Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names

Confirmation of vote result

I have hand-checked (and then double checked with a computer) to validate the same results that User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid arrived at at User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/Poll on Ireland article names. Specifically, 239 "votes" were cast, 5 of which were empty. Of the remaining 234 votes, applying the STV poll process, we end up with Option F as the "50%" winner (both in total number of all non-empty votes, and in total number of remaining ballots) by Round 4, with 50% of all votes, empty or not, by Round 5. The second best option that survived to round 5 was Option E, followed by C, B, D, and A.

I do not see any obvious evidence of sockpuppetry or the like, nowhere close to ask for a sock investigation. All votes appear to be valid per the requirements we set up (registered account after June 1, etc.)

Thus, for purposes of moving on, we can consider Option F (aka "status quo") as the default naming scheme for the next two years barring any mass agreement on a different compromise solution that everyone agrees on in the next two weeks or so while other issues are resolved. I'm not seeing a lot of luck towards this "11th hour" compromise, but I'm not ruling it out just yet.

A reminder: even if this is the status quo, no article names changes should be made until satisfactory conclusion of all other issues are determined. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Option-F has prevailed, so be it. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, at what point does the two years start - today, 13 September, or the time at which a conclusion is reached on other issues? I'm not bothered from a personal perspective, but I think it would be useful for us to be clear about this now, to avoid disputes later. Pfainuk talk 16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It should start once all matters have been resolved over at the collaboration project page and Arbcom have been informed and they agree to everything and confirm its locked for 2 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Masem. I'm a little ticked off to be honest. Option F is *not* the default naming scheme for the next two years! The Arbcom ruling was to develop procedures "on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles". Furthermore, we were deciding just that - on a comprehensive solution involving article names and general usage - even up to *your* last attempt at a comprehensive solution which failed. So my quest is: Where on earth did an agreement to single out the "Ireland" article and exclusively vote on that come from? Who agreed to it? Pardon my naivity and ignorance, but that isn't what I and many other editors signed up for. So we invested over 6 months at a comprehensive solution, and then at a time when most people are away on theie holidays, it gets turned into a single issue vote. No way José. There was *no* agreement to decide to exclusively vote on one element of the problem.

On another note, I see that you have summarily failed to deal with the issue of vote tampering. A vote was illegally removed due to a banning of the editor for creating and using a sock account after voting (which means his vote was cast when he was *not* a sock, and therefore legal).

And another quick check of votes shows that the vote of User:Matheuler was illegally removed.

This process is a joke. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The sockpuppeteering was confirmed. It was therefore appropriate to strike the vote. Again, it is known that the person was using one alternate account. It is therefore not entirely inappropriate to suggest that they used other accounts that CheckUser did not uncover (remember, "CheckUser is not magic fairy dust"). The vote of User:Matheuler appears to have been appropriately removed. The user's first contribution was on 8 August, while the rules restricted the franchise to users active before 1 June. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the rules. Even the Florida vote looks cut and dried compared to this. --HighKing (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, please identify the specific outcome that changes as a result of that one vote. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The "process" ended with the close of poll. It is now time to face up to the fact that F came out "on top" - stop trying to retrospectively deny the result. Djegan (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The endless crying and moaning by some people is a joke. Masem, this nonsense can not go on for weeks. there is no possible room for compromise. please end this matter. Archive / lock the page BritishWatcher (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)At least we agree about this being "a joke" and "nonsense" and the fact that most editors (the gloating kind) have ruled out any "possible room for compromise". Yes. Let's end this matter. Some of us, at least, can walk about with a bit of self respect left intact. --HighKing (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Although the point about Matheuler is correct, the accounts first edit was after the cut off point (june 2009) but account creation was "22:38, 27 July 2006 Matheuler new user account " That vote should not have been removed, but that vote does not change the outcome of the result and nor did the Sockpuppet whos vote was rightly removed. There were several votes for E which quite possibly could have been Socks, it would certainly justify a full investigation if the current result is somehow seen as invalid. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Gosh. So you agree that the "official result" is wrong? But yeah - sure - just sweep it under the carpet. We have the assurance that this result has been "hand checked" for days no less! And I agree that lots of votes for E were probably socks, probably a good idea to halve the amount of valid E vote. Has the added benefit of making sure that F was a landslide. You didn't happen to work in Florida in 2004 at some stage did you? --HighKing (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Its clear to everyone that one vote does not impact on the result. However, in fairness the vote should be restored and a full recount take place. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you'd get agreement for that. But we could take a vote to see I suppose? ... Nah. --HighKing (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why the vote should not be restored and recounted to ensure fairness, but ofcourse it doesnt change the winning result. I am ofcourse only suggesting a recount of the current votes with the incorrectly removed vote included, not restarting the vote. Recounts are perfectly acceptable when an error has been made, the reason the vote was removed originally is clear. A first edit taking place 3 years after the account was created, is pretty rare. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be glad to restore the Matheuler vote (that's why I discouraged people from removing any vote but their own). However, as that user voted B, E, and C in that order, it does not change how the end votes work out (that vote still ultimately ends up as E) and does not change when Option F crosses the 50% mark. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you confirming that there was poll tampering then? Will there be a non-trivial sanction? --HighKing (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No. This is a completely open process, and the fact that there was the removal of Matheuler's vote and it was caught is how that system is error corrected. Anyone is free to run the numbers themselves. Tampering would require that part of this vote be secret so that what went in wasn't the same that came out. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And no, there will be no sanctions or anything. There was nothing in place to prevent any other user beyond myself from removing votes, though I did discourage it. Furthermore, the means why Matheuler's vote was removed is an honest mistake that I would have likely done myself if it was brought to my attention: by contribs, that user looks recent, but you need to look at the logs to get the right date. That's a rarity and thus easily mistaken - and in this case corrected. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

One too many "easy mistakes" ... --HighKing (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the rules were drafted to permit users with 0 prior contributions to participate. In fact, it would appear they were constructed with the exact opposite intention. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The June 1 rule was there because 1) we blocked IPs from voting and 2) we didn't want people though difficult to track sock/meat puppetry to sign up for accounts to sway the votes. There's nothing wrong with an inactive account for 2 years (clearly well before this was considered an issue) to become active if all they do is vote. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, although i wish we had considered doing something about stopping clear inactive accounts before hand, but that vote would still be perfectly valid in such circumstances anyway. Thanks masem for sorting the problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Collaboration is failing, Masem

Masem: I appreciate what you have said, that if there were an actual compromise (D, for instance, which even BritishWatcher says he could support) that could be packaged together with a set of other agreed items. But you now appear to be refusing to help guide the project, as you do not actually advocate such a compromise and are doing nothing to encourage the project to discuss compromise and a complete package. Your approach is not that of a moderator: it is entirely laissez-faire. "If you all agree on compromise I will agree with you." No sign of encouraging us to do so. I don't see you encouraging anyone to look at the long term — you're content to lock the article title for two years so we can all come back here in 2011 and go through the same bullshit again.

In my view, people like BritishWatcher have shown no real good faith in this project. He has teased us about his willingness to compromise over and over again—but because someone like Sarah won't agree to his stipulation that the project agrees that "Republic of Ireland" is not a "British POV" he has dug his heels in and will brook no further discussion of compromise. It doesn't matter that people like me have said that I am happy to have the Project agree that it is not "British POV"—Sarah won't so BritishWatcher can refuse to budge. He sets his stipulation so high that he has no need to compromise, to attempt to compromise, and so now, by insisting on F, he guarantees a "win", which makes him happy. And you, as moderator, aren't doing anything real to help encourage an actual compromise by actually addressing this.

Perhaps I have simply wasted many, many, many hours as a member of this Project, and I should rather resign from it than maintain any hope. I expected collaboration. I expected good faith. I expected a willingness on all sides to put the real problem to bed: that the use of the title Republic of Ireland for the state is problematic enough that we know it will return to plague us later. As far as I can see, Ireland (state) would not cause such a problem. Rannṗáirtí shows here that F was "supportable" by 77% of all voters, and that D and E were supportable by 73% of all voters. He also shows that F was only supportable by 50% of IECOLL members, while D was supported by 73% of IECOLL members, and E by 64%. Since BritishWatcher considers E to be anathema it can be discarded; but more IECOLL members could support D than any of the other options. You, Masem, could encourage IECOLL to choose D as a better compromise, if you wanted. If that failed in two weeks or whatever, then you'd have your F to fall back on. But unless you take the reins and actually do some encouragement, there's nothing to be said for this Collaboration Project but that it is doomed to fail, and we can expect another ArbCom process to be opened in 2011. -- Evertype·✆ 11:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How can Masem as a moderator support an option, that is hardly neutral. I also do not consider my actions on this talk page to be teasing people, i would be happy to remain silent. However when i see people talking nonsense or rubbishing the entire poll trying to pretend it should all be considered invalid, i cant remain silent. Sorry but this matter is over, we can not go against the verdict of the community after clearly stating the poll was binding for 2 years on the ballot page. Attempts to get consensus failed, we agreed a poll, you were one of the leading people rushing us to the poll, i was one of the people stalling at every step of the way. How times change BritishWatcher (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been teasing about compromise for a long time, not just post-Poll. The poll is there for us to analyse, is it not? [The table I mentioned does that. It shows what 239 people community wide could support. It also shows what members of IECOLL could support. D does better within IECOLL. Should this not be discussed? Masem has indicated that he would be willing to have it discussed. As a good moderator (in my view) he ought to encourage that discussion. The problem is that we're going to be back here in two years. I'd like to avoid that. Wouldn't you? If D does best amongst interested parties (IECOLL members), shouldn't that encourage compromise, as the best solution? It has always been possible to consider such compromise. Masem says that it is possible to do so even now. Will you? -- Evertype·✆ 12:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider being prepared to compromise through the poll teasing, it was rejected or ignored by people on all sides anyway, so theres nothing i could do. The ballot page clearly states the result will be binding for 2 years, it doesnt say we will look and debate the result to decide which is the best option.

The moment for compromise is over, i pointed out the point of no return for me.. it was the day after the poll had closed. Even if i was to drop my opposition to compromise, i think there have been many less involved editors who have commented here saying its unacceptable to go back now or try to interpret peoples results in a way they were not meant to. sorry BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You are ignoring what Masem said before the poll, during the poll, and now after the poll. You've dug your heels in. So much for good faith. -- Evertype·✆ 12:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed i have dug my heels in, i have made this perfectly clear. I had made comments that i was still prepared to accept compromise on certain conditions if others were ok with it. But that changed at a certain point on the 14th. I then striked out my previous comments that id made on the idea of compromise and stated i strongly opposed any form of compromise on this matter. You saw my comments as teasing, it wasnt, it was simply letting everyone know i was digging my heels in and to highlight compromise was going to be that little bit harder if others were considering it. Many other people here who are less involved have said to go back now is unacceptable, even some supporters of other options who didnt want F. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Untrue. You teased about being willing to compromise before the poll, and during the poll, and evidently after the poll until the 14th. Frankly, your attitude suggests to me that you were never honest about compromise. Never honest about collaboration. It doesn't matter that moderates like me agreed with you (many times) that we could stipulate that the "British POV myth" was just a myth. You always found others who would not agree, so you could enjoy your righteousness as you dug your heels in. As I've said on your talk page, you've got your veto. You win. I don't have any respect for your position. You evince no genuine interest in the long-term good of the Ireland articles on the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 12:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Im honoured you think i have the sort of power and influence you seem to be suggesting Evertype, but i simply dont. Look at all the other people (not hardlinee supporters of F) who have come out above saying going back on the result now is wrong. Why do you not attempt to change their mind? You can think what you like about my motives or intentions, but the record shows when i first got involved i was fully supportive of moving the article to what is now option D and that moderate view continued for some time. Its been disgusting attacks on British editors by certain people, but also the fact more evidence was presented showing ROI is used often in Ireland and lack of evidence its offensive in Ireland that has formed the strong view i hold today on this matter. What others think of me or the positions i hold really does not concern me in truth. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Recently I was called a pedophile by a British editor, unlike you I don't roar about it all the time. Shucks BW, give over! Tfz 13:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between one British editor calling you something who later gets banned anyway, and people claiming "British POV" which is not an attack on a single editor but attacks on all British editors as though they are up to no good. especially when this claim is made by someone who has been sanctioned by Arbcom for her disgusting anti British POV pushing. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and he was allowed to run riot with his insults for a week before getting banned, and although you were involved in some of the discourse, you didn't even raise a whisper of objection. Finally it was an American (or German) admin who banned him. Tfz 14:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as im aware no one tried to do anything about his actions, all that happened was someone questioned his username, which led to nothing. It was only on the last day when he had enough fun that he clearly broke the rules and got himself a perm block. Its still very different having 1 British editor breaking the rules and one editor attacking all British editors for pushing some form of "British POV" lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

POV = "point of view". Everyone has a point of view, Wikipedia requires a NPOV. Please don't be making excuses for the dirt bird, and he got blocked when he eventually called me a pedophile. Laugh, laugh, that's all you ever did on this page, as you did then. Sheesh! Tfz 14:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Im not defending the guy, all im saying is theres a big difference between a British editor breaking the rules and getting banned, compared to people claiming "British POV" which to me seems like a violation of WP:AGF as far as im concerned, but its been allowed and tolerated through this whole dispute. Whats worse is its been led by someone who has been sanctioned by Arbcom for pushing Anti British POV, but still its been seen as acceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The penny will never drop will it? There was/is a dispute between Ireland and the UK about the usage of the name Ireland. It is written here at Wikipedia in black and white for everyone to read. There is a British POV on this subject, will you ever get real and stop denying history. 14:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Please read this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Irish_state#Name_dispute_with_the_UK Tfz 14:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of evidence has been provided over the past 6 months showing its not just "British pov". BritishWatcher (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I must now resign from this Project. I regret the time and effort I have put into it. It has failed to achieve genuine dialogue, good will, and anything like a solution to the problems besetting the Ireland articles on the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 12:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again I find the idea of effectively having voters later preferences count against their first preference to be fundamentally flawed. My final vote was FED, if I thought having D as a third preference made it less likely that F or E would be implemented I would probably not have included it. The ballot page says "Please vote using PRSTV" and "A member of the ArbCom committee will adjudicate the result of the vote", no mention of future discussion or potential interpretation is given. Guest9999 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a moderator - but I can't force the people involved to go in a direction that they don't want to seem to go into. I have tried to encourage further discussion towards consensus post vote but people seem against that. I can't change their minds nor force them to discuss consensus, only make sure that followup conversations are guided in the right direction. Also, I will point out that by focuses only on the IECOLL group results (and thus saying that we should look at D) you are ignoring the wider consensus by non-IECOLL members, which is not appropriate. Any talk towards compromise has to be in the light of the final all-WP vote. Again, I don't think there's a chance there will be such at this point based on various positions, but if there was, we can't ingore non-IECOLL contributions. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well once you have a vote its unlikely that the "winners", or at least those such as BW, will want to compromise. Its happened now but I think there are some lessons to be learnt for the future: (i) There was never really an attempt to structure the argument and isolate the issues, that would have been a tedious task but it might have allowed progress; (ii) The vote as to an alternative to ROI once run should have resulted in that being the alternative; (iii) with no summary of the position, only partisan statements neutral editors probably couldn't see what the fuss was about; (iv) the poll should have been driven by the moderator not by editors. --Snowded ^TALK 14:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Once you have a vote, it's unfair to ask the "winners" to compromise. If it was agreed beforehand that the poll result is to be binding, then the poll result is binding, and this means all results are binding, including the ones you don't like. I agree that it is a tragic failing. ArbCom could have been less timid, issuing a non-precedent decision (one which binds the parties, but not the committee). Users could have proceeded with a method other than STV (approval voting, for instance). More importantly, editors could have taken some reasonable steps to ignore those on the fringes (after all, if they won't work with you, work without them), and we might not have needed a poll. Alternatively, all concerned could have just shut up and engaged in more productive activities instead of persisting this dispute for seven years, but that seems too much to hope for. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit cart-before-the-horse. Blaming the poll for removing a willingness to compromise rather ignores the problem that months of discussion produced little sign of any viable compromise. It's true that the structured approach initially promised never materialised, and I regret that ... but as you may recall, I was the one who tried a bit of structuring by offering a long list of propositions. I thought that approach had potential, but lost hope in when it became clear that a number of editors just wanted to argue that black is white. The aftermath of that process is what led us to a poll, and I don't have much faith that a moderator-led structured approach would have taken us down a significantly different path.

Britishwatcher's gloating now does absolutely nothing to help restore calm, and his I-would-have-compromised-if is just a disruptive tease. But there is another group of intransigent editors, viz. those who insist that "Republic of Ireland" is absolutely unacceptable, and I'm rather weary of hearing people from that camp complaining that others are unwilling to compromise.

I have yet to see a simple and clear statement from any of the opponents of RoI which plausibly explains why it is so unacceptable. There are subsidiary arguments, such as the fact the 1948 Act makes RoI the description, not the name ... but that's a technical point which evades the core problem of RoI-opponents, viz. that they find it offensive. This has puzzled me throughout, and it has been the elephant in the room throughout the process: the central question which has never been adequately addressed. If those opposed to RoI had addressed this directly instead of shielding behind technical arguments, we might have gotten a deeper understanding of each other's positions. But that didn't happen, so we are where we are: a deadlock resolved by a poll, a crude mechanism which has left many editors dissatisfied but which is arbcom-backed so it does offer 2 years of stability. Not ideal, but it's the best we can do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to blame anyone BHG, just trying to make some notes for the future (well two years hence on this case but for others). The point was that when a poll is started that is probably it. I do think that there was no real attempt to create a structured approach to the issue. That could not have been done by any of the protagonists. The first set of moderators retired hurt, and then we more or less moved to a poll without realising it. This article needed structuring and I think you were going down a good route there which should have been picked up. I think I said way back that this one needed firm moderation with knowledge of the subject (I proposed you as I remember it!). It may be that the ROI issue needs to go into a separate discussion. Its use by the British Government, their post GFA non-use for me was critical, in effect use of ROI was a perpetuation of the pre GFA Unionist position (and that was evident for several editors supporting it but not all). Fully agree on BW by the way, making matters considerably worse.

I mentioned to one other editor off line this week that maybe all interested should organise a weekend overt a beer sometime next year to try and thrash out some of the issues. It was a throw away line, but it just might work --Snowded ^TALK 14:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If people did not keep attacking this poll, i would have no need to make any further comment on this page. But as people are attempting to undermine or ignore the vote, i have no choice but to comment. If people really think my actions or comments have been "gloating" id hate to see what you think of my comments if i was actually trying to gloat because i think ive been fairly reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, we agree about a lot :)

The structured route offered a lot of potential in theory, but I think you're right that it would have needed firm moderation -- very firm, I think! And that's the problem: we didn't see any sign of neutral people volunteering to be those tough moderators, and the experienced moderator we had was overwhelmed by the ferocity of this tangle. If this all arises again, will things be any different? Can we really expect anyone with the relevant skills to volunteer to put themselves into a situation where they'd have to deal with so such deeply tangled history? It sounds to me like a recipe for migraines ... but maybe arbcom could conscript someone to do the job as penance for some truly wojous behaviour. <evil grin>

You may well be right that an offline meeting over a few beers could help. Face-to-face encounters offer much better communication than the telephone, and infinitely better than letters typed on a screen. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like exhaustion has set into the process, and all we are left with is an aftermath of sorts. That is what happens when most don't want to compromise. As stated I was prepared to compromise, but many would not leave their positions, many hold onto RoI like a life and death issue, and only very few will insist on Ireland for the state, as we do have a nice article already at the Ireland page. Things are still looking up on this, and in all fairness to Masem, who has preformed an admirable task here, the process is still alive. Tfz 15:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A compromise was on offer, which would have involved renaming "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (state)". Opponents of ROI, among others, failed to embrace it and a poll resulted. Mooretwin (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish we could all move on & archive/collapse these Post-Poll discussions. Holy smokers. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit war on this talk-page, is one reason. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

People should bear in mind that the alternative to this collaboration is to return to Arbcom with the likelihood of their banning some of the editors who did most to make the collaboration fail. Maybe those editors should bear that in mind, unless what they really want to see themselves as martyrs.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's striking that as soon as people began voting and it became obvious that 'F' would be one of the final options, it suddenly became incumbent on 'F' supporters to "compromise". Whatever that means. Because surely the only compromise possible for supporters of the status quo would be to say yeah, fair enough, rule option F out of the poll. That's just perverse.

Strongly agree with the comments above on interpreting the poll post facto. It shouldn't be done, because the poll was advertised as PR-STV/IR. Interpreting the results afterwards to pull some other winner out is just wrong, without having clearly stated that that would be done on the poll page and probably using some other voting system.

@HighKing - the poll is valid - really. One discrepancy (open to interpretation, at that!) out of 230+ votes - less than 0.5% of the votes cast.

I agree with a lot of what BHG has said above. And even with some of what Tfz has said(!). Yes, people are weary, but we've got this far, and there really isn't too much more to sort out. There is some debate ongoing on the IECOLL talk page (which is the right place, I think). That's where compromise can take place - e.g., it seems like everyone who's contributed there so far agrees in principal that where there's no ambiguity, Ireland can and should be used within articles. Masem needs to be involved there, I think, to steer things to a conclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock vote

One confirmed sock vote - User:Redking7 also voting as User:Staighre, which has no effect on the overall outcome. SPI report is here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It has now been over two years

It has now been over two years since this vote - the world and Wikipedia have changed a fair bit since then. Is it worth re-opening a consultation as to this issue? LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

See WT:IECOLL. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. It's unclear where one is allowed to discuss this. You start at Talk:Republic_of_Ireland and then you hit lots of pages where discussion is closed. LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It has now been much over two years

Some readers of Wikipedia raise the question "Why Republic of Ireland if it is not a constitutional name?" from time to time, though orally, not here. But I agree with LukeSurl who wrote year ago: It's unclear where one is allowed to discuss this.
I tried to ask for a move here but was asked to do this somewhere else. Where? Thanks to those who will answer -- Ата (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that you've found it, but I'll say it for the record: it's Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. --Scolaire (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Satisfaction with article names in relation to Ireland

Personally I am satisfied with all the current article names in relation to Ireland that I have come across. For example Republic of Ireland refers to the independant nation clearly distinguished from Northern Ireland. If the article name was changed to Ireland (state) it could cause confusion. For example the constitution of the Republic of Ireland currently treats those born in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, in many respects, equally. The Good Friday agreement in one example of where the two nations that make up the Ireland begin to blur politically. Republic of Ireland is as good a term as any for the nation that excludes Northern Ireland.

The same can be said for all the other article names in relation to Ireland that I have come across. Although I am not always as happy about the way some of the articles have been written.AlwynJPie (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes that happy you removed the actual name of the state form the lead in it's article. Also reduced the lead to one paragraph. Murry1975 (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Burn!!Bogger (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories: as they relate to Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland

Hi all. I notice that it has now been more than 11 years since it was resolved that the status quo should remain; viz., no article name(s) changes should be made until satisfactory conclusion of all other issues are determined; c. 2009. However, there appears to be no discussion about the naming conventions for categories, as they relate to the island of Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and the province/territory/region of Northern Ireland. Using just one example, I notice that there are, correctly, categories for schools in the Republic of Ireland and schools in Northern Ireland. Further, these schools are then categorised as schools in the island of Ireland. Regrettably, this category is then further incorrectly categorised as being schools by country – however, the island of Ireland is not a country; and dubiously categorised as being schools in Europe – despite schools in the United Kingdom covering Schools in Northern Ireland and Schools in the Republic of Ireland covering schools in Eire – both the best option for covering schools located in Europe. This cannonballs down to Catholic schools, schools by religious orders, primary schools, secondary schools, independent/private schools, defunct schools, etc. In short, it is very messy, when we get down to categories and defusing categories to ensure that there are simple clear lines for categories; in short, reducing duplication across categories. I feel that unless an article/category relates to the geography of Ireland or other cross-border issues, I can see no logical reason as to why, when articles and categories relate to non-cross border issues, there should be a need to create categories of xxx in Ireland. I'm happy to hear others' thoughts. Rangasyd (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact that no alteration to the convention has taken place to the convention in 11 years, speaks to the wisdom and success of the convention in dealing with a politically sensitive issue rather than it being a mark of its failure. The double parentage of all Northern Ireland categories is well established and there have been no serious disagreements with it; people in Northern Ireland are free to identify as British or as Irish or as both so the categories reflect that reality. It's not broken; the status quo should remain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I simply don't understand how a vote can be convened to decide to name something which is is plainly not named in any legal way.

There is only one correct way to write the country name of Ireland.

The United Nations agrees to this:

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states#gotoI

The government of Ireland agrees to this:

https://www.dfa.ie/irish-embassy/usa/our-role/about-ireland/

Even the government of the United Kingdom now agrees to this:

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/ireland Gingerbreadman90210 (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this, even more considering recent events. "Republic of Ireland" is very clearly defined as a description, not the name of the country. This was important enough to cause push back from the President of Ireland. Using the term "Republic of Ireland" is just incorrect. To be over dramatic it is a lasting legacy of colonialism. It's use is blatantly incorrect as the people of Ireland have decided their name. The British government used the term for their own means, even causing diplomatic problems for decades. A foreign government should not dictate what another countries name is and that exactly what this is. If Ireland voted tomorrow to change it's accepted name of the UK to "Carpeted Rock Land" would Wikipedia then change the name of the UK article to that and then follow up in the lede that it was legally the UK? The country of Ireland should be afforded the same consideration as others and be referred to using its name, and not a description masquerading as a name imposed by a foreign government to handle its internal politics. BFSTMess (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)