the summary section, it contains, "4,239,848 million." I suggest that the word million be removed, or at least change the number to 4.24. IF this has already been discussed, then pardon me. :-)
Ulipop ( talk) 20:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made the "Science" section a subsection of "Culture", but that change was reverted.
OMG, is still there somebody who believes not only that humanities and sciences had better be insulated from each other, but also that the term culture can only apply to the former, after C. P. Snow pointed out how silly that view is? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Right so the revert I did to a change was reverted itself so I am here discussing the merits of the edit. I understand there are huge discussions going on about this but what I am proposing is two small changes.
1. The infobox currently after an edit last week says:
I propose that it just says Ireland as this current way of phrasing suggests that Republic of Ireland is the name of the country. As its under the countries heading there is no ambiguity and as an encyclopedia should really say the correct name, otherwise it misleads people into believing wrong information. This has no implications of the main body of the text as obviously in an article like this you need to differenciate.
2. The other issue where I think the page is bad in that its misleads people is the political geography section where it says:
That again is very misleading as this section is there to explicitly explain to the reader the nature and name of the political entities on the island. 'Sometimes called Ireland' is pure pov. I propose something a bit more based in fact and that it says instead:
Again as the nature of the subsection is there to identify the political situation to the user I don't think its in anyway confusing saying there's a country called Ireland on the island that occupies 5/6 of it and its described as x etc. On the other hand I think that the current wording would suggest to a reader that Republic of Ireland is the name of the political entity which its not and we don't want readers to be misinformed after reading a Wikipedia article. Do people agree with the proposal to make these two small changes? Rownon ( talk) 20:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I wrote the historical paragraphs for the lead to reflect the article content - additionally it covers other aspects such as political make-up and ethnicity that are contained in the article. Aspects of culture and sport should also be reflected in the lead and perhaps some historical parts trimmed down — I found it difficult as the history has many twists and turns. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 08:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom has issued a final decision ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Final decision) with four remedies. Per Remedy #1, may I suggest a poll on the following: which of these options should occupy this page? -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Island
State
Disambiguation
Combined article
Undecided
Polls are evil
OBJECT to premature poll
I propose no solution, nor any action whatsoever, other than information gathering. The content of the page named Ireland seems to be at the heart of the dispute, so for the moment let's just see where people stand on this question. Please? Then we can consider how to proceed. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
What are we polling here? Whether the page called "Ireland" should refer to 1, 2 or 3 above? Sarah777 ( talk) 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
As I read it, the arbcom ruling was not that we should agree the name changes, but that we should agree the mechanisms for agreeing change and developing consensus.
The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view (my bold) on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used.
We should not be voting on changes until we agree the mechanisms. Fmph ( talk) 21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely - the vote is premature. We are meant (and have little time to do it) to agree a mechanism to decide the names. A poll such as that above is one possible mechanism, can we please can this now and start an open discussion on what are the issues, and how do we think they can be resolved without anyone starting to take positions around proposals. We have been there too many times in the past. Also this page should have been notified to those parties to the AI notification and on that ruling. -- Snowded TALK 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
A straw man for process:
-- Snowded TALK 22:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
⬅ Apologies for the poor link and thanks to Jza for the correction. Some points:
-- Snowded TALK 07:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible that we can vote for two different solutions? My choice is to have Ireland as the country, but having Ireland as a disambiguation page is also acceptable. Can I just label one my first choice and the other my second choice, this might help bring about a compromise if we were able to do this. -- T*85 ( talk) 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion for developing an agreed process to define/measure consensus for Ireland-related page moves.
Would that work? Fmph ( talk) 14:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Polling is not a substitute for discussion and our policy of Verifiability can not be ignored as part of any compromise. ROI is not a valid term to use for the name of the state. The name of the state is Ireland. Nothing at all has yet been presented to suggest otherwise. What I suggest is that the ROI article be about the descriptive term of the state, its history, use and abuse. This article could form the basis for the article, which would be both informative and place the term in context. The Ireland article should simply be the same as all the other country Articles. -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is my proposal for the process/framework as called for in Remedy 1, which must be agreed on within 14 days from 4 January 2009, otherwise Remedy 2 will be enacted:
Obviously, this proposal attempts to foster a productive yet focussed discussion, with a defined end point and end product, but as a trade off, certain divisive types of polling is banned. If people don't like that, and want to oppose this framework because they see a binding straw poll on the horizon as the likely conclusion of Remedy 2, simply consider the fact that judging by most previous polls, there is a very real possibility that that will end up with a 49:51 decisions being enforced for an arbitrary length of time, with nothing to fend any future questioning of the situation other than OMFG 51% of people supported the idea of doing it this way so shut up!!!!11. I certainly won't be volunteering that explanation to any and all newcomers on the talk pages, because its crap. I would rather point them to a rational and well considered summary resulting from a controlled discussion which was encouraged and supported by the highest venue of dispute resolution, which is hopefuly what will be produced by the consensus judges at the end of this special Rfc.
MickMacNee ( talk) 04:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy with Mick's proposal. In particular, I think the escape clause is an important addition; too often "no consensus" is erroneously taken as "consensus for the status quo", and I don't think we can let that happen here. waggers ( talk) 08:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom asked us to spend the time specifying the process which, if followed or implemented, would allow a solution to the problem which sparked off the request to it in the first place. So far, rather than concentrating on developing and specifying a process, most of the debate (but not all of it) has either discussed the issues again, or attempted to actually arrive at a solution. I want to address the request made by ArbComm directly. My solution is to use standard techniques in practical Problem solving, such as can be seen in George Polya's book How to Solve It, and Douglas Walton's book "Practical Reasoning", and it makes use of "divide and rule" techniques (though the wikiedpia section on that in "problem solving" is too much directed at one field) as well as "means-end" techniques.
(I think this technique can be fitted in with MickMacNee's suggestions as well, and I think he has given a slightly different kind of framework within which this can be fitted. I developed this separately and only now have seen that he was working on something himself.)
It seems a lot of work, but much of it has been done, but in an uncoordinated way so far. We just need to try to implement it as objectively as possible so that the means of arriving at the decision are as open to complete public scrutiny as possible.
The above technique has been used implicitly in many different areas of application, some of which may seem quite similar to the particular issues here, and some not so obviously similar: I have experience of guiding researchers within the fields of psychology and psychiatry using a very similar process, and it helped considerably in clarifying the issues and helping the participants reach an agreed-upon solution to problems that otherwise would be seen to be very difficult. It may have problems itself, but I would argue that it has advantages over what has gone before in this particular issue here on wikipedia, and it does directly address the issues Arbcom asked us to consider. I think the process I have outlined might be usefully combined with MickMacNee's useful alternative suggestion of a process. DDStretch (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
My take on how this proposal fits with mine: Steps 1,2,3 are analagous to drawing up the statement page. Steps 4 will take too long to agree between the community on a neutral presentation, so I would not have it as part of the statement page discussion, but leave it to the RFC discussion phase. Steps 5 to 8, if not done as individual evidence submission to be presented alongside the statement page, will be done in the Rfc discussion phase. This is the point at which subjective claims such as required by step 5 should be put out there for examination. Steps 8 to 10 I would just simplify and, and implement as the consensus judges model of reviewing the Rfc discussion. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent framework DD and Mike. I notice that below, there are sections that are starting to solve the problem within the framework above. Perhaps it would be better to *not* start the problem-solving process until the framework is agreed. If I understand the Arbcom ruling right, they've asked for us to agree the process (framework) - getting that agreed now would also avoid a future argument where someone points out that the framework was never agreed!. -- HighKing ( talk) 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Just dropping by to see if I can be helpful. A quick observation: there seem to be three related activities going on in response to the Arbcom ruling.
If (3) is successful then (1) and (2) are redundant. I don't know much about the detail and history, but I'm happy to support it. If this does carry, then it potentially saves a lot of work.
If (3) is unsuccessful then (1) sounds like a good idea to me. I am not familiar with some of the technical terms used by DDStretch but they can presumably be explained en route. There seems to be a lot of common ground between MickMacNee and DDStretch - it might be helpful if they could put their heads together and (for the avoidance of doubt) come up with an amended proposal they can jointly propose. My only comment is that Step 9 of the second proposal may need a little thought. It would be dispiriting to go through a lot of work and then discover that it just resulted in the same old opinion poll deadlock. I note there is no opposition to the general idea, but also that there is very little support at present. Perhaps this will be forthcoming if it becomes clear that (3) isn't working/answering the question etc..
It is also possible that (3) will be unsuccessful and that (1) will not be deemed to have gathered sufficient support by the deadline either. In which case, HighKing's comments above notwithstanding, it may be useful to at least do some more work on Option 1, which would at least be useful to someone coming in without the history. It seems to me to be incomplete and I might try to add something useful, whilst wishing (3) all the best. Ben Mac Dui 15:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
As regards combining MickMacNee's process with mine, I think we should definitely take the best of each and put them together if we are able. I don't actually think it would take too much effort to do that. DDStretch (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Here the dispute concerns which must come first: decide the best page name of the article now at Republic of Ireland, or decide the best content of the page name Ireland.
That is why I think the core issue is the content of the page named Ireland. -- Una Smith ( talk) 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think a difficulty with the above is that it assumes a certain amount of knowledge of both "Ireland" and the history of the Wikipedia pages concerned. Its focus is also on a single main issue and does not cover the related ones. How about this?
The present difficulties arise from two main problems:
Specifically, this creates the following challenges:
To be followed by - brief summary of the nature of polarised views on the above. Ben Mac Dui 20:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's just continue a little, just to show people how my scheme would operate. Remember that this is just my ideas at the moment (and anyone else who edits it), and that if we were doing this seriously, it may contain more information and more references to who proposed what, etc. DDStretch (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Problem | Possible Proposed Solutions |
---|---|
The content of the page called Ireland | Page contains "The island of Ireland" |
Page contains "The state of Ireland" | |
Page contains a simple (short) disambiguation page for Ireland | |
Page contains content that combines both state and island information for Ireland in summary style, while having more detailed child articles for: 1. whole Island topics, 2. the Sovereign State of Ireland, and 3. Northern Ireland. (the "MickMacNee solution") | |
Page is a redirection to the page containing "The state of Ireland" (such as Republic of Ireland as it is at this point) | |
Page is a redirection to the page containing "The island of Ireland" | |
The content of the page called Republic of Ireland | Page contains "The state of Ireland" |
Page contains a redirection to the page which contains "The state of Ireland" | |
Page contains information about the descriptive term "Republic of Ireland" with suitable hatnotes | |
Page contains no content (i.e., it is deleted) |
The above is extremely useful, but it needs to come with a second table, congruent with the above, that lists the options proposed for the different page names (state/island/dab/redirect etc.). Not hard to do, but I imagine there is something that could be borrowed from the archives somewhere. Ben Mac Dui 20:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Problem 1 | Possible Proposed solution |
---|---|
The content of the page called Ireland | (A) Page contains "The island of Ireland" |
(B) Page contains "The state of Ireland" | |
(C) Page contains a simple (short) disambiguation page for Ireland | |
(D) Page contains content that combines both state and island information for Ireland in summary style, while having more detailed child articles (the "MickMacNee solution") |
Problem 2.1 | Possible Proposed solution |
---|---|
The page that contains "The state of Ireland" (void on the adoption of problem 1 B) |
On the adoption of 1A, C or D: Ireland (state) contains "The state of Ireland" |
On the adoption of 1A, C or D: Ireland (country) contains "The state of Ireland" | |
On the adoption of 1A, C or D: Republic of Ireland contains "The state of Ireland" | |
On the adoption of 1A, C or D: Your favoured variation here contains "The state of Ireland" |
Problem 2.2 | Possible Proposed solution |
---|---|
The page that contains "The island of Ireland" (void on the adoption of problem 1 A) |
On the adoption of 1B, C or D: Ireland (country) contains "The island of Ireland" |
On the adoption of 1B, C or D: Ireland (island) contains "The island of Ireland" | |
On the adoption of 1B, C or D: Your favoured variation here contains "The island of Ireland" |
I believe this addresses the two most contentious related problems — namely (1) what content is at Ireland, and (2.1) what should the article on the state be called — in a logical and sequential way. As you can see Problem 2.1 could be completely avoided should problem 1 be resolved with agreement on option B. In that instance, we instead should concern ourselves with Problem 2.2. (To be honest, this probably isn't seriously contentious but I think we should include it anyway). Of course, the opposite is true also — that Problem 2.2 could be avoided given the agreement on Problem 1 A. On the instance that problem 1 C or D is agreed on, both Problem 2s would be required.
This doesn't address all the issues. For example, it ignores the question of how we should refer to the state/island inline. However, because piping can be utilized if needed, that really is an completely different discussion. I think we should decouple the two, since this is complicated enough as it is. It also doesn't resolve what would be found at Republic of Ireland if it did not contain the state of Ireland. Again, I that can be debated independent of this (though I think Domer's suggestion of a short article about the name itself is a good one).
The nice thing with this structure is that it could be used as a tool to reach agreement by a number of different mechanisms. I still favor a ranked poll of individual preferences for each of the problems. The two extremes would cancel each other out, and we would find some middle ground. I believe that would resolve it by enforcing compromise in a manner acceptable to most people, if only begrudgingly. It would also leave the least amount of blood on the floor. However, if we are going to thrash this out by discussion alone, then it can be used as a starting point for that too. Rockpocke t 02:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposal | Ireland | ROI | Ireland (state) | Ireland (island) | Ireland (dab) | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | island | state | blank | blank | dab | Current situation |
2 | state | 3 options | blank | island | dab | |
3 | dab | 3 options | state | island | blank | |
4 | summary style | 3 options | state | island | dab | |
5 | redirect - state | 3 options | state | island | dab | |
6 | redirect - island | 3 options | state | island | dab |
Notes:
Haven't we almost reached a consensus on this here? Mooretwin ( talk) 22:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you agree to support, even if it is not your first preference', this compromise?
Do you agree to support, even if it is not your first preference', this compromise?
It is also what Britannica and Encarta use. Even on Britannica they have a footnote on the name that states; "As provided by the constitution; the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act provides precedent for this longer formulation of the official name but, per official sources, “has not changed the usage Ireland as the name of the state in the English language." On Encarta they use Ireland & Ireland (island).-- 24.60.152.80 ( talk) 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"people should be asked to vote for the option they STRONGLY oppose, then eliminate the two clear problems. Otherwise this process is just going to go on and on for ever" I agree -- T*85 ( talk) 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The proposal that achieved unprecedented consensus was:
Mooretwin ( talk) 21:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I opposed this before but I could support it now. Could we change it from Ireland (state) to Ireland (country)? In a number of countries like America, Australia, Germany, etc.... state has another meaning. It is also the format that is used for the country of Georgia. I personally have the Americanized version of state in my head even though I lived in Ireland, so I think country is a more universally clear description. Secondly, I have noticed that articles like British-Irish relations or Indo-Irish relations, that the info boxes look stupid when only two countries can have foreign relations and the Irish flag is above. I would hope that if this solution was enacted that people don't get too carried away with unnecessary things like this. My other concern was how are you going to go about enacting this solution if it is decided, what happens if another argument begins when the article on the island starts to get edited-- T*85 ( talk) 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Country does not imply that it covers the whole island ( Borneo, Hispaniola), it simply has the same meaning as a "state" but state has alternative meanings based on where you live, whereas country does not. -- T*85 ( talk) 16:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is this "proposal" being discussed? Regardless of anon IP 89.x.x.x's PoV, Arbcom have explicitly stated we're to come up with a mechanism for discussion and agreement, on a WP project page, not just another debate about what the name of one of the effected articles should be. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 10:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The process is the task force, and the task force has come up with a compromise proposal. Mooretwin ( talk) 19:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
O rly?
This all seems very handy - and very much not in either the spirit or letter of what Arbcom actually said or further clarified. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Batsun on this. All I see are lots of editors trying to get a proposal in order to achieve a result regarding the names. That's very different that agreeing on the process .. i.e. as per the proposal up above. We should stop at deciding the steps, not start work on individual steps. If we can agree that the process can achieve a result, then we can start work on the steps within the process. This really isn't that complicated folks ... makes me wonder why we're making it more difficult that it should be. -- HighKing ( talk) 00:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I was involved in many of the previous discussions of this issue, and have been on a prolonged wikibreak for over 6 months, but saw this discussion underway and thought I'd offer a comment.
First, it's great that arbcom's ruling looks likely to bring some sort of resolution to this long-running dispute. I have grave doubts about whether any solution will achieve the sort of stability that comes from consensus, because so many people are so entrenched that any result is likely to leave a significant number of people very dissatisfied. Nonetheless, even a temporary peace is worth having, even if we end up with all the articles renamed to a random set of hieroglyphics. {insert weary sigh/evil grin/indication of boredom/whatever}
Secondly, it seems to me that this will probably end up being resolved by following arbcom's remedy two (three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure), because the issues are too fraught for the participants to agree on a mechanism.
Thirdly, it seems to me that one of crucial decisions to made in reaching an outcome is to decide exactly what question is to be settled. That's a tougher one than it may sound, and tougher than looking at the options may suggest. It seems to me that there are two radically different ways of approaching the issue:
a) What is the most appropriate English-language name, given existing Wikipedia naming conventions, for an article on the 26-county state called "Ireland" in the English language, which has a legal description (not a name) of "The Republic of Ireland"?
b) Given that the term "Ireland" has three major uses (the island, the various all-island states and jurisdictions which have existed, and the 86-year-old modern 26-county state), which if any should predominate?
To a large extent, the outcome of any decision depends on which question is given priority. That choice has bedevilled discussions so far, because those most concerned with the first question (naming the modern state) get pointed in one direction, while those most concerned with the second question (primary use of the term "Ireland") get pointed in very different directions.
It seems to me that this difference of approach underlies much of the divisiveness of the discussions so far. There have, perhaps, been some editors who have structured their arguments to suit their political agendas; but I think if we are ever going to reach a stable consensus on this issue it's essential to also acknowledge that thoroughly well-informed editors acting in complete good-faith with full understanding of all wikipedia policies can legitimately end up with different answers depending on which question they feel is more important. It has saddened me to see that even at this late stage, some editors appear to be still focusing on only one of the two questions, whereas a stable consensus can only come from addressing both.
I don't have any brilliant idea of how to address those two questions, but I suggest that one approach could be to start by addressing both of the questions separately, and then take an explicit third step of trying to reconcile any conflict between the outcome of the first two.
I don't feel at all inclined to get involved in another prolonged battle over the naming decision, and this may be my last contribution on the subject. So I'll take this opportunity to suggest while there is ready acknowledgement that someone with strong views on either side the unionist/nationalist divide in Ireland may see this issue through that lens, there is also a historiographical perspective. The modern European idea of the nation-state, which came to prominence in the 19th-century, has tended to assume that a state involves a congruence of geography, culture, governance and ethnicity, but that nationalist construction is not universally accepted and is in many ways a creature of the modern era. So one of the questions underlying this decision is to what extent contemporary political norms should predominate? How much weight do we give to existence of a modern nation state against earlier concepts of Ireland? And is there any way of making that choice without taking a POV about nationalism?
Sorry if I have appeared to complicate things further, but I don't think this decision will be simple. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Re the question of what process to use to decide between whatever choices we end up with, it seems to me there are two likely approaches:
Which do people here prefer? Pardon me, but it seems a survey on this point might be helpful. -- Una Smith ( talk) 01:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ascertain what subject readers are looking for when "Ireland" is typed into the search box. Whether it be the island or the state, then Wikipedia should go with that. This too follows Wikipedian policy as encouraged, and seems the more logical approach. Then the other main use would get the brackets for disambiguation purposes for state, or island. PurpleA ( talk) 03:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've drafted something in my user space which some people might feel is a help. Comments there please. Its a bit busy here. Fmph ( talk) 08:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The case was closed on 2009-01-04. Attempts to achieve consensus regarding Remedy 1 began shortly thereafter. It is now 2009-01-18, and no consensus has been achieved. Will the ArbCom now proceed with Remedy 2, please? -- Evertype· ✆ 10:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom is discussing this issue and will communicate to you the outcome of the discussions very soon. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, everyone! Let's go to the Collaboration Project! I think we can decide this question without prejudice by majority rule. (I contacted the only editor who opposed #3, but they has not been around for a reply.) I will post any further messages regarding this question in that project. — Sebastian 20:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The admin assistance has started. So far we have two commitments: User:SebastianHelm and User:Edokter. We'll keep looking for a third helper. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I propose a radical shortening of the history section. We have it across all these 5 places - here, Ireland (state), History of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and History of Northern Ireland. I propose a reasonably long section introductory paragraph summarising Ireland and NI, then another paragraph on early pre-cultural history. Offering all the "Main article:" links of course. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:D i love ireland! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
216.86.96.10 (
talk) 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest no more that a paragraph on culture/cross-culture (if any at all?). The more we put, the harder it is keeping it small (and under control - as people will naturally add to it if is too tempting to do so). Some of it could go to Ireland (state) - it is in more depth here than there, but there may be a problem with the length of that article. I don't think Ireland (state) has Dance. And to NI too should get stuff back, if it doesn't have most of it already. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) In addition, the links in the music section should be checked. "Dervish" needs to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dervish_(band), not just the word "dervish." -- Mth089 ( talk)
I don't think this article is the place for this - it is intrinsically subjective, and the kind of thing you would naturally expect in the main state article. As a rule of thumb, I feel we should think twice about including forked material that might deter people from following the main links, or make them forget that this isn't the main Ireland state article! (which, in all seriousness, can be easily done at times on Wikipedia). -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A lot of this is covered in the politics section - I suggest deleting it (and maybe moving some of it into 'All-island institutions'. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with a general section that explain cross-cultural things, like sport. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
They should put a section on currency. im canadian and its a big lost of money if im going to move there. a big loss! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.86.96.10 ( talk) 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This is worthwhile, but perhaps could be shortened a little in places. I favour using "island of Ireland" in this article, and "Ireland" for the state (which we would have to pipe here). -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Energy network looks interesting, but I would delete Cities (it just gives sizes) and have a genreral 'Cities and transports' section (best name?), offering the mainlinks, and making it less forked.-- Matt Lewis ( talk)
It was in the infobox (surely not the right place) - so I move it to the section actually convering the traditional counties, and made a variant for the top corner. This isn't a 'perfect' graphic perhaps, but it can always be improved or changed. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If this section is to be kept in this article, and even if it is to be moved somewhere else, the map used in this section is really of poor quality when one looks at the different ways in which various kinds of routes are shown: the distinction between the colours or shades of colours is not large enough. I know my eyesight requires permanent wearing of glasses, but it isn't that bad that my comment here isn't going to be shared by many other people. The map needs re-drawing with colours that can be more easily discriminated used to represent the different kinds of routes. A perhaps lesser problem is the use of the chevrons: although I guess this represents hills or mountains, it isn't clear that this is the case, and I wonder whether in this kinds of map they are needed at all, since they add a further distraction to the already difficult task of discriminating between the different kinds of rail routes. DDStretch (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
An RfC on the recent multi-page move has been opened at Talk:Ireland#RfC: controversial multi-page move. -- 89.101.221.42 ( talk) 10:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why the "sobriquet" belongs in this article. It's absurd. And please explain why my hatnote was reverted. Thank you. -- Evertype· ✆ 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(De-indent) OK. I tried a few things and failed at them all. As a "stop gap" I tried tinkering with the parameters locally. To at least make the text smaller, etc. As per the Wisconsin example, the text probably shouldn't be bolded - given that bold is reserved for proper/commonnames. But I can't seem to jerryrig it to either make it smaller or un-bolded. As the "stop gap" didn't work, I also had a look (and a play) with the Infobox template, and - long story short - I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the inheritance model it uses to be able to move the "native name" and "sobriquet" texts to a less prominent position. (Like possibly under the image in a "name" section. Not unlike the "demographics" section). I've given up I'm afraid, and would possibly recommend maybe leaving a note on the Infobox talk page requesting the change. Guliolopez ( talk) 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why my hatnote was reverted. "Not to be confused with Ireland (state)" seems very brusque. Thank you. -- Evertype· ✆ 14:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There are no Irish editors editing the Ireland(island) article. There is a Welshman, an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an American. That tells how popular this move is, and not very popular indeed. PurpleA ( talk) 14:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Matt, I have just gone through your editing pattern for last night, and I see you were doing a lot of reverting. Maybe you fell asleep at some stage and dreamed of those "miraculously appearing Irish editors", cause I can only see a few reverts. "Those particular Irish often seem to object the most.", just love your generic views on your next door neighbours. The bottom line is that you can rant and rave, but "those other particular types" cannot; you do get a little carried away at times. Don't forget about all those piping links that you have to change. Now is as good a time as any to get started. BTW, Northern Ireland is Irish, sure it's in Ireland;~) PurpleA ( talk) 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm an Irishman! I am from Northern Ireland, and strongly object to this continual attempt to change all references throughout Wikipedia of 'Republic of Ireland' to say simply 'Ireland'. 'Ireland' is foremost the name of the island in the English language, and will always be, no matter the political situation. I am not from the state occupying the southern part of the island, and detest the implicit PoV that is introduced that either implies 'you can only be Irish if you are from the southern state', or that 'the southern state has a territorial claim to the whole island' (which they supposedly dropped in response to the 1998 Belfast Agreement in a change to the Republic's constitution). Jonto ( talk) 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Everytype says, "What is unnacceptable about that?". Well if you look at various comments made by Matt Lewis after the recent botched move to Ireland/Ireland (state)/Ireland (Island) (you can read this comment for example, but there are others), you will see that he had actually intended by this solution, to keep the vast majority of references to Ireland on wikipedia pointing to the Ireland dab page permanently. This proposal was pushed in the name of following policy, specifically the Disambiguation policy and guidelines. Well, permanent linking to dismabiguation pages is against the Disambiguation policy and guidelines. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one happy (kinda) with the present arrangement? Most of the articles I'm working on or interested in link to Ireland before partition, so a straight link to Ireland (as at present) is grand. And Ireland was around for about 10,000 years before partition. "What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet" Hohenloh + 16:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Evertype asked: "What exactly is unacceptable about that?" First off, if I answer this, I would then like you to tell us what is unacceptable to you about all of the island being at Ireland. Secondly, I am not an edit warrior; I will accept consensus. And even when there was no consensus for moving this page (neither at the taskforce nor here) but the page was moved anyways, I said that I would work with it, so, in that sense, it is not 'unacceptable' to me. As for why I don't want Ireland (island): 1) I don't actually think 'island' is all that good a word for this page. The fact that the emergence of this Ireland (island) suggestion was accompanied by talk from a number of Ireland (island) supporters about 'landmass' and 'lump of rock' and other such dismissive terms about what this page represents says quite a bit. Just this last weekend I was asked by a relative who was watching a golf tournement on TV (the Golf World Cup where players compete as teams for their country) why Ireland was being represented by someone from Northern Ireland (Graeme McDowell). The answer to that question certainly isn't because Ireland is a "lump of rock" nor is it even because NI is part of an island named Ireland. In this specific case, the answer, I believe, is because the Irish golfing association is pre-partition and was never split and is, therefore, tied up in the 'country'ness of this *particular* island. 2) The disambig. page thing scares me. Look at what happened when it was moved there? People trying to remove the map; wanting to remove a link to NI; wanting to skim it down to a bare-bones, strict policy sort of thing. Even today Una Smith, who as far as I know has no POV issue with the Ireland issue itself, is again stating at the Arb request that the map should go. Maybe she is right about policy or maybe she is wrong, but it means the possibility of having to fight these issues. Bringing people directly into content here at least allows a lot of freedom to explain the nature of this particular island and to lay out the state/province/countries(whatever you want to call them) upon it, so people can make the most informed decision about what further info. to seek. 3) I think having Ireland be directly ALL of Ireland is the best way to introduce the concept of Ireland to readers. Why initially send them only to a part of it? Or to a potentially sparse disambig page that won't get at this 'country'ness of the island that I mentioned above? All of Ireland is the superset. It's the place from which you can link to the other Irelands (Republic of and Northern)--going in the other direction isn't going to be as easy (as partly evidenced by your not very successful attempt to have NI hatnoted at the state page) and it won't be as explained. It's a NPOV way to lay out the whole of Ireland and let the reader decide if they want to get 'jurisdictional.' Nuclare ( talk) 01:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Ireland = country, Ireland = island, this isn't rocket science. If two things share the same name then it calls for a disambiguation page as the main article. The Republic of Ireland is not the correct name of the country. The constitution says it, the government says it, my passport says it, my birth cert says it. Is this some type of joke? -- T*85 ( talk) 23:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
"What's "unacceptable" is that neither side is right or wrong". So, in other words, you are not going to answer my question. :-) I agree about right or wrong, but there can be better or worse. More helpful in explaning the *whole* concept of Ireland and less helpful. More inclusive and less inclusive, etc.
"There are essentially two camps, as far as I can see.". No. I disagee. I do not see any 'two' camps to this. 5 or 6 camps, perhaps.
"B. There are those who want Ireland to be the article about the island and nation; these leads to an "overuse" of Republic of Ireland." As I say, I am not in this camp. I would never argue that this article is about the nation or even a country. I also don't know how having Ireland here "leads to overuse of ROI." This article being at Ireland in no way necessitates that the state's article be called ROI. I support the state article being changed to Ireland (state), in that respect you and I are perfectly equal. Texually there is going to be a demand for ROI usage regardless of what the state's page is called. It's a question of defining overuse. Your definition would appear to be any use that isn't 'sparingly.'
"Regarding the map, I don't think there should be a map on the disambiguation page whether the title of that page is Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation)" I do. Sorry. Why don't you?
"It would make a lot of people happy. But I believe it would make a lot of people (for instance many in Northern Ireland) very unhappy." So, is the equivalent the same for you? If the ROI title issue didn't exist, does having all of the island at Ireland make you very unhappy? Nuclare ( talk) 01:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
A compromise proposal on the Ireland naming dispute is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin ( talk) 10:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Since this article is protected, I'll mention it here. In second paragraph of the summary section, it contains, "4,239,848 million." I suggest that the word million be removed, or at least change the number to 4.24. IF this has already been discussed, then pardon me. :-)
Ulipop ( talk) 20:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made the "Science" section a subsection of "Culture", but that change was reverted.
OMG, is still there somebody who believes not only that humanities and sciences had better be insulated from each other, but also that the term culture can only apply to the former, after C. P. Snow pointed out how silly that view is? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Right so the revert I did to a change was reverted itself so I am here discussing the merits of the edit. I understand there are huge discussions going on about this but what I am proposing is two small changes.
1. The infobox currently after an edit last week says:
I propose that it just says Ireland as this current way of phrasing suggests that Republic of Ireland is the name of the country. As its under the countries heading there is no ambiguity and as an encyclopedia should really say the correct name, otherwise it misleads people into believing wrong information. This has no implications of the main body of the text as obviously in an article like this you need to differenciate.
2. The other issue where I think the page is bad in that its misleads people is the political geography section where it says:
That again is very misleading as this section is there to explicitly explain to the reader the nature and name of the political entities on the island. 'Sometimes called Ireland' is pure pov. I propose something a bit more based in fact and that it says instead:
Again as the nature of the subsection is there to identify the political situation to the user I don't think its in anyway confusing saying there's a country called Ireland on the island that occupies 5/6 of it and its described as x etc. On the other hand I think that the current wording would suggest to a reader that Republic of Ireland is the name of the political entity which its not and we don't want readers to be misinformed after reading a Wikipedia article. Do people agree with the proposal to make these two small changes? Rownon ( talk) 20:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I wrote the historical paragraphs for the lead to reflect the article content - additionally it covers other aspects such as political make-up and ethnicity that are contained in the article. Aspects of culture and sport should also be reflected in the lead and perhaps some historical parts trimmed down — I found it difficult as the history has many twists and turns. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 08:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom has issued a final decision ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Final decision) with four remedies. Per Remedy #1, may I suggest a poll on the following: which of these options should occupy this page? -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Island
State
Disambiguation
Combined article
Undecided
Polls are evil
OBJECT to premature poll
I propose no solution, nor any action whatsoever, other than information gathering. The content of the page named Ireland seems to be at the heart of the dispute, so for the moment let's just see where people stand on this question. Please? Then we can consider how to proceed. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
What are we polling here? Whether the page called "Ireland" should refer to 1, 2 or 3 above? Sarah777 ( talk) 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
As I read it, the arbcom ruling was not that we should agree the name changes, but that we should agree the mechanisms for agreeing change and developing consensus.
The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view (my bold) on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used.
We should not be voting on changes until we agree the mechanisms. Fmph ( talk) 21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely - the vote is premature. We are meant (and have little time to do it) to agree a mechanism to decide the names. A poll such as that above is one possible mechanism, can we please can this now and start an open discussion on what are the issues, and how do we think they can be resolved without anyone starting to take positions around proposals. We have been there too many times in the past. Also this page should have been notified to those parties to the AI notification and on that ruling. -- Snowded TALK 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
A straw man for process:
-- Snowded TALK 22:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
⬅ Apologies for the poor link and thanks to Jza for the correction. Some points:
-- Snowded TALK 07:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible that we can vote for two different solutions? My choice is to have Ireland as the country, but having Ireland as a disambiguation page is also acceptable. Can I just label one my first choice and the other my second choice, this might help bring about a compromise if we were able to do this. -- T*85 ( talk) 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion for developing an agreed process to define/measure consensus for Ireland-related page moves.
Would that work? Fmph ( talk) 14:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Polling is not a substitute for discussion and our policy of Verifiability can not be ignored as part of any compromise. ROI is not a valid term to use for the name of the state. The name of the state is Ireland. Nothing at all has yet been presented to suggest otherwise. What I suggest is that the ROI article be about the descriptive term of the state, its history, use and abuse. This article could form the basis for the article, which would be both informative and place the term in context. The Ireland article should simply be the same as all the other country Articles. -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Here is my proposal for the process/framework as called for in Remedy 1, which must be agreed on within 14 days from 4 January 2009, otherwise Remedy 2 will be enacted:
Obviously, this proposal attempts to foster a productive yet focussed discussion, with a defined end point and end product, but as a trade off, certain divisive types of polling is banned. If people don't like that, and want to oppose this framework because they see a binding straw poll on the horizon as the likely conclusion of Remedy 2, simply consider the fact that judging by most previous polls, there is a very real possibility that that will end up with a 49:51 decisions being enforced for an arbitrary length of time, with nothing to fend any future questioning of the situation other than OMFG 51% of people supported the idea of doing it this way so shut up!!!!11. I certainly won't be volunteering that explanation to any and all newcomers on the talk pages, because its crap. I would rather point them to a rational and well considered summary resulting from a controlled discussion which was encouraged and supported by the highest venue of dispute resolution, which is hopefuly what will be produced by the consensus judges at the end of this special Rfc.
MickMacNee ( talk) 04:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy with Mick's proposal. In particular, I think the escape clause is an important addition; too often "no consensus" is erroneously taken as "consensus for the status quo", and I don't think we can let that happen here. waggers ( talk) 08:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom asked us to spend the time specifying the process which, if followed or implemented, would allow a solution to the problem which sparked off the request to it in the first place. So far, rather than concentrating on developing and specifying a process, most of the debate (but not all of it) has either discussed the issues again, or attempted to actually arrive at a solution. I want to address the request made by ArbComm directly. My solution is to use standard techniques in practical Problem solving, such as can be seen in George Polya's book How to Solve It, and Douglas Walton's book "Practical Reasoning", and it makes use of "divide and rule" techniques (though the wikiedpia section on that in "problem solving" is too much directed at one field) as well as "means-end" techniques.
(I think this technique can be fitted in with MickMacNee's suggestions as well, and I think he has given a slightly different kind of framework within which this can be fitted. I developed this separately and only now have seen that he was working on something himself.)
It seems a lot of work, but much of it has been done, but in an uncoordinated way so far. We just need to try to implement it as objectively as possible so that the means of arriving at the decision are as open to complete public scrutiny as possible.
The above technique has been used implicitly in many different areas of application, some of which may seem quite similar to the particular issues here, and some not so obviously similar: I have experience of guiding researchers within the fields of psychology and psychiatry using a very similar process, and it helped considerably in clarifying the issues and helping the participants reach an agreed-upon solution to problems that otherwise would be seen to be very difficult. It may have problems itself, but I would argue that it has advantages over what has gone before in this particular issue here on wikipedia, and it does directly address the issues Arbcom asked us to consider. I think the process I have outlined might be usefully combined with MickMacNee's useful alternative suggestion of a process. DDStretch (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
My take on how this proposal fits with mine: Steps 1,2,3 are analagous to drawing up the statement page. Steps 4 will take too long to agree between the community on a neutral presentation, so I would not have it as part of the statement page discussion, but leave it to the RFC discussion phase. Steps 5 to 8, if not done as individual evidence submission to be presented alongside the statement page, will be done in the Rfc discussion phase. This is the point at which subjective claims such as required by step 5 should be put out there for examination. Steps 8 to 10 I would just simplify and, and implement as the consensus judges model of reviewing the Rfc discussion. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent framework DD and Mike. I notice that below, there are sections that are starting to solve the problem within the framework above. Perhaps it would be better to *not* start the problem-solving process until the framework is agreed. If I understand the Arbcom ruling right, they've asked for us to agree the process (framework) - getting that agreed now would also avoid a future argument where someone points out that the framework was never agreed!. -- HighKing ( talk) 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Just dropping by to see if I can be helpful. A quick observation: there seem to be three related activities going on in response to the Arbcom ruling.
If (3) is successful then (1) and (2) are redundant. I don't know much about the detail and history, but I'm happy to support it. If this does carry, then it potentially saves a lot of work.
If (3) is unsuccessful then (1) sounds like a good idea to me. I am not familiar with some of the technical terms used by DDStretch but they can presumably be explained en route. There seems to be a lot of common ground between MickMacNee and DDStretch - it might be helpful if they could put their heads together and (for the avoidance of doubt) come up with an amended proposal they can jointly propose. My only comment is that Step 9 of the second proposal may need a little thought. It would be dispiriting to go through a lot of work and then discover that it just resulted in the same old opinion poll deadlock. I note there is no opposition to the general idea, but also that there is very little support at present. Perhaps this will be forthcoming if it becomes clear that (3) isn't working/answering the question etc..
It is also possible that (3) will be unsuccessful and that (1) will not be deemed to have gathered sufficient support by the deadline either. In which case, HighKing's comments above notwithstanding, it may be useful to at least do some more work on Option 1, which would at least be useful to someone coming in without the history. It seems to me to be incomplete and I might try to add something useful, whilst wishing (3) all the best. Ben Mac Dui 15:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
As regards combining MickMacNee's process with mine, I think we should definitely take the best of each and put them together if we are able. I don't actually think it would take too much effort to do that. DDStretch (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Here the dispute concerns which must come first: decide the best page name of the article now at Republic of Ireland, or decide the best content of the page name Ireland.
That is why I think the core issue is the content of the page named Ireland. -- Una Smith ( talk) 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think a difficulty with the above is that it assumes a certain amount of knowledge of both "Ireland" and the history of the Wikipedia pages concerned. Its focus is also on a single main issue and does not cover the related ones. How about this?
The present difficulties arise from two main problems:
Specifically, this creates the following challenges:
To be followed by - brief summary of the nature of polarised views on the above. Ben Mac Dui 20:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's just continue a little, just to show people how my scheme would operate. Remember that this is just my ideas at the moment (and anyone else who edits it), and that if we were doing this seriously, it may contain more information and more references to who proposed what, etc. DDStretch (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Problem | Possible Proposed Solutions |
---|---|
The content of the page called Ireland | Page contains "The island of Ireland" |
Page contains "The state of Ireland" | |
Page contains a simple (short) disambiguation page for Ireland | |
Page contains content that combines both state and island information for Ireland in summary style, while having more detailed child articles for: 1. whole Island topics, 2. the Sovereign State of Ireland, and 3. Northern Ireland. (the "MickMacNee solution") | |
Page is a redirection to the page containing "The state of Ireland" (such as Republic of Ireland as it is at this point) | |
Page is a redirection to the page containing "The island of Ireland" | |
The content of the page called Republic of Ireland | Page contains "The state of Ireland" |
Page contains a redirection to the page which contains "The state of Ireland" | |
Page contains information about the descriptive term "Republic of Ireland" with suitable hatnotes | |
Page contains no content (i.e., it is deleted) |
The above is extremely useful, but it needs to come with a second table, congruent with the above, that lists the options proposed for the different page names (state/island/dab/redirect etc.). Not hard to do, but I imagine there is something that could be borrowed from the archives somewhere. Ben Mac Dui 20:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Problem 1 | Possible Proposed solution |
---|---|
The content of the page called Ireland | (A) Page contains "The island of Ireland" |
(B) Page contains "The state of Ireland" | |
(C) Page contains a simple (short) disambiguation page for Ireland | |
(D) Page contains content that combines both state and island information for Ireland in summary style, while having more detailed child articles (the "MickMacNee solution") |
Problem 2.1 | Possible Proposed solution |
---|---|
The page that contains "The state of Ireland" (void on the adoption of problem 1 B) |
On the adoption of 1A, C or D: Ireland (state) contains "The state of Ireland" |
On the adoption of 1A, C or D: Ireland (country) contains "The state of Ireland" | |
On the adoption of 1A, C or D: Republic of Ireland contains "The state of Ireland" | |
On the adoption of 1A, C or D: Your favoured variation here contains "The state of Ireland" |
Problem 2.2 | Possible Proposed solution |
---|---|
The page that contains "The island of Ireland" (void on the adoption of problem 1 A) |
On the adoption of 1B, C or D: Ireland (country) contains "The island of Ireland" |
On the adoption of 1B, C or D: Ireland (island) contains "The island of Ireland" | |
On the adoption of 1B, C or D: Your favoured variation here contains "The island of Ireland" |
I believe this addresses the two most contentious related problems — namely (1) what content is at Ireland, and (2.1) what should the article on the state be called — in a logical and sequential way. As you can see Problem 2.1 could be completely avoided should problem 1 be resolved with agreement on option B. In that instance, we instead should concern ourselves with Problem 2.2. (To be honest, this probably isn't seriously contentious but I think we should include it anyway). Of course, the opposite is true also — that Problem 2.2 could be avoided given the agreement on Problem 1 A. On the instance that problem 1 C or D is agreed on, both Problem 2s would be required.
This doesn't address all the issues. For example, it ignores the question of how we should refer to the state/island inline. However, because piping can be utilized if needed, that really is an completely different discussion. I think we should decouple the two, since this is complicated enough as it is. It also doesn't resolve what would be found at Republic of Ireland if it did not contain the state of Ireland. Again, I that can be debated independent of this (though I think Domer's suggestion of a short article about the name itself is a good one).
The nice thing with this structure is that it could be used as a tool to reach agreement by a number of different mechanisms. I still favor a ranked poll of individual preferences for each of the problems. The two extremes would cancel each other out, and we would find some middle ground. I believe that would resolve it by enforcing compromise in a manner acceptable to most people, if only begrudgingly. It would also leave the least amount of blood on the floor. However, if we are going to thrash this out by discussion alone, then it can be used as a starting point for that too. Rockpocke t 02:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposal | Ireland | ROI | Ireland (state) | Ireland (island) | Ireland (dab) | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | island | state | blank | blank | dab | Current situation |
2 | state | 3 options | blank | island | dab | |
3 | dab | 3 options | state | island | blank | |
4 | summary style | 3 options | state | island | dab | |
5 | redirect - state | 3 options | state | island | dab | |
6 | redirect - island | 3 options | state | island | dab |
Notes:
Haven't we almost reached a consensus on this here? Mooretwin ( talk) 22:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you agree to support, even if it is not your first preference', this compromise?
Do you agree to support, even if it is not your first preference', this compromise?
It is also what Britannica and Encarta use. Even on Britannica they have a footnote on the name that states; "As provided by the constitution; the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act provides precedent for this longer formulation of the official name but, per official sources, “has not changed the usage Ireland as the name of the state in the English language." On Encarta they use Ireland & Ireland (island).-- 24.60.152.80 ( talk) 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"people should be asked to vote for the option they STRONGLY oppose, then eliminate the two clear problems. Otherwise this process is just going to go on and on for ever" I agree -- T*85 ( talk) 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The proposal that achieved unprecedented consensus was:
Mooretwin ( talk) 21:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I opposed this before but I could support it now. Could we change it from Ireland (state) to Ireland (country)? In a number of countries like America, Australia, Germany, etc.... state has another meaning. It is also the format that is used for the country of Georgia. I personally have the Americanized version of state in my head even though I lived in Ireland, so I think country is a more universally clear description. Secondly, I have noticed that articles like British-Irish relations or Indo-Irish relations, that the info boxes look stupid when only two countries can have foreign relations and the Irish flag is above. I would hope that if this solution was enacted that people don't get too carried away with unnecessary things like this. My other concern was how are you going to go about enacting this solution if it is decided, what happens if another argument begins when the article on the island starts to get edited-- T*85 ( talk) 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Country does not imply that it covers the whole island ( Borneo, Hispaniola), it simply has the same meaning as a "state" but state has alternative meanings based on where you live, whereas country does not. -- T*85 ( talk) 16:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is this "proposal" being discussed? Regardless of anon IP 89.x.x.x's PoV, Arbcom have explicitly stated we're to come up with a mechanism for discussion and agreement, on a WP project page, not just another debate about what the name of one of the effected articles should be. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 10:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The process is the task force, and the task force has come up with a compromise proposal. Mooretwin ( talk) 19:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
O rly?
This all seems very handy - and very much not in either the spirit or letter of what Arbcom actually said or further clarified. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Batsun on this. All I see are lots of editors trying to get a proposal in order to achieve a result regarding the names. That's very different that agreeing on the process .. i.e. as per the proposal up above. We should stop at deciding the steps, not start work on individual steps. If we can agree that the process can achieve a result, then we can start work on the steps within the process. This really isn't that complicated folks ... makes me wonder why we're making it more difficult that it should be. -- HighKing ( talk) 00:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I was involved in many of the previous discussions of this issue, and have been on a prolonged wikibreak for over 6 months, but saw this discussion underway and thought I'd offer a comment.
First, it's great that arbcom's ruling looks likely to bring some sort of resolution to this long-running dispute. I have grave doubts about whether any solution will achieve the sort of stability that comes from consensus, because so many people are so entrenched that any result is likely to leave a significant number of people very dissatisfied. Nonetheless, even a temporary peace is worth having, even if we end up with all the articles renamed to a random set of hieroglyphics. {insert weary sigh/evil grin/indication of boredom/whatever}
Secondly, it seems to me that this will probably end up being resolved by following arbcom's remedy two (three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure), because the issues are too fraught for the participants to agree on a mechanism.
Thirdly, it seems to me that one of crucial decisions to made in reaching an outcome is to decide exactly what question is to be settled. That's a tougher one than it may sound, and tougher than looking at the options may suggest. It seems to me that there are two radically different ways of approaching the issue:
a) What is the most appropriate English-language name, given existing Wikipedia naming conventions, for an article on the 26-county state called "Ireland" in the English language, which has a legal description (not a name) of "The Republic of Ireland"?
b) Given that the term "Ireland" has three major uses (the island, the various all-island states and jurisdictions which have existed, and the 86-year-old modern 26-county state), which if any should predominate?
To a large extent, the outcome of any decision depends on which question is given priority. That choice has bedevilled discussions so far, because those most concerned with the first question (naming the modern state) get pointed in one direction, while those most concerned with the second question (primary use of the term "Ireland") get pointed in very different directions.
It seems to me that this difference of approach underlies much of the divisiveness of the discussions so far. There have, perhaps, been some editors who have structured their arguments to suit their political agendas; but I think if we are ever going to reach a stable consensus on this issue it's essential to also acknowledge that thoroughly well-informed editors acting in complete good-faith with full understanding of all wikipedia policies can legitimately end up with different answers depending on which question they feel is more important. It has saddened me to see that even at this late stage, some editors appear to be still focusing on only one of the two questions, whereas a stable consensus can only come from addressing both.
I don't have any brilliant idea of how to address those two questions, but I suggest that one approach could be to start by addressing both of the questions separately, and then take an explicit third step of trying to reconcile any conflict between the outcome of the first two.
I don't feel at all inclined to get involved in another prolonged battle over the naming decision, and this may be my last contribution on the subject. So I'll take this opportunity to suggest while there is ready acknowledgement that someone with strong views on either side the unionist/nationalist divide in Ireland may see this issue through that lens, there is also a historiographical perspective. The modern European idea of the nation-state, which came to prominence in the 19th-century, has tended to assume that a state involves a congruence of geography, culture, governance and ethnicity, but that nationalist construction is not universally accepted and is in many ways a creature of the modern era. So one of the questions underlying this decision is to what extent contemporary political norms should predominate? How much weight do we give to existence of a modern nation state against earlier concepts of Ireland? And is there any way of making that choice without taking a POV about nationalism?
Sorry if I have appeared to complicate things further, but I don't think this decision will be simple. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Re the question of what process to use to decide between whatever choices we end up with, it seems to me there are two likely approaches:
Which do people here prefer? Pardon me, but it seems a survey on this point might be helpful. -- Una Smith ( talk) 01:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ascertain what subject readers are looking for when "Ireland" is typed into the search box. Whether it be the island or the state, then Wikipedia should go with that. This too follows Wikipedian policy as encouraged, and seems the more logical approach. Then the other main use would get the brackets for disambiguation purposes for state, or island. PurpleA ( talk) 03:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've drafted something in my user space which some people might feel is a help. Comments there please. Its a bit busy here. Fmph ( talk) 08:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The case was closed on 2009-01-04. Attempts to achieve consensus regarding Remedy 1 began shortly thereafter. It is now 2009-01-18, and no consensus has been achieved. Will the ArbCom now proceed with Remedy 2, please? -- Evertype· ✆ 10:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom is discussing this issue and will communicate to you the outcome of the discussions very soon. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, everyone! Let's go to the Collaboration Project! I think we can decide this question without prejudice by majority rule. (I contacted the only editor who opposed #3, but they has not been around for a reply.) I will post any further messages regarding this question in that project. — Sebastian 20:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The admin assistance has started. So far we have two commitments: User:SebastianHelm and User:Edokter. We'll keep looking for a third helper. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)