![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
For summaries of the various arguments pertaining to particular names, see the archives. Any further discussion should take place here, rather than there.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As I see it, two mechanisms have been proposed for allowing links to statements of pros and cons (or pros only). Both have drawbacks IMO:
My suggestion: allow as many users as want to to link to a statement before the poll opens. The links can either be submitted in a designated section on the talk page, and moved onto the ballot by the moderator, or be added to a sub-page of the ballot which is linked to from the ballot and protected at the same moment the poll opens. All submissions would be in one of three forms:
I would suggest that the following rules should apply
Workable? Scolaire ( talk) 06:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
No. Links are totally inadequate. The disinterested voters we are going to attract from across En:Wiki must be given upfront information that RoI is the problem. The fact that people supporting the status quo here keep playing what they think are winning cards every time they get a reference to use of "the Republic" illustrates their real or feigned ignorance of the core issue. So I'll point out that:
and any other variants are totally different in concept and affect from calling the article "RoI". These versions make it clear that "Ireland" is the name of the state. That is one reason why I became worried when Masem and others apparently thought that dropping Ireland (Republic of) in the (xxx) vote was sensible because it is basically the same as RoI. It absolutely is not. Ireland (the Republic) is used in conversation for dab purposes by people who would never call this country the Republic of Ireland. Sarah777 ( talk) 06:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
@Sarah777, "Now we have (above) an RoI supporter saying 'Ireland is the name of the state, it is the recognised international name, it is the widely used common name.' But in the light of this new admission he then says - So What?" Please don't presume you know how I am going to vote simply because I am not going to push misinformation and nonsense in order to have my way. "Ireland" has been the name of the state since 1937. This is not new information, but please answer my question: So what? We have two articles to organise on this encyclopedia, both on topics named "Irealand". Simply knowing that both are properly called Ireland is of no aid to us in organising them. "Ireland is the name of the state." "Ireland is the name of the state." "Ireland is the name of the state." "Ireland is the name of the state." You can repeat this fact all you like. We all know it. But simply knowing it is of no use to us. It does not inform us on how to organise the two topics, both named "Ireland". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 11:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
@ras52, "And to me that seems like something that would be best written by an editor who is passionately anti-RoI." Normally that might seem logical, but the purpose of the into should be to inform the voters, not mislead them with nonsense. There is no much nonsense being floated around about "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. that it has a UK-bias, that it was a source of contention between the UK and Ireland, that it is offensive, that the UK has agreed not to use it, etc.) that I cannot see the outcome being anything but a POV-fest of drivel (undoubtedly backed up by the synthesis of hundreds of irrelevant citations - complete with ISBN numbers!). I would love to be proven wrong but there is nothing on this page - or from what I have read elsewhere from these editors - that would suggest to me that that is likely to be the case. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 11:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
So, when is the Final Poll gonna begin? GoodDay ( talk) 13:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be two issues on the table (there are likely others but they are not as objectionable)
I've no problem with having RoI mentioned as a descriptive of the country called Ireland, helping to clarify the country from the island. GoodDay ( talk) 15:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll go along with anything, that'll get this Poll started. GoodDay ( talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I support the two points made by Masem above. The #3 attempt summary works well if we have pros/cons for the options provided in other places which are put under protection during the poll. The only thing that needs to be added to the summary is a basic explanation of the current setup that the country is at ROI, island at Ireland (without trying to say its a good or bad thing) but pointing out people are divided on this matter and urge people to read the statements provided for the different options before voting also pointing out this poll will result in the articles staying at the chosen locations for 2 years.
One little thing i think needs changing from the summary is the bit where it talks about the six options below. It says "the six most likely options"... "most likely" should be removed as the options have already been decided. BritishWatcher ( talk) 16:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Do I have this right:
I have also posted message on your talk page, Masem. I have made an update to the ballot template that would allow a single uniform link to a personal rationale. The additional parameter ("link") is optional, but I think it was received as a compromise to the "comments in the balloting area/genuine rationale being lost it the shit-fest" problem. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I corrected a wee typo error below. -- HighKing ( talk) 23:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is a revamped text to lead in the poll. Based on the above, it alerts the reader that there's an issue with the current scheme due to ROI, but invites them to read essays further.
![]() | Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration ProjectThe name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it and comprising 26 of 32 counties, also named "Ireland". ( Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining 6 counties and 17% of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Currently, the state is located at " Republic of Ireland" while the island is located at " Ireland" (with an Ireland disambiguation page). There is discrepancy in the use of phrase "Republic of Ireland" to describe the state, some editors believing it to be inappropriate while others believing it to be appropriate (voters are encouraged to read the provided statements below to understand these positions before voting). As such, there is conflict as to which articles should cover the island and which should cover the state. Neither standard naming convention rules nor other states with similar naming conflicts (such as Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China) lead to a simple resolution on the matter, and long debates and edit wars have resulted from trying to resolve the issue. As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options, based on solutions used for other country names, from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below, presented in no particular or preferential order, along with links to essays from its participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice. Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the 26-county state named "Ireland" will be referred to in the text of other articles. See also
|
As for above, given that everyone seems open to providing input, let me suggest this:
Sorry to keep being so pedantic about language, but "There is discrepancy in the use of phrase 'Republic of Ireland' to describe the state" doesn't actually make sense to me. "There is disagreement over the use of phrase 'Republic of Ireland' to describe the state" is surely what is meant? Also, "the state article is located at...the island article is located at...", and "some editors believing it to be inappropriate and others believing it to be appropriate". Scolaire ( talk) 07:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Masem, on your latest “Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration Project” I welcome the removal of the ridiculous Belfast / Cork analogy and the nonsense about the UK’s use and abuse of the term Republic of Ireland being utterly irrelevant. However, the removal of the alternative options to polling has not been addressed. While no editor asked for it to be removed, its removal remains unexplained? I agree also with the point made above i.e. there is no discrepancy about the RoI being a descriptive term, it is a descriptive term. It’s the use and abuse of this descriptive term as the name for the Irish State which is the issue, and is reflected in the current article content on the RoI article. It’s the inability of editors to agree were the current article text should go which is the crux of the problem. I’m disappointed again to have to point out that Standard naming conventions have not been applied to the problem of Ireland being the internationally recognised name for the State, and the use of Ireland in a purely geographical sense. This is very disingenuous, and that I have once again to comment on it is becoming a bit of a concern. This issue could quite easily be resolved by doing one of two things, pointing editors to the discussion were editors attempted to apply Standard naming conventions to the issue, or removing the comments from the summary. That the subject of how the article “Ireland” should be named led to long debates and edit wars is a fact, it is wrong to imply that the long debates and edit wars were on the application of the naming conventions. I just have one other concern on the proposed text and it is this “As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter.” This gives the impression that after reasoned and rational discussion there was a stalemate in achieving consensus. This is not true. It is because there was no attempt by some editors to engage in reasoned, rational and fact/policy based discussion that it was decided to have a poll. Masem, you yourself have said on a number of occasions that you simply felt there was no alternative to polling. On a personal note, I think Wikipedia Editors will agree that when dealing with POV warriors achieving consensus is never possible, that’s why we have policies and guidelines. -- Domer48 'fenian' 10:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose; this is way worse than Version 1 and hardly any better than the original; it even still includes the phrase "26 county state". I'd suggest:
![]() | Proposed "non-RoI biased" summary of result of Ireland Collaboration ProjectThe name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it and comprising the sovereign country, also named "Ireland". ( Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining 17% of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Currently, the state is located at " Republic of Ireland" while the island is located at " Ireland" (with an Ireland disambiguation page). There is disagreement in the use of phrase "Republic of Ireland" to describe the state, some editors believing it to be essentially a British pov usage while others believe it to be appropriate (voters are encouraged to read the provided statements below to understand these positions before voting). As such, there is conflict as to which articles should cover the island and which should cover the state. Neither standard naming convention rules nor other states with similar naming conflicts (such as Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China) lead to a simple resolution on the matter, and long debates and edit wars have resulted from trying to resolve the issue. As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options, based on solutions used for other country names, from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below, presented in no particular or preferential order, along with links to essays from its participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice. Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the sovereign country "Ireland" will be referred to in the text of other articles. See also
|
Sarah777 ( talk) 10:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse this solution, and I volunteer to submit the piece in favour of the status quo. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with this version, but I do think that the Masem's earlier version was better written e.g. the part, "with an Ireland disambiguation page" doesn't make since as a written phrase (I assume what is meant is that "there is also an Ireland (disambiguation) page"). Also phrases like "British pov" is poorly written as it uses "wiki slang" (uncapitialised also) - there is nothing wrong a British POV (viz. point of view), I assume what is meant is a "British bias". Like Masem, I also don't think that that is the only reason to disagree with the status quo - it could, for example, also be said that "Ireland (state)" is simply better as per WP:NAME. Also "sovereign country" is a relatively unusual turn-of-phrase compared "sovereign state", or, better still, simply "state". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The intro text says the following: "Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the 26-county state named 'Ireland' will be referred to in the text of other articles."
Are we not basically agreed on this already? Otherwise don't we want to do things in this order: have the vote, calculate the result, make the page move, discuss in-article names? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 10:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Because a question can get lost in the middle of a ton of other stuff I've moved this down here:
We seem to have begun talking in terms of writing of essays. I understood from
way back that "linking" meant linking to anything we like as long as it's relevant e.g. "
Summary of pros and cons submitted by
Scolaire." I for one, if I decide to link at all, will be linking to something I have already written or collaborated in.
Scolaire (
talk)
13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration ProjectThe name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous ... edit wars have resulted from trying to resolve the issue. As there is a stalemate ... will be referred to in the text of other articles. Statements by individual membersSee also
|
I maintain my opposition to a set of formal arguments to be offered. We tried to make concise NPOV arguments. Nobody likes that. What Scoláire says about this never getting done by Christmas is spot-on. If people want to link to their arguments (whatever or wherever they are) they should be writing those arguments now in advance of the launch of the poll. Then in the ballot area each person who wishes to may link to their arguments. I oppose having arguments on the actual ballot at this stage. Real ballots don't have these, wikilinking should be sufficient. -- Evertype· ✆ 10:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with some of the points rasied above, and disagree with others by Scolaire. I agree that "the idea of the statements is to educate the uninitiated (and unwary) voter as to the arguments" and that "POV statements by definition are statements of opinion, not statements of fact." I don't think you'd get much disagreement there. However, to say then that statements "needn't and shouldn't adhere to WP:V" or that on statements "every link is included, without any kind of vetting" contradicts the previous comments. To provide a soap box to allow editors to keep saying what they have been "saying the last six months / six years" and will not "educate the uninitiated (and unwary) voter as to the arguments." I also agree that "synthesis in sourced statements is a far bigger hazard than unverifiable claims in unsourced ones" an example of this being when I quoted Masem who said quite clearly that "I would expect those that are backed by sources to have more stronger support from others" can with synthesis be suggested to mean "'I expect it will rain' sense and not in an 'I expect you to have that done by tomorrow' sense." Masem can talk for themselves, and I like to suggest that each statement have a hat note stating that statements which are sourced and referenced should be given more weight and consideration that POV statements. I agree "POV statements by definition are statements of opinion, not statements of fact" and this should be pointed out to the "uninitiated (and unwary) voter as to the arguments." -- Domer48 'fenian' 08:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Masem, can we see a mockup of the balloting page with (mock-up) links to the POV statements. I for one am definitely confused about what is being planned. I thought I knew what was going on, other editors also seem to think that they know what is going on, but yet we all seem to be thinking different things.
So, Masem, some idiot-proof clarity please. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 10:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I was thinking of, this is option A, I pulled it only as an example:
Name of page | Initial text (the first sentence in the article) |
---|---|
Ireland | Ireland is a European island and an independent state of the same name. (The text here was based on the article on Tasmania.) |
Ireland (disambiguation) | Ireland commonly refers to: ... |
Repeat for each option. No one is assigned to write an essay, they write what they feel is what is needed. -- MASEM ( t) 14:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
From the project page:
Please can some one update this and have clear dates? Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 10:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
In the event that it is agreed that the ballot page will contain links to arguments from participants, and that these will be clearly identified with respect to the option being addressed, and whether they are for or against (or whether they are general comments), then I am more and more convinced that the introduction should do no more than address the question being asked, and should say only the absolute minimum - preferably nothing at all - about the options themselves. Rather than continue to tweak the originally proposed introduction, I propose here a completely new one, which I think addresses in particular some of the reservations expressed by Domer48 and Sarah777 e.g. discussing some options at length while not mentioning others at all; saying that the poll was "agreed" or "decided" without saying that some participants were in favour of continuing dialogue instead; use of "26 counties" to refer to Ireland-the-state etc. Here it is:
NB I made one edit to this draft before there was any response. Scolaire ( talk) 10:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the text is a sight better than the previous 5 proposals. It appears we are going full circle with the wording coming round to the exact same text as ArbCom came up with when they outlined what the issue was. Giving editors the option of using the “General statements” as a platform for soap boxing will definitely give readers a sample of the quality of what passed for discussion, but they will not find it very informative. On the statements however Masem says they “expect those that are backed by sources to have more stronger support from others” and I’d hope that is the case. A note to that effect on the top of the statements could not possibly hurt and should not meet with any objections from editors? -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've decided to get in on this act. I don't think that a total rewrite of the into text is the right way to go as it puts us back at square one when the concerns raised about it are relatively trivial. "My version" is based on #4 but with some changes.
An "innovation" I've introduced is the section "Statements by individual members of the project". This section would link to "main" statements by individual editors. Specific pro/anti statements would also appear along side each option on the ballot. But allowing for general statements first (which may conclude being pro/anti an individual option) would, I think, be an easier introduction for the voters. Please also see my suggestion for a layout to these statements pages.
![]() | Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration ProjectThe name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it, also named "Ireland". ( Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining portion of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Currently, the state is located at " Republic of Ireland" while the island is located at " Ireland" (there is also an Ireland disambiguation page). Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules, which has led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues. Other naming conflicts that involve countries do not provide consistent advice for resolution of this issue (compare, for example, Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China). As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options, based on solutions used for other country names, from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below. They are presented in no particular or preferential order, along with links to essays from its participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice. Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the state will be referred to in the text of other articles. Statements by individual members of the projectSee also
|
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 08:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Editors of this discussion know full well what the issues are, restating them again is not isn't helpful and suggesting that the issues are not know won't get us any to consensus any quicker. A spa account who's first edit was on this project is still a riddle? -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Propose:
![]() | Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration ProjectThe name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it, also named "Ireland". ( Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining portion of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Currently, the state is located at " Republic of Ireland" while the island is located at " Ireland" (there is also an Ireland disambiguation page). Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules, which has led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues. Other naming conflicts that involve countries do not provide consistent advice for resolution of this issue (compare, for example, Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China). As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options, based on solutions used for other country names, from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below. They are presented in no particular or preferential order, along with links to essays from its participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice. Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the state will be referred to in the text of other articles. Statements by individual members of the projectA number of the Ireland Collaboration Project's editors have made position statements available here to help explain their viewpoints on the choices in the ballot below. See also
|
I hope this is OK. -- Evertype· ✆ 16:57, 13 July 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
For summaries of the various arguments pertaining to particular names, see the archives. Any further discussion should take place here, rather than there.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As I see it, two mechanisms have been proposed for allowing links to statements of pros and cons (or pros only). Both have drawbacks IMO:
My suggestion: allow as many users as want to to link to a statement before the poll opens. The links can either be submitted in a designated section on the talk page, and moved onto the ballot by the moderator, or be added to a sub-page of the ballot which is linked to from the ballot and protected at the same moment the poll opens. All submissions would be in one of three forms:
I would suggest that the following rules should apply
Workable? Scolaire ( talk) 06:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
No. Links are totally inadequate. The disinterested voters we are going to attract from across En:Wiki must be given upfront information that RoI is the problem. The fact that people supporting the status quo here keep playing what they think are winning cards every time they get a reference to use of "the Republic" illustrates their real or feigned ignorance of the core issue. So I'll point out that:
and any other variants are totally different in concept and affect from calling the article "RoI". These versions make it clear that "Ireland" is the name of the state. That is one reason why I became worried when Masem and others apparently thought that dropping Ireland (Republic of) in the (xxx) vote was sensible because it is basically the same as RoI. It absolutely is not. Ireland (the Republic) is used in conversation for dab purposes by people who would never call this country the Republic of Ireland. Sarah777 ( talk) 06:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
@Sarah777, "Now we have (above) an RoI supporter saying 'Ireland is the name of the state, it is the recognised international name, it is the widely used common name.' But in the light of this new admission he then says - So What?" Please don't presume you know how I am going to vote simply because I am not going to push misinformation and nonsense in order to have my way. "Ireland" has been the name of the state since 1937. This is not new information, but please answer my question: So what? We have two articles to organise on this encyclopedia, both on topics named "Irealand". Simply knowing that both are properly called Ireland is of no aid to us in organising them. "Ireland is the name of the state." "Ireland is the name of the state." "Ireland is the name of the state." "Ireland is the name of the state." You can repeat this fact all you like. We all know it. But simply knowing it is of no use to us. It does not inform us on how to organise the two topics, both named "Ireland". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 11:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
@ras52, "And to me that seems like something that would be best written by an editor who is passionately anti-RoI." Normally that might seem logical, but the purpose of the into should be to inform the voters, not mislead them with nonsense. There is no much nonsense being floated around about "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. that it has a UK-bias, that it was a source of contention between the UK and Ireland, that it is offensive, that the UK has agreed not to use it, etc.) that I cannot see the outcome being anything but a POV-fest of drivel (undoubtedly backed up by the synthesis of hundreds of irrelevant citations - complete with ISBN numbers!). I would love to be proven wrong but there is nothing on this page - or from what I have read elsewhere from these editors - that would suggest to me that that is likely to be the case. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 11:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
So, when is the Final Poll gonna begin? GoodDay ( talk) 13:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be two issues on the table (there are likely others but they are not as objectionable)
I've no problem with having RoI mentioned as a descriptive of the country called Ireland, helping to clarify the country from the island. GoodDay ( talk) 15:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll go along with anything, that'll get this Poll started. GoodDay ( talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I support the two points made by Masem above. The #3 attempt summary works well if we have pros/cons for the options provided in other places which are put under protection during the poll. The only thing that needs to be added to the summary is a basic explanation of the current setup that the country is at ROI, island at Ireland (without trying to say its a good or bad thing) but pointing out people are divided on this matter and urge people to read the statements provided for the different options before voting also pointing out this poll will result in the articles staying at the chosen locations for 2 years.
One little thing i think needs changing from the summary is the bit where it talks about the six options below. It says "the six most likely options"... "most likely" should be removed as the options have already been decided. BritishWatcher ( talk) 16:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Do I have this right:
I have also posted message on your talk page, Masem. I have made an update to the ballot template that would allow a single uniform link to a personal rationale. The additional parameter ("link") is optional, but I think it was received as a compromise to the "comments in the balloting area/genuine rationale being lost it the shit-fest" problem. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I corrected a wee typo error below. -- HighKing ( talk) 23:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is a revamped text to lead in the poll. Based on the above, it alerts the reader that there's an issue with the current scheme due to ROI, but invites them to read essays further.
![]() | Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration ProjectThe name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it and comprising 26 of 32 counties, also named "Ireland". ( Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining 6 counties and 17% of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Currently, the state is located at " Republic of Ireland" while the island is located at " Ireland" (with an Ireland disambiguation page). There is discrepancy in the use of phrase "Republic of Ireland" to describe the state, some editors believing it to be inappropriate while others believing it to be appropriate (voters are encouraged to read the provided statements below to understand these positions before voting). As such, there is conflict as to which articles should cover the island and which should cover the state. Neither standard naming convention rules nor other states with similar naming conflicts (such as Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China) lead to a simple resolution on the matter, and long debates and edit wars have resulted from trying to resolve the issue. As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options, based on solutions used for other country names, from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below, presented in no particular or preferential order, along with links to essays from its participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice. Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the 26-county state named "Ireland" will be referred to in the text of other articles. See also
|
As for above, given that everyone seems open to providing input, let me suggest this:
Sorry to keep being so pedantic about language, but "There is discrepancy in the use of phrase 'Republic of Ireland' to describe the state" doesn't actually make sense to me. "There is disagreement over the use of phrase 'Republic of Ireland' to describe the state" is surely what is meant? Also, "the state article is located at...the island article is located at...", and "some editors believing it to be inappropriate and others believing it to be appropriate". Scolaire ( talk) 07:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Masem, on your latest “Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration Project” I welcome the removal of the ridiculous Belfast / Cork analogy and the nonsense about the UK’s use and abuse of the term Republic of Ireland being utterly irrelevant. However, the removal of the alternative options to polling has not been addressed. While no editor asked for it to be removed, its removal remains unexplained? I agree also with the point made above i.e. there is no discrepancy about the RoI being a descriptive term, it is a descriptive term. It’s the use and abuse of this descriptive term as the name for the Irish State which is the issue, and is reflected in the current article content on the RoI article. It’s the inability of editors to agree were the current article text should go which is the crux of the problem. I’m disappointed again to have to point out that Standard naming conventions have not been applied to the problem of Ireland being the internationally recognised name for the State, and the use of Ireland in a purely geographical sense. This is very disingenuous, and that I have once again to comment on it is becoming a bit of a concern. This issue could quite easily be resolved by doing one of two things, pointing editors to the discussion were editors attempted to apply Standard naming conventions to the issue, or removing the comments from the summary. That the subject of how the article “Ireland” should be named led to long debates and edit wars is a fact, it is wrong to imply that the long debates and edit wars were on the application of the naming conventions. I just have one other concern on the proposed text and it is this “As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter.” This gives the impression that after reasoned and rational discussion there was a stalemate in achieving consensus. This is not true. It is because there was no attempt by some editors to engage in reasoned, rational and fact/policy based discussion that it was decided to have a poll. Masem, you yourself have said on a number of occasions that you simply felt there was no alternative to polling. On a personal note, I think Wikipedia Editors will agree that when dealing with POV warriors achieving consensus is never possible, that’s why we have policies and guidelines. -- Domer48 'fenian' 10:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose; this is way worse than Version 1 and hardly any better than the original; it even still includes the phrase "26 county state". I'd suggest:
![]() | Proposed "non-RoI biased" summary of result of Ireland Collaboration ProjectThe name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it and comprising the sovereign country, also named "Ireland". ( Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining 17% of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Currently, the state is located at " Republic of Ireland" while the island is located at " Ireland" (with an Ireland disambiguation page). There is disagreement in the use of phrase "Republic of Ireland" to describe the state, some editors believing it to be essentially a British pov usage while others believe it to be appropriate (voters are encouraged to read the provided statements below to understand these positions before voting). As such, there is conflict as to which articles should cover the island and which should cover the state. Neither standard naming convention rules nor other states with similar naming conflicts (such as Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China) lead to a simple resolution on the matter, and long debates and edit wars have resulted from trying to resolve the issue. As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options, based on solutions used for other country names, from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below, presented in no particular or preferential order, along with links to essays from its participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice. Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the sovereign country "Ireland" will be referred to in the text of other articles. See also
|
Sarah777 ( talk) 10:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Endorse this solution, and I volunteer to submit the piece in favour of the status quo. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with this version, but I do think that the Masem's earlier version was better written e.g. the part, "with an Ireland disambiguation page" doesn't make since as a written phrase (I assume what is meant is that "there is also an Ireland (disambiguation) page"). Also phrases like "British pov" is poorly written as it uses "wiki slang" (uncapitialised also) - there is nothing wrong a British POV (viz. point of view), I assume what is meant is a "British bias". Like Masem, I also don't think that that is the only reason to disagree with the status quo - it could, for example, also be said that "Ireland (state)" is simply better as per WP:NAME. Also "sovereign country" is a relatively unusual turn-of-phrase compared "sovereign state", or, better still, simply "state". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The intro text says the following: "Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the 26-county state named 'Ireland' will be referred to in the text of other articles."
Are we not basically agreed on this already? Otherwise don't we want to do things in this order: have the vote, calculate the result, make the page move, discuss in-article names? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 10:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Because a question can get lost in the middle of a ton of other stuff I've moved this down here:
We seem to have begun talking in terms of writing of essays. I understood from
way back that "linking" meant linking to anything we like as long as it's relevant e.g. "
Summary of pros and cons submitted by
Scolaire." I for one, if I decide to link at all, will be linking to something I have already written or collaborated in.
Scolaire (
talk)
13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration ProjectThe name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous ... edit wars have resulted from trying to resolve the issue. As there is a stalemate ... will be referred to in the text of other articles. Statements by individual membersSee also
|
I maintain my opposition to a set of formal arguments to be offered. We tried to make concise NPOV arguments. Nobody likes that. What Scoláire says about this never getting done by Christmas is spot-on. If people want to link to their arguments (whatever or wherever they are) they should be writing those arguments now in advance of the launch of the poll. Then in the ballot area each person who wishes to may link to their arguments. I oppose having arguments on the actual ballot at this stage. Real ballots don't have these, wikilinking should be sufficient. -- Evertype· ✆ 10:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with some of the points rasied above, and disagree with others by Scolaire. I agree that "the idea of the statements is to educate the uninitiated (and unwary) voter as to the arguments" and that "POV statements by definition are statements of opinion, not statements of fact." I don't think you'd get much disagreement there. However, to say then that statements "needn't and shouldn't adhere to WP:V" or that on statements "every link is included, without any kind of vetting" contradicts the previous comments. To provide a soap box to allow editors to keep saying what they have been "saying the last six months / six years" and will not "educate the uninitiated (and unwary) voter as to the arguments." I also agree that "synthesis in sourced statements is a far bigger hazard than unverifiable claims in unsourced ones" an example of this being when I quoted Masem who said quite clearly that "I would expect those that are backed by sources to have more stronger support from others" can with synthesis be suggested to mean "'I expect it will rain' sense and not in an 'I expect you to have that done by tomorrow' sense." Masem can talk for themselves, and I like to suggest that each statement have a hat note stating that statements which are sourced and referenced should be given more weight and consideration that POV statements. I agree "POV statements by definition are statements of opinion, not statements of fact" and this should be pointed out to the "uninitiated (and unwary) voter as to the arguments." -- Domer48 'fenian' 08:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Masem, can we see a mockup of the balloting page with (mock-up) links to the POV statements. I for one am definitely confused about what is being planned. I thought I knew what was going on, other editors also seem to think that they know what is going on, but yet we all seem to be thinking different things.
So, Masem, some idiot-proof clarity please. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 10:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I was thinking of, this is option A, I pulled it only as an example:
Name of page | Initial text (the first sentence in the article) |
---|---|
Ireland | Ireland is a European island and an independent state of the same name. (The text here was based on the article on Tasmania.) |
Ireland (disambiguation) | Ireland commonly refers to: ... |
Repeat for each option. No one is assigned to write an essay, they write what they feel is what is needed. -- MASEM ( t) 14:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
From the project page:
Please can some one update this and have clear dates? Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 10:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
In the event that it is agreed that the ballot page will contain links to arguments from participants, and that these will be clearly identified with respect to the option being addressed, and whether they are for or against (or whether they are general comments), then I am more and more convinced that the introduction should do no more than address the question being asked, and should say only the absolute minimum - preferably nothing at all - about the options themselves. Rather than continue to tweak the originally proposed introduction, I propose here a completely new one, which I think addresses in particular some of the reservations expressed by Domer48 and Sarah777 e.g. discussing some options at length while not mentioning others at all; saying that the poll was "agreed" or "decided" without saying that some participants were in favour of continuing dialogue instead; use of "26 counties" to refer to Ireland-the-state etc. Here it is:
NB I made one edit to this draft before there was any response. Scolaire ( talk) 10:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the text is a sight better than the previous 5 proposals. It appears we are going full circle with the wording coming round to the exact same text as ArbCom came up with when they outlined what the issue was. Giving editors the option of using the “General statements” as a platform for soap boxing will definitely give readers a sample of the quality of what passed for discussion, but they will not find it very informative. On the statements however Masem says they “expect those that are backed by sources to have more stronger support from others” and I’d hope that is the case. A note to that effect on the top of the statements could not possibly hurt and should not meet with any objections from editors? -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've decided to get in on this act. I don't think that a total rewrite of the into text is the right way to go as it puts us back at square one when the concerns raised about it are relatively trivial. "My version" is based on #4 but with some changes.
An "innovation" I've introduced is the section "Statements by individual members of the project". This section would link to "main" statements by individual editors. Specific pro/anti statements would also appear along side each option on the ballot. But allowing for general statements first (which may conclude being pro/anti an individual option) would, I think, be an easier introduction for the voters. Please also see my suggestion for a layout to these statements pages.
![]() | Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration ProjectThe name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it, also named "Ireland". ( Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining portion of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Currently, the state is located at " Republic of Ireland" while the island is located at " Ireland" (there is also an Ireland disambiguation page). Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules, which has led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues. Other naming conflicts that involve countries do not provide consistent advice for resolution of this issue (compare, for example, Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China). As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options, based on solutions used for other country names, from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below. They are presented in no particular or preferential order, along with links to essays from its participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice. Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the state will be referred to in the text of other articles. Statements by individual members of the projectSee also
|
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid ( coṁrá) 08:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Editors of this discussion know full well what the issues are, restating them again is not isn't helpful and suggesting that the issues are not know won't get us any to consensus any quicker. A spa account who's first edit was on this project is still a riddle? -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Propose:
![]() | Summary of result of Ireland Collaboration ProjectThe name "Ireland" is considered to be ambiguous with respect to a number of meanings, but primarily between two entities: the island named "Ireland", and the state that occupies about 83% of it, also named "Ireland". ( Northern Ireland, which comprises the remaining portion of the island, is part of the United Kingdom.) Currently, the state is located at " Republic of Ireland" while the island is located at " Ireland" (there is also an Ireland disambiguation page). Both uses of the name "Ireland" are considered equally valid and neither can be selected as the most common per standard naming convention rules, which has led to long debates (and edit wars) about the issues. Other naming conflicts that involve countries do not provide consistent advice for resolution of this issue (compare, for example, Luxembourg, Georgia (country), Tasmania, and People's Republic of China). As there is a stalemate in achieving consensus on the issue, it has been decided to use the results of a poll of all Wikipedia editors to resolve the matter. The six most likely options, based on solutions used for other country names, from the Ireland Collaboration Project are listed below. They are presented in no particular or preferential order, along with links to essays from its participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice. Regardless of the solution, appropriate hatnotes will be used to guide readers to the appropriate articles. Further discussion at the Ireland Collaboration Project will also take place before renaming to resolve other issues such as how the state will be referred to in the text of other articles. Statements by individual members of the projectA number of the Ireland Collaboration Project's editors have made position statements available here to help explain their viewpoints on the choices in the ballot below. See also
|
I hope this is OK. -- Evertype· ✆ 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)