Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Republic of Ireland, Ireland
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Dppowell, ww2censor, Red King, User: Redking7, Wikipéire, GoodDay, Nightstallion, Sarah777, G2bambino, Guliolopez, Padraig, BrownHairedGirl, One Night In Hackney, Jtdirl, Bardcom, Windyjarhead, Bastun, Jza84, Schcambo, Clayworth, Narson, Rrius, Jack forbes, Djegan,
Mediator(s)	Averell
Comment	Closed. Request was one side, requester now blocked permanently.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Republic of Ireland, Ireland]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Republic of Ireland, Ireland]]

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

Dppowell, ww2censor, Red King, Wikipéire, GoodDay, Nightstallion, Sarah777, G2bambino, Guliolopez, Padraig, BrownHairedGirl, One Night In Hackney, Jtdirl, Bardcom, Windyjarhead, Bastun, Jza84, Schcambo, Clayworth, Narson, Rrius, Jack forbes, Djegan

What's going on?

A group of editors who want to change the title of Republic of Ireland to a more accurate name rather than a description but every time it is discussed (it is discussed very regularly) a group of editors oppose the move as the article called 'Ireland' is already taken.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to suggest a disambiguation page titled 'Ireland' with the page linking to the two articles. One titled Ireland (state) and the other titled Ireland (island).

Mediator notes

Ok, I have adopted this to move it along. Even so, I'm unsure whether a mediation is useful here. The discussion is about "move or not", and there is not much room for compromise in that, and a mediation is about getting people to reach a compromise everyone can live with.. Moreover, a number of editors seem to be opposed to the mediation as such.

The discussion clearly has reached a point where all arguments have been exchanged (twice over); the only advice I can give at this point is that you probably have to agree to disagree. Which means that the "pro-move" faction accepts that there will be no move without consensus, and the "no-move" faction accepts that some people will continue to lobby for a name change.

I propose the following: Those editors in favour of the mediation, especially Wikipeire as the original requester, please state how you think the mediation could help to settle this dispute. Remember that the goal of a mediation cannot be to "have it my way" - I'd like to know how do you think this can help to reach an agreement with the other side.

If there is an attainable goal for this mediation, we can continue. But if you don't let me know how this could resolve your differences, I'll close this.

I will not judge the arguments. I read the talk page and the discussion here, and I think I've understood both sides. In my opinion there is no problem with either the current or the proposed state of things; both sides have their valid points.

To put it in another way: If you think that I can help you to resolve your conflict, let me know how. But I won't enter this discussion arguing either side. Averell ( talk) 07:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipeires answer moved to the "Mediation Discussion" section. Averell ( talk) 13:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Administrative notes

I've opened a "Mediation Discussion" section, for the mediation only.

Mediation Discussion

I've opened this section because the arguments have already flooded the Discussion section, the article talk page (and start to spill over into the discussion page of this here too). Please use this for the mediation (read: conflict resolution) only. If you want to comment on the pro- and con-points, go to the other pages. Thanks. Averell ( talk) 13:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I think mediation will help as there has been no progression to either "sides" acceptance of each other's ideas and points about the matter at hand. The issue has been continuously raised before and will probably be raised again and again in the future by other editors. I feel that mediation will help editors read, acknowledge and accept all the points being raised so that the issue may sorted out by coming to a fair, accurate, neutral and encyclopedic solution and agreement where all the editors will be happy and so that this issue will not raise its head in the future. WikipÉire ^♣ 19:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree that "acceptance of each other's ideas" would be a good starting point. I think everyone involved very much understands the other's arguments - that "Ireland" is the official name that the state gave itself, and the "Republic of Ireland" is a commonly used term, no matter whether correct or not. It seems to me that it would be a good thing to put this discussion to rest, somehow, although I don't know if everybody can be made happy.

There are obviously political and emotional issues in this debate. While it's good if the discussion stays on topic, it's good to keep that in mind - in order to better understand the other side and why they fight so hard. This mediation cannot resolve those issues; at the very best we can try put the discussion to rest for a while. At worst, we waste another megabyte of wikispace.

Please keep in mind that this is about finding an article name. It's not about making a political statement about Ireland. Averell ( talk) 13:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

All right, if people really want to go through, I'm offering to mediate - but I'd like to hear from others, too. To me it doesn't seem much difference if your waste your time on mediation or on discussing if you want mediation, but it's your choice.

If you want to go through, I suggest that all participants agree to abide by the result of the mediation (if there is one), and you try to negotiate a truce. This should be prominetly put on the article's talk page, signed by all involved editors. Those editors should publicly promise not to raise the topic in the future (or at least until a set date). They should also agree to not participate in discussions by other users on this topic (with the exception of a single line stating their agreement/disagreement with a new proposal and a reference to the truce).

Let me know wether or not you want mediation or if you have other suggestions. Averell ( talk) 13:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I suggest that this discussion be closed ASAP. As noted, the mediation request was largely one sided, and the requestor has subsequently been blocked for sockpuppetry, disruptive editting, and has (more recently) engaged in more than a little user page vandalism. No mediation can occur when the party with whom mediation is requested is banned. Guliolopez ( talk) 17:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

In agreement. GoodDay ( talk) 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Closed the case. Mediation wasn't welcomed by all parties, plus the original requester is now banned. Averell ( talk) 10:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Discussion

• The "mediation requester" has unfortunately stated the issue in line with his own views. The "problem" is actually much much simpler, and can be described without partisan terminology. The "problem" is that:
  • The term "Ireland" can be applied to BOTH the Island of Ireland ( Ireland (island)) and the Republic of Ireland ( Ireland (state)).
  • Some editors believe that the title " Ireland" should be applied to the island, and the term Republic of Ireland should be applied to the state. This is the status quo, and is believed by this group of editors to be "fair" because the term and article "Ireland" applies to the "super-set" geographical concept which includes "Ireland" (the state). And that the existing name for the article which discusses the state, already has a label which represents a naturally formed DAB that is officially sanctioned by the state under the "Republic of Ireland Act" and which meets COMMONNAME ("use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things").
  • Other editors believe that the title " Ireland" should be applied to the state, and that the term Republic of Ireland is not the COMMONNAME (because it is officially the "description" of the state, rather than it's "name"). These editors point to precedence in other country/state articles where the state name is used in it's simple form.
  • The one thing that both groups do seem to agree is that moving the article about the state to " Ireland (state)" would cause problems as it would be confusing to readers, unclear as to the subject, have issues with COMMONNAME, and make labelling of associated articles (EG: "Natural Resources of Ireland (state)") equally awkward and confusing.
• The result of this "problem" is that move requests open from time to time. And no consensus is agreed. (The "mediation requester's" note about "a minority of objectors" is inaccurate. If anything, those who support the status quo are in a majority - As confirmed with multiple straw polls over the years) Guliolopez ( talk) 15:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
  • • However taking an example of Economy of Cyprus (which is also a split island with shared name problems), this dab problem needn't have to apply as for example you can't have an economy for an island. The nouns and context for the title would mean that the (state) in the title won't be necessary. Also the proposed drawback doesn't occur at Religion in Georgia (country) for example. It works nicely.
      • Or one could go the way of the German article on the same subject of Ireland. In German it calls the state Ireland and and the island Ireland (island). This remove any potential disambiguation problems with other article about the state of Ireland that other editors seem to think will happen. However this approach would lose the neutrality of a disambiguation page under Ireland. WikipÉire ^♣ 21:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

What a load of nonsense! Of course there can be an economy of an island; the extent to which it is an integrated economy depends on what impediments exist to trade within that island, and Ireland has a long history of trade across the island. In any case, your argument presumes that there was no economy before partition, which is also nonsense. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I support Guliolopez's summary, and would note that the endlessly repeated attempts to revive this proposal are exceptionally disruptive. What we need is not mediation, but an RFC on the actions Wikipéire ( talk · contribs), a single-purpose editor whose contributions consist primarily of endless pursuing this argument at every place it might arise. This mediation request is a classic case of Wikipedia:Forum-shopping. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The lovely claim of Wikipedia:Forum-shopping from User:BrownHairedGirl is void as that is about fishing for opinions. Wikipedia is about facts and verifiability. WikipÉire ^♣ 19:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipéire, the issue is not just facts and verifibility, but also about wikiedia conventions on ambiguity and article naming ... as well as the core wikipedia principle of consensus, which means not forum-shopping the same issue endlessly on every available part of wikipedia. This issue has been raised again and again for years, and there has never been any consensus to move; it's time to drop it, rather than wasting yet more time on it. Or do you hope to win the argument by driving away more editors like Jtdirl [1]? Your endless tendentious rehashing of this same question, which always produces the same answer, amounts to a war of attrition, and it is highly disruptive. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Macedonia and Georgia didn't have these problems with ambiguity and article naming. I'm sure there's many others too. Is Ireland some special rule that it can't be more accurate like those just because certain editors have a POV about it. The proposed solution is based behind the conventions of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. I'm not sure how I can accussed of tendentious editing considering I'm requesting a disambiguation page in order to give the most neutral point of view possible! I nor has anyone else driven an editor away. Its a bit presumptious to claim that a name dispute has made someone stop editing. Stop with the accusations and more with the bonafide facts. This is an encyclopedia. You are using beaucracy to stop fact. (even though the proposal perfectly conforms with all the conventions. Let the facts speak. WikipÉire ^♣ 20:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipéire, you really should at least try learn to distinguish betweens facts and your interpretation of how to handle those facts. Most of the facts of this issue are agreed; the question is what how to handle them in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. And there is nothing bureaucratic about saying that a proposal which has already failed to achieve consenus at least five times is something which should be laid to rest. This proposal proposal does not conforms with wikipedia conventions, which are strongly opposed to wasting editor's time by repeatedly pressing the same case in the hope that it will have a different outcome. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and your attempt to use mediation as a forum-shopping tool is a classic case of a bureaucratic approach: abusing procedure to try to grind down those who disagree with you.

Your approach here is one I have often seen used in minor political groups: raise an issue again and again and again until those who don't share your single-minded obsession with this issue give and go away ... and then the motion gets carried. It's not how things are done on wikipedia, and this mediation request is an abuse of process designed to continue your campaign of attrition. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

If it does not conform with wikipedia guidelines then please explain Cyprus, Macedonia, Georgia and the Ireland articles in the five main other languages (links below). Those 8 which are the same as what I'm proposing. They don't break any guidelines yet they're the exact same as the proposal. Please explain your reasoning now. Also if the facts are agreed they should be implemented, not ignored as of WP:NPOV. WikipÉire ^♣ 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Whatever the conclusion to this is? I'll abide by it. Afterwards, I'd suggest a 12-month break (if not a permanent end). GoodDay ( talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Another thing, one of the points against is Ireland remains, as an article title, ambiguous. Why doesn't this apply to the island article too then? I don't see how it can apply to one but not the other. WikipÉire ^♣ 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I propose this mediation case be closed immediately to stop wasting good editor's time and effort that takes away from constructive editing. We can already see from the discussion so far that there is no distinct consensus forming, as has been the case each and every time it has been raised, but User:Wikipéire keeps on pushing the some old POV. Do I detect a distinct threat when User:Wikipéire writes The debate will never stop until it is sorted out.? Back in February you were quite happy to be piping the country Ireland to the article name Republic of Ireland all over the place on many pages. We all have better things to do than deal with this topic again, and again, and again, and again and again. Sorry, did I say Again, again? ww2censor ( talk) 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

No it's not a threat. As I said it the debate will keep on going as lots of editors are unhappy about it. It keeps on coming up again and again for that reason. Coming up with a conclusive and correct answer will solve the issue. You can't start talking about concensus at this stage. This has only been here a few hours. As you see above there are many other editors who have feelings on this. No one is responding to the points I make. They are new and different yet you don't want to acknowledge them because of your POV. WikipÉire ^♣ 22:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, that was a very clear threat to keep on raising the issue ad nauseam until you get answer which you want. You believe that your answer is "correct", but you conveniently ignore the demonstrable fact that every time you or others reopen this campaign there is no consensus that it is correct. It's also untrue that "lots of editors are unhappy about it"; that's why there has never been a consensus in favour of this change, and don't try to hide behind the fact that your time-wasting mediation request has only been here for a few hours: you know perfectly well you pushed the issue at great length only two months ago, and that there was no consensus then, just as there was no consensus the time before that and before that. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It was not a threat! How are you turning some off hand sentence into a threat !?! If there's a consensus to it this time it'd be fine. There was never even a discussion involving concrete points before. You ignore the points that are made (many are new) and all you go on about is how there wasn't a consensus before so there won't be this time. If you acknowledge the points being made and debunk them then fine. You aren't even considering what's being said. WikipÉire ^♣ 23:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes! You are starting to get it! I am indeed not "even considering what's being said". That's because the debate has been run half-a-dozen times already, and you are just trying to waste everyone's time by re-opening it. I'm not going to play this game; make as many points as you like, because the core of it has all been said before, at length, on many occasions. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

People, it's not hurting anything to have this Mediation; or would you all rather have these discussions at Republic of Ireland. I'm guessing ya'll wouldn't like the latter. My point is, be cool & alow this process to play itself out. Peace. GoodDay ( talk) 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The issue has already been discussed at Talk:Republic of Ireland, most recently in March, so there is no point in rehashing it again 7 weeks later, whether on that talk page or anywhere. It does hurt to have another discussion; it hurts wikipedia because Wikipéire's flogging of this dead horse just takes the time and energy of editors away from actually adding to the encyclopedia. The whole issue has been done to death countless times before: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, amongst others. That's why forum-shopping such as this is deprecated: it just turns the issue into a contest to see who has the most energy, or who can best stave off boredom at being caught up in an endless loop like Groundhog Day. This is a war of attrition tactic, and such aggression is the complete inverse of consensus. Wikipéire clearly believes that he possesses The Truth, but that doesn't obligate anyone else to endlessly facilitate his pursuit of it. It's time to move on. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It's very apparent to me (more now, then ever), there's not gonna be a consensus for changing Republic of Ireland. To do so (change the name)? would be a major disruption throughout Wikipedia (considering all the 're-directs', 'pipe-links', name usage etc, etc). Therefore, I'm dropping out of this Mediation, gentlefolk. GoodDay ( talk) 13:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

As someone entirely new to the Ireland page can someone tell me is this argument over a political difference or some kind of religious difference? Excuse my ignorance, even though I had Irish Grandparents I really don't understand the argument. I would always think of Ireland in both ways. Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Why can the people of Ireland not agree to one thing! Your not like my country Scotland where there is always a dispute are you? -- Jack forbes ( talk) 23:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

From what I can tell, it is the whole 'one Ireland' debate in annother form combined with the belief that page titles must always be at the /exact/ legal name of a subject. I have to admit that, like you, I use the terms interchangably for the most part so don't see the problem with using the unambiguous form....though I have to ask, what dispute is there over the name of Scotland? Is there some push to call it Alba? Narson ( talk) 23:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Probably my own bias, not that I would push. I'm very Independent minded. -- Jack forbes ( talk) 23:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Going to say something, don't really care what he thinks. Wikipeire is just a trouble maker. Why does Wikipedia not ban sockpuppets permanentaly? How can anyone take this guy seriously. He has caused trouble on more than one page! -- Jack forbes ( talk) 23:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Trouble maker? You should discuss editor character less and facts about the issue at hand more. But I guess your claim about me is from questioning the accuracy of refering to some of the UK constituent parts as countries? Thats not trouble, its a perfectly acceptable and reasonable point to make. What's also not trouble is the fact that I managed to raise the points of removing the inaccuracies of the officialness of the Welsh language and the anthem from the infobox and also managing to remove the line 'Wales deals directly with EU' from the Wales page through the talk page. The editors there didn't like it, but the facts spoke for themselves.

Striving for accuracy and challenging people's beliefs who think they're right is not trouble making. It's called improving the accuracy of articles. Its what Wikipedia is all about.

Anyway this debate is not about exact legal name or anything. The other editors accept Ireland is the only name for the state; as the other is a description. (Just read the for points) The debate about is whether putting in a more accurate name is worth having the article and associate article's titles look less pretty by having a few brackets after the title. That's the only rebuttle I'm ever seeing anyway. WikipÉire ^♣ 00:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipéire, you heard plenty of other arguments in the lengthy discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland. If you don't want to see them, that's your choice, but the fact that you keep on misrepresenting them only emphasises the point that you aren't actually seeking mediation, you are just trying to grind down those who disagree with you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Would you be happy if I gathered all the points against the proposal from that talk page and went through them one by one? That way you couldn't say I'm not acknowledging your points! Discussing each others issues is part and parcel of mediation. I willing to go through yours. Will you do the same? WikipÉire ^♣ 00:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Has anyone actually agreed with you Wikipeire? -- Jack forbes ( talk) 00:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The really sad thing about this is that I agree with you! but with your track record there is no way I'll back you up. I will stay out of it. -- Jack forbes ( talk) 00:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Ireland (?)

Point "18. Ireland (state/country)..." just demonstrates how confused the For Move Camp really are. Terms like country/nation/state are so inter-twinned that picking any one of them is ultra imperfect. The Republic of Ireland is more than just country or a nation or a state - its all of these things and more. As one of the founding fathers might have said not merely a country but also a nation, not merely a nation but also a state, not merely a state but also a country.

All this For Move Camp really are is edit war folk who are bitter that they can have their United Ireland day dream article and cannot articulate anything apart from "the majority and status quo are wrong, wrong, wrong, I tell you - wikipedia is an offence to o'Erin!" Stop the MOPE gang. Djegan ( talk) 00:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Frankly its no wonder why some editors are taking pot-shots at the For Move Camp. Some of these same Irish editors seam to have little better to do than "squat" on British and UK article talk pages preachin' about accuracy and pov whilst practicing little of it themselves. Djegan ( talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry but nation is a very different term to country and state. A nation refers to the people. The island article covers this that is what the point is about. Considering the introduction of ROI says state and doesn't even mention country I think your arguement is void. That is why Ireland (state) is perfect. The article only deals with the state which rules over the country. You need to learn how to differenciate between those words. And you are saying that I'm not accurate? I only included them because you did.

How is this an United Ireland thing? This is about getting the name of a country right and removing a term which that country's government requested not be used as a name for the country! It's not an agenda on some glorified topic. Its about the facts that exist out there. WikipÉire ^♣ 01:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Their is such an obsessive disgust and hate of "Republic of Ireland" that has led to this artificial and contrived "Ireland (state)" nonsense. Anyone who needs a Background 101 should read Names of the Irish state. But the simple reality is that whilst "Republic of Ireland" would be a normal, objective and unoffensive term outside Wikipedia, where a concise clear term is needed - no where else on Earth might someone expect to see "Ireland (state)" other than in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the Government Information Service of the State - we don't remove material because of a government request. Djegan ( talk)

So are you saying every Wikipedia article title with brackets is artificial and contrived? There must be thousands of them on here. Lets look at an example removing the name issue of this article: the U2 album called War. Its title is War (album). With your logic thats artificial. However you're saying by calling it by its description of U2 album called War then its much more approachable? Nope. The same applies to this article.

No we don't edit material based on what a government says but edit based on what that country's constition says when writing about said country. You are blatently ignoring the fact that it tells you that Ireland is the one and only name for the state. It is the term Republic of Ireland that is artificial and contrived, while also being unofficial and incorrect. WikipÉire ^♣ 10:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Stop been daft. Brackets have their usage, but the reality is that we already have a perfect disambiguation title, "Republic of Ireland" - why destroy a whole series of articles by creating mickey-mouse and downright confusing titles like "Education in Ireland (state)", "History of Ireland (state)"...not to mention countless categories and templates.

Its only bitterness, hatred, and fundamentalist republicanism that prevent the usage of Republic of Ireland - anyone who uses anything other than "Ireland" is a heretic, blah, blah, blah...

So what if a minority are "offended" by "Republic of Ireland", because a majority would be confused and exasperated by "Ireland (state)" nonsense and make believe, it would only be a matter of time before nonsense and make believe got replaced by confusion and doubt by piping [[Ireland (state)|Ireland]] because [[Ireland (state)]] would not read well in any article. This whole move mentality is a recipe for disaster. A short sighted program by a minority of fundamentalists who want make believe Ireland. Djegan ( talk) 10:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Stop being daft yourself. I'll use the example of Georgia to explain that. Georgia is a disambiguation page, linking to Georgia (U.S. state) and Georgia (country). This follows WP:COMMONNAME: the official name of the former is 'State of Georgia', while the official name of the latter in English is 'Sakartvelo'.
Every article/category will not have to be renamed. If they did, then Atlanta, Georgia would be at 'Atlanta, Georgia (U.S. state)'. It's not.
Finally, of course we'd pipe [[Ireland (state)|Ireland]]. The first line of Tbilisi doesn't say it's a city located in [[Georgia (country)]], it says it is located in [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]]. That's fairly simply wiki style. -- Schcambo ^{aon scéal?} 10:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

To follow on from Schambo. Having brackets after a title for disambiguation is not confusing! Where is your proof that people would be confused? Is there a case study on this? Wikipedia is not a WP:Crystal Ball. Whats the story with Georgia (country), is everyone confused by it? It looks like its getting on just fine.

This is not fundamentalist republicanism or make believe, this is doing what it says in the consitution. This is fact. This is an enyclopedia. The two go together. A made up and unofficial name is not less confusing - it is more confusing, it is not fact and it denies the article to be the most accuracte it can be. WikipÉire ^♣ 11:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Guys you have got to convince more than just me. This issue has always resulted in "no change" or "no consensus" and undoubtly will this time again. Djegan ( talk) 11:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

WP:CCC - Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. Past decisions are open to challenge and should not be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back. WikipÉire ^♣ 11:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

And also from that very page WP:PARENT, see also WP:FORUMSHOP, you just shot yourself in the foot:

It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue. This, however, is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons.

Stop asking the same question again and again in a vain attempt to narrowly pass your request. Regards. Djegan ( talk) 11:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

That was already raised above. The previous consensus was based on reasons. There are new reasons for the argument which dispell the previous reasons! Please read other discussions before jumping into things! WikipÉire ^♣ 11:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

No, No, No, No! -- "new reasons" - utter nonsense and folly! I will present my case as I see fit, but I don't use sockpuppets. I don't have to consult anyone or ask anyone for permission for the case I use, but it will be fair. Djegan ( talk) 11:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Djegan, you don't have to bother restating a case if you don't want to. This is not formal [[Wikiped[]ia:Mediation]] (which is part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). This is the Mediation Cabal, it's an informal process designed to help reach agreement if editors want to use it.

Since many of the named parties have already indicated that they don't want to take part (because of the WP:PARENT and WP:FORUMSHOP issues you raise), the best that this process could achieve is some sort of two-person agreement between you and Wikipéire. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment Apparently (according to the infobox) I'm a party to this? It would have been nice to have been informed. In any case - I won't be taking part. I'm in agreement that this is a blatant case of WP:PARENT and WP:FORUMSHOP. We have had this issue raised on Talk:Republic of Ireland every few weeks for as long as I've been on WP, and there is simply no consensus for a move. I've already made my arguments on the talk page there, they're as valid as ever, and there is still no consensus for a move. Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Disambiguation Page

• 1. Under WP:COMMONNAME it says What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine. Ireland would be the most common search for the state. It would also be the most common for the island too.

• 2. Similar articles where state names are shared with other territories such as Georgia and Macedonia have disambiguation pages. Ireland is the only case where this is not so.

Ireland to be in the article title and Republic of Ireland not to be so.

Official reasons

• 3. According to the Irish constitution “The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.”

• 4. The Cambridge Dictionary defines names as: word or words that a person, thing or place is known by.
• 5. As the CIA Factbook backs up under Country name it says:

conventional long form: none

conventional short form: Ireland

• 6. Therefore it acknowledges Ireland is the only name for the state.

• 7. Editors opposed to the title have claimed Republic to be the official description of the state and therefore is officially sanctioned as a disambiguation term for the state. However the term Republic of Ireland is not in the constitution and is only in an act where it merely states: It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland. No mention of official or disambiguation. All law is subordinate to the constitution. This gives no legal effect to the term Republic of Ireland unlike claimed below.

• 8. The Cambridge Dictionary also defines description as: something that tells you what something or someone is like. This is not the same meaning as name so to insist that the description is used is breaking WP:NPOV

• 9. The Irish government saw that this could be misleading so afterwards the Irish government continued to insist that the name of the Irish state was Ireland. A report in The Times on 8 August 1949 (just a few months after the Republic of Ireland Act took effect), makes this clear, reporting that:

• • MacBride, the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs, tonight sent an official request to the Council of Europe to refer to his country simply as Ireland and not as Éire or as the Republic of Ireland.

• 10. This explicitly expresses the wish that the Irish government does not wish the term Republic of Ireland to be used as the name of the state. Wikipedia would be going against a country's wishes if the title were not changed. That quote can be seen here.

• 11. The European Union website also makes this clear:

• NB:Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’

Wikipedia/Common Name reasons

• 12. Ireland is the common name internationally for the state as can be seen in the German, Spanish, French, Italian and Dutch Wikipedia articles on the state as well as being backed up by the EU, CIA, constitution and the UN.

• 13. Other than the title, the whole of the Republic of Ireland article correctly only calls the state Ireland and not Republic of Ireland. The title comes up as Republic of Ireland yet Ireland is shown in bold as the proper name at the start and continues that way throughout the article. The current title disprupts continuity.

• 14. The term Republic of Ireland is only used in the United Kingdom and by Fifa. The use by the UK was disputed by the Irish government as can be seen here. The use by FIFA is only because the IFA and FAI wanted to play under the name Ireland. Of course this dispute does not exist with the constitutional names of the two.

• 15. As can be seen here by this google search the term Republic of Ireland is not the common name. 3 results are from wikipedia where the name flaw exists, 3 refer to the football team who are forced to use that name and two others are British websites such as the BBC who incorrectly use it as described on the dispute between the governments above.

• 16. The Original Republic of Ireland article was made before the island article and despite the name Ireland being free the term Republic of Ireland was used due to the editors POV as seen below. The original introduction:
  • "Ireland" refers to the home of the Irish and the totality of the island of Ireland, but is also (confusingly) the official name in English of the Republic of Ireland, according to the Irish Constitution. - This original POV article approach remains to this day.

• 17. There appears to be no problems with articles who have taken this approach to be more accurate by using the common name instead of a description or colloquial name such as Macedonia & Georgia. Pages such as Geography of Georgia (country) have no disambiguation problems or confusion that some editors are claiming will happen.

• 18. Ireland (state/country) would be a perfectly accurate title with perfect disambiguation as the article is only about the state/country. Items that deal with the nation aspect of the state/country such as culture, customs, history, people, sport etc. are dealt with in the island article called Ireland. Therefore claims it is imperfect are misguiged.

• 19. The island article does not deserve the title article more than the state. They deserve equal status. The only other spilt island country Cyprus doesn't even have an island page, while comparing Great Britain and Ireland shows that the Ireland article is significantly larger with headings under: geography, wildlife, history science and culture, sport architechture, transport energy, economy etc while the GB with more seperate 'countries' has no of this. This suggests there might be some agenda with the 'Ireland' name and island article to fulfill some purpose. Therefore a disambiguation page which gives equal titles to the state and island is needed.

1. RoI is a long standing status quo and both it and Ireland are controversial names. From the naming conventions I quote: Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain.
   
2. Despite the point made above about it not using it, the EU does still use it as a name within text. While it may not be 'official' it does seem to permeate as a common name.
   
3. RoI is used for disambiguation by UEFA and FIFA for issues in Football, to avoid having two seperate teams representing themselves as Ireland
   
4. RoI is used by multi-national corporations (like Apple) and news organisations (For example, the BBC) showing that it is an accepted common name
   
5. RoI remains in use with the United Nations in reports and the like (For example: here). RoI is also used in some legal filings by governments (Only in the most recent of treaties, specifically the Good Friday Agreement, was Government of Ireland used)
   
6. Ireland remains, as an article title, ambiguous. This would force us to use Ireland (State) or Ireland (Country). The longstanding situation is for the unambiguous common name even if it is not enshrined in law as an official name but only as a descriptor. Another example of this would be the United Kingdom, where we use a short form which only legally refers to the state when used by Parliament or by ministers in an official capacity
7. Renaming Republic of Ireland to Ireland does not account for the use of the use of Ireland in reference to the island.
8. Renaming Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) would amount to replacing a natural (and broadly accepted) DAB term with a contrived DAB term (that is neither clear to the reader, nor reflective of WP:COMMONNAME) - moving articles such as Education in the Republic of Ireland to Education in Ireland (state) would compound this awkwardness.
9. The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 and Ireland Act 1949 give legal effect to "Republic of Ireland".
10. Ireland (state) is an imperfect disambiguation. The article Republic of Ireland is not just an article on the " state" - a mere legal entity. Rather it is also an article on a country and nation - a sovereign place with a culture, customs, economy, geography, government, history, people, politics...

XXXXXX

I support the proposed move for the Republic of Ireland to "Ireland (State)" or "Ireland (country)" or simply to "Ireland".

The following is my contribution to a previous discussion where I argued that an article ancillary to the Republic of Ireland: Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland should be moved also. It was put to a straw poll which ended in pretty much a dead heat.

This posting may give a good flavour of arguments typically raised against a move and those raised in favour of a move:

EARLIER DISCUSSION OF A MOVE FOR THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND ARTICLE:

"I have proposed that this article be moved to "foreign relations of Ireland". This accords with the name of the state which is "Ireland" not "Republic of Ireland" - (See Names of the Irish state). There is, in my view, no room for confusion with the island of Ireland in this case because islands do not have foreign relations. The move is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board. Please support this move. Redking7 ( talk) 22:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply

THE ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE MOVE

The following is an excerpt from the discussion concerning the above move taking place at: at Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board. The discussion also covers two other similarly proposed moves (re the civil service of the Republic of Ireland and public service of the Republic of Ireland). The following extract sets out arguments against the moves and my counter arguments:

This following is a very long (possibly dull and unavoidably repetitious) comment. As is apparent from the above, I have proposed the three moves under discussion. This is a serious response to a comment that I needed to “step back and actually read other users comments [rejecting the three moves] and not just ignore them””. It is an attempt to build consensus.

Overview: The name of the Irish State is Ireland not the Republic of Ireland. This is discussed at length at: Names of the Irish state. Sometimes people say that confusion can be caused by using "Ireland" instead of "Republic of Ireland" because it is the same name as the island of Ireland – what I will call the “Confusion Argument”. Sometimes, that argument is genuine and makes sense. Other times it stems from a POV where people do not accept the name of the State; do not regard the name used as important; and/or are not concerned that use of other names are inaccurate and misleading.

Several attempts to use the Confusion Argument against the moves have been made. The central response to each is that these particular articles concern the civil service, the public service and foreign relations. Islands do not have civil services, public services or foreign relations. If a reader comes to the article, the reader could not possibly think that these were institution or foreign relations of a geographical entity. They necessarily have to be institutions of a political entity, i.e. the State. There is no potential for any confusion. Rather than repeating this point over and over, I will call this counter-argument the “Islands Are Not States Response".

CONFUSION ARGUMENT

The following is a response to each particular Confusion Argument raised:

• “ [the moves will] plainly [lead] to a confused encyclopedia (sic)” – No they will not. See: Islands Are Not States Response; in addition, use of the “RoI” is inaccurate, misleading and itself causes confusion about the name of the State.

• There are “civil and public servants working for north-south bodies" - Yes there are but there is no island civil or public service, just as representatives of many states work in the UN but there is no 'earth civil service'.

• “RoI serves as an accurate disambiguation for the articles in question” – There is no need for a disambiguation. See Islands Are Not States Response above. If notwithstanding this, something to address disambiguation is required, there could be a disambiguation notice at the top of three pages. As I don’t know what ambiguity there would be, I don’t know what would go in the notice – possibly a message directing the readers to Foreign relations of the United Kingdom if they wish to read about the foreign relations of Northern Ireland.

• ”The proposed title " Foreign relations of Ireland" is ambiguous. It's unclear from the title whether the article covers the relations between Ireland (IE) and Northern Ireland (NI), between IE, NI and the rest of the world, or some complicated combination of both.” Firstly, see Islands Are Not States Response above; Secondly, the ‘complicated combination’ you refer to is not even a possibility: The island of Ireland (that is IE and NI) could not possibly have a “foreign relations” policy with other countries because IE is a state and the other is a part of another state. This argument is exactly akin to saying that the title “ foreign relations of Luxembourg” is confusing. After all there is also a region in Belgium called Luxembourg: (See: Luxembourg (Belgium)), indeed that region is much larger than the Luxembourg state. Nobody seriously thinks that the Luxembourg article causes confusion just as the “foreign relations of Ireland” article would not cause confusion.

• “The existing title doesn't suffer from [problems of ambiguity], as its clear which state's relations are in question”. See the response immediately above. The existing title suffers from the serious problem that it uses the wrong name for the State (For brevity, I will not rehash the arguments for the moves but summarise them below).

CONSISTENCY AND OTHER ARGUMENTS

• “[the articles] should remain at their RoI names for consistency " and [the existing names] are consistent with the other titles”. -There are numerous articles concerning the state that use the name "Ireland", not "RoI" so consistency point is a red herring. Each proposed move should be looked at on its individual merits.

• WP uses the official description of the state (RoI) for its article names on Ireland" - No. Numerous articles refer to Ireland, not RoI. The main article is "Republic of Ireland" because the island of Ireland article already has the name "Ireland" - not because WP will not allow the correct name of the state to be used.

• " Republic of Ireland" is the agreed name for the article that deals with the state, notwithstanding the constitution and thus articles should primarily flow from that.” – No this in no way reflects WP philosophy or rules. Lots and lots or articles cannot be given their “correct” names because another article is located under that name. There is absolutely no rule (or in the case of these three moves) against using the name Ireland for the state.

• "There should not be any “piecemeal moving” of articles concerning the state one, or two, or three at a time." - No. Every article move should be considered on its individual merits. Moving individual articles is an ordinary part of editing. These particular three moves are appropriate. Others may not be. I would not support moves if they would cause confusion.

• “[the current article names] meet COMMONNAME”. In fact, this is not correct. I do not know how one measures use of the RoI v Ireland names but, I think most people would agree simply Ireland is used more often. Perhaps more importantly, in official contexts such as at the UN or EU, only Ireland is used for the state.

• ”Their (sic) is no need to deliberately confuse generic articles”...e.g. President of Ireland... "lowercase" letters etc. "Consistancy (sic) in naming is not nit-picking -- its good policy and practice” - Republic of Ireland is uppercase. Ireland is uppercase. President of Ireland would hardly be lowercase just as Monarchy of the United Kingdom is uppercase. Whatever argument underlies this upper-case/lower-case point, it does not undermine the strong arguments in favour of the three moves. It appears to be a consistency argument but it is more important that the name of the articles concerned are consistent with the name of the State.

• The moves would be “messy and amaturish (sic) at best”. No, there are a range of important reasons why these moves should be made.

• “we need to face the fact that the partition of Ireland is a reality”....and discussion re all-island movements etc. - Three article moves are proposed so that they accord with the name of the state as no confusion will be caused by the moves – nothing more. It is unfortunate these moves may be the victims of much broader issues to which they have nothing to do with.

• The ”[s]obering fact is people that if we move these three articles this week then next week it will be another three and the week after another three, then followed by a similar run on categories and templates over an extended time.” – Three articles are proposed to be moved. If other articles in the future are to be moved, they too will need to be discussed just as things always are on Wikipedia. Every move must be assessed on a case by case basis.

SHORT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE MOVES

• RoI is not the correct name of the state, Ireland is. WP should be accurate.

• The moves will not cause any confusion.

• The concerted practice of using the RoI description rather than the name, Ireland, even where there is no possibility of confusion is offensive.

• Ireland is accepted as the name of the State by every country and international body. Where no confusion will be caused, WP should reflect this.

• The moves will mean that the articles will be consistent with the name of the state concerned and with other articles on the foreign relations of other states (where descriptions such as "Republic of" or "Kingdom of" etc. are generally not used - even where those descriptive terms are parts of the official name of the states concerned).

• The concerted practice of using the RoI description rather than the name causes confusion about what is the name of the State.

• The burden should be on those opposed to using the correct name of the State to show good reasons whay it should not be used - not the other way around.

In conclusion, please Support these three article moves."

This posting from the archives may help. Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 18:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply