Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Archive 3

Does anyone actually want answers to the questions asked of me way above?

I can't see whether I am doing any good here at all. I've been travelling, with spotty internet access at best. -- Evertype·✆ 22:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep at it, we need solution, not a two year uneasy peace before war breaks out again. --Snowded ^TALK 22:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I kinda like the latter scenerio (he he). GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wooden spoon out yet again GoodDay? --Snowded ^TALK 22:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, you've got no sense of humour. If you'd noticed, I'm one of those who aren't claiming 'British Pov etc etc'. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Timrollpickering asked me:

1). If the article on the state can't be located at "Ireland" then what is objectionable about placing it at "Republic of Ireland", which seems to be the main term used for disambiguating it outside Wikipedia? Surely a natural disambiguator is usually preferable to a created one?

• It's objectionable to some people. Doesn't matter a damn whether the majority are OK with it. The majority is also "OK" with Ireland (state) which may be inelegant but who the hell cares if it is inelegant? It's not going to attract endless controversy. That's the problem. The string of characters which forms the article title of this one article is the main sticking point.

2). Is the government of the state's diplomatic objection to the use of "Republic of Ireland" or to the non-use of "Ireland"?

• Completely irrelevant. The State's view is a matter for it, for the UN, and for other States. Our problem is the name of an article. We are editors of an encyclopaedia. We are not arbiters of truth. We do want to stop the endless unending infinite perpetual fighting so we can edit good articles instead of arguing about article names. -- Evertype·✆ 22:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

3). If the term is so objected to, why is it regularly used as a disambiguator within the state itself, such as the many occasions of its use in the Dáil linked to in the past?

• The term may not be a problem when it's used in those contexts. That's not our problem. Our problem is the perceived normative status it gives in an article title on this encyclopaedia.

It's not a matter of what's done in some other contexts. Those contexts aren't paralyzing the constructive editing of this encyclopaedia. If F is chosen, that does nothing but guarantee that this dispute will continue. Please be a realist about this. -- Evertype·✆ 22:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we can all see the teeth of the hard core of editors favouring the status quo against any compromise that 90% of the community (including the Irish editors) could live with. Some of us have had to put up with 3 years of this; others have put up with it for 7 years. Sarah777 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

IF the 'F Option' wins, so be it. The 3 articles-in-question, remain as they are 'til atleast 2011. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. But there are serious questions to address regarding this process and whether the illustration of exactly how the British status quo is being maintained means the topic isn't solvable by a vote. Sarah777 (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, did you notice anything I was saying or are you just indulging yourself in responding to Sarah? Because if you're not interested in what I'm trying to say and just want to fill the page with tit-for-tats there's not much point in my trying. -- Evertype·✆ 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've messed up somewhere, sorry. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, this "British status quo" of yours is deeply offensive. It is racist and ugly. It is childish. It has no place here. -- Evertype·✆ 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is also true. It is neither racist nor childish. If the truth is ugly - don't shoot the messenger. Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You have lost all credibility with me. -- Evertype·✆ 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hans Adler asked me:

• "Evertype, you are certainly not going to convince me to take F (my first choice) off my ballot without bothering to tell me first why you don't like "Republic of Ireland". It seems to be the second most frequent way of referring to the Irish state: internationally, in Ireland, and in the UK. Including by state sources everywhere. So what's wrong with it? There may be a reasonable answer somewhere in the archives, but I am not going to dig for it."

• What's wrong with it is that rightly or wrongly some people find it very objectionable and this has been a problem for the Ireland articles for a long time, and if we don't do something about it that problem will not go away. My own personal opinion is that Ireland (the state) is the primary topic and that is why my favoured options are A and B. I have also removed my votes from either A and B because I know that my view is problematic for some editors. I'm asking editors who prefer F to realize the same thing—no matter how "sensible" and "self-evident" it seems, it's a red flag to a bull, and we can either piss about trying to control the bull or we can change the colour of the flag to something that is accurate and inoffensive. Ireland (state) succeeds here. I do not personally take offence at the term Republic of Ireland but I have been able to recognize that there are people who do, and I have chosen to try to find a way out of the impasse. In the terms of our poll, the only way out, the only way that doesn't put the millstone of "Winners" and "Losers" around our collective necks is to recommend that nobody gives weight to A, B, or F. -- Evertype·✆ 23:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is compromise for such reason does set an awful precedent. Changing ones flag to give in to a bull is like giving into terrorism, it simply encourages more terrorism. I thought a compromise might be possibly although considering all the responses im thinking i was wrong, if there was to be one it would have to involve stopping the offensive claims by Sarah about this being British POV pushing, we cant simply ignore it. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, BritishWatcher, but please don't be extremist. The view you've given here is crystal-ball gazing. We ought not to take a decision against compromise here just because a different situation or different argument may or might arise somewhere else. Focus on THIS SINGLE issue please. That's our problem. We can exercise our intelligence on other problems later. (Nighty night.) -- Evertype·✆ 23:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My problem with your explanation is that it doesn't say why the term is considered offensive. If you can convince me that a significant part of the Irish population (say 5 %) considers the term offensive, then you win, I will consider this a valid argument and therefore a valid point to compromise on with such an outspoken editor. But it seems extremely unlikely that such a sizeable minority is offended by the term and yet nobody is able to indicate anything like a comprehensible reason. So far the only thing I have is Sarah objecting to the term because the British once used it (I think she said when they stopped using it, but even that didn't help me to find further information on the issue; but at least I learned a few things on Irish history on the way), and some others objecting to the term because Sarah yells so loudly and they want her to stop. If that's all there is, then the solution is not to give in to Sarah but to make her stop yelling or ban her if she can't do that. We can't have a single editor terrorise a sizeable portion of the project in order to push through an idiosyncratic idea. Hans Adler 01:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to Evertype's response to my questions: I posed 2). & 3). as additional questions to th main because the diplomatic objections and use or non-use of the term ROI by & within the state are amongst the few actual points of substance that has been raised in contention when a part of the objection that I can see is that it is supposedly a term rejected by the state yet there is evidence to the contrary (and uncertainty over whether the formal objections actually are to the term's use as opposed to the non-use of something else). 1). is the main question but I think your answer is just more of the same that people have on the position statements - it's objectionable because some editors find it objectionable. If that's the main reason for changing the article title then I just don't find it remotely sufficiently persuasive to support a change. It's just encouragement for a handful of editors to kick up a huge fuss about any title they don't like in the expectation that it will get changes simply to keep them quiet. If there were substantive content reasons for objecting to using ROI then it would be a very different state of affairs. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you accept the reasons people give for being offended by Republic of Ireland as the article title or not. (Their reasons have to do with feelings about our country, its name, its history, and its relation to another country. I'm not going to outline those reasons further because I don't share them; I don't empathize; I don't have the same feelings they do about our country. But I respect the fact that their feelings are not going to go away.) The fact is that they do, and there is a way of avoiding continued contention over this matter. That's to prefer Ireland (state), which is accurate (it's the name of the state). It seems to me (even though I have been called "ridiculous" by Jack K) that all editors on all sides will be able to do a better job of improving the content of the articles about Ireland. I can't see why Jack K or you or Hans or anybody else thinks that the status quo is helpful to us. It's not helpful to us. We're wasting months and months of energy on a FRACKING ARTICLE TITLE. Change that, and this will be over. I'm sick of everybody trying to win. You're all equally "right" and you're all equally "wrong". But you can all dig your heels in. You can all keep voting for A and B, or you can all keep voting for F. You can all keep being angry and Sarah777 for her lack of restraint. You can all think I'm "ridiculous" for trying to get past this issue entirely. If we don't, of course we will be back in this mire in two years' time. -- Evertype·✆ 18:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We could be "back in this mire in two years' time" irrespective of what the outcome is; we have never been on "the other side". Djegan (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Moreover no one has a monopoly on wisdom; and mere bullyboys will not be "handed" the result they want. Djegan (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please *everybody* drop the "British POV" discussion

It is pure trollery. Sarah777 knows it winds you up. Y'all let it wind you up. Everybody on every side is letting it wind you up. Please DROP it. Do not feed the trolls. This is a BUTTON. Stop pushing it. Ignore the trolls. Whichever side. Harping on "Sarah said mean things to me" isn't helping. It's just entrenching everybody. -- Evertype·✆ 22:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And Sarah: knock it off. You've lost almost all credibility and if you end up sanctioned you'll have deserved it. -- Evertype·✆ 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just anxious that the September results are abided. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means. It isn't September. I'm talking about something else. Have you read any of it? -- Evertype·✆ 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Evertype. I'm concerned about things falling apart around here. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's very noble, GoodDay, but it doesn't focus on the topic of discussion, which could lead to compromise. -- Evertype·✆ 23:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It is my basic belief and it is supported by the figures! If you feel the facts must be censored, and that is a path to a solution, so be it. It is NOT trolling - IT IS WHAT (a) I BELIEVE and (b) what the figures demonstrate. Period. I will not stop saying what I can clearly observe in the poll. Such craven dishonesty is not a trade-off against a compromise name. Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You do know this is a PRSTV election, right? Like we use in Irish elections? Not a British-style first-past-the-post system? That the option leading in the first count is therefore irrelevant? That the option leading in the final count is what matters? The project agreed to use PRSTV (technically IRV). Under that system, counting only Irish voters, F wins. Why can you not accept that? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it isn't true! Counting Irish (non-British) editors only - F loses, by a big margin. Check out my talk page, just don't leave any comments on it. Sarah777 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your calculation is... *ahem*... GUBU. This is a tally of Irish votes only (as of Saturday afternoon), done using the software that will be used to tally the final vote. F wins. Your calculations show "F vs. Not F" (which is vaguely interesting but ultimately pointless without also showing "A vs. Not A", "B vs. Not B", etc.) and the second part - well, I really don't know what you're doing. 21 voters can't cast 97 votes. (Despite the old "vote early, vote often" adage...). That just isn't how PRSTV/IRV works. When calculated properly - F wins. The other thing to note is that you've only got 21 down as "Irish (non-British)" whereas R.A. has 32. I came up with a figure somewhere in between the two. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

zzzzzzzzzzz...Bastun, for the umpteenth time; there are NOT 32 (non-British) Irish votes. I do not count self-declared Unionists from NI; they are manifestly part of the British group in terms of pov analysis. OK? Sarah777 (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah777, anyone can simply perform their own analysis of nationality, e.g User:DrKiernan/Ireland article names. Your figures don't make logical sense when compared to these other analyses. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My figures are a count using the stated criteria. You comment doesn't make logical sense! Do you mean, perhaps, "Your figures are different compared to these other analyses"? Sarah777 (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your figures are not using the stated criteria - which is, namely, PRSTV/IRV. Please explain the 97 votes from 21 editors. As far as I'm aware (and RA can clarify) - his figures also omit "self-declared Unionists from NI". I came up with 24 Irish editors (also omitting "self-declared Unionists from NI") last time I checked. F still wins. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what other people's analyis show, the only thing that matters is that Sarah's analysis does not show what Sarah claims/thinks it shows, because, what should be quite obvious to everyone by now with her non-answers to repeated queries which she dubiously dismisses as strawmen from ze Britishers (I am all for Option C btw), she does not know how to analyse the figures to actually show a net effect on the poll of alleged nationalistic bias. All she knows how to do is prove the obvious, that British and Irish people have different opinions for their first option solution (and yes, in her world, the Irish view is The Truth and the British view is a POV push). She has made a simple dumb count, and thinks that is all it takes to prove her assertion that this is having any effect at all. She for example cannot explain why people should then not be suspicious of her jumping from A to B, where A is her profiling evidence and analysis, and B is her conclusion that this shows Wikpedia is artificially enhancing the 'British view' out of proportion to all other opinions, when her simplistic count wants you to believe that the population of the Republic is 40 million people, meaning that her assertions are obviously a fantasy, which she quite understandably would have no problem passing of as The Truth, because of her obvious and blatant POV in the matter. She has no clue that weighting, and not dumb counting, is the cornerstone of proving any poll outcome is or is not reflecting the true NPOV view. And all of that is before we get to all the other flaws in her methods, that others are pointing out too. Why anybody should believe anything she says, and worse, pander to her with 'compromises', is totally beyond me given the facts. MickMacNee (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Irony break

Y'know Etype, I am saying nothing that I didn't say in my official "position statement"! Am I now the only person not allowed to repeat the arguments they made there? What sort of process is this - when all the censorship falls on one side? What has spooked the horses here is that my "Racist, childish etc" claim I made without much protest or comment then. The irony is that it only became an opinion to be crushed when the poll results validated what I said! Sarah777 (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not "repeating", Sarah. You're shrieking. You're profiling "British" people and tarring them with a brush. I consider this to be offensive. Could you, however, address what I have suggested that people consider: to avoid voting A, B, and F, and instead to work towards choosing one of C, D, and E? -- Evertype·✆ 23:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to bed and I may take tomorrow off entirely. -- Evertype·✆ 23:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad time to go to bed right now, tonight might be the last time compromise is even considered by many. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep trying to wear you down away from an extremist position. ;-) But I'm dead tired from travelling today. -- Evertype·✆ 23:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Supporting F is not an extremist position, nor is not supporting a compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not supporting a compromise is mean-spirited and egotistic. And sad. -- Evertype·✆ 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You are ridiculous. You want a compromise for the sake of having a compromise, and don't seem to care at all about any of the merits. To Timrollpickering's totally reasonable question about why Republic of Ireland is supposed to be unacceptable, you replied with the complete tautology that some people find it unacceptable. This is nonsense. I don't support a compromise because I don't think that everyone on the talk page coming together and singing Kumbaya is the purpose of Wikipedia. If there were legitimate, content-related reasons to believe that Republic of Ireland is unacceptable, or that Ireland (state) is a better option, I'd be happy to listen to them (and I have tried, insofar as they exist - I think those that have been presented so far are quite weak). But I'm not happy to go with an option that I think is worse simply because it will make Sarah777 happy. john k (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah your statement did not say that most Irish editors are voting against F, when a more serious tally done shows the opposite. Your claim that the majority of Irish editors are voting against F is there for misleading. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

@Etype: I have no problem with compromise; I do have a problem with being told the price of it is to have "special sanctions of certain Irish editors"; being called a lair, a troll etc etc etc because I produced a perfectly good analysis of the results (that was brought to Arbcom and rejected by them as anything wrong). What I will do is let the debate continue without me for one week provided nobody remaining here makes any personal attacks on me, calls for sanctions or suggests that I'm telling lies about the data. One single breach of this request and I'm right back. (Yes, Etype, btw, I would support your proposal as stated). BW: Once again...Most Irish editors "did not vote for F #1" and between the Irish editors "F" was the least favoured and "D" the most favoured. Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you, however, address what I have suggested that people consider: to avoid voting A, B, and F, and instead to work towards choosing one of C, D, and E? -- Evertype·✆ 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No compromise can be reached if you are just on a break and will start up the same crap when you return. You refuse to count all Irish voters in your tally, there for making the result misleading and incorrect. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I see now that you said, Sarah, that you would support it. That's nice. I notice that you have not yet removed A and B from your vote. I'll believe it when I see it. I removed them from my vote on principle, and without preconditions from anybody. -- Evertype·✆ 23:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarahs vote isnt what concerns me its her comments. She said in response to my post she supported such a compromise, but two minutes later went on to make the claim ROI is British POV again. And i cant change my vote until there is agreement on conditions for the compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. I made my offer but BW appears to like my contributions. BW: I have explained perhaps 20 times how I count Irish editors and why. If you don't like it don't read it. Or do like ra and start you own count. So: (a) I am in favour of a compromise and (b) I do beleive "RoI" as the title for the Wiki article is British pov. How many more times do you wish to have me repeat this? Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

None?

In the words of Vic Reeves: you wouldn't let it lie, would you? 87.113.158.9 (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromise may only work if you stop making wild claims about Republic of Ireland being "British POV". Which do you want more, a compromise or to continue making false claims? Just one more time will be enough for me thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you expect to get agreement from every single editor on this? If only one person calls it British POV you will not compromise? What if Sarah agreed then someone else came forward and made the claim. BW, I'm afraid that is one condition that is almost impossible to make. It does a disservice to the likes of Evertype who you should be talking to rather than having a squabble with Sarah. Jack forbes (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

BW - like it or not, many are of the opinion that RoI is British POV - it is seen (by some) as an imposition by the former colonial power. ClemMcGann (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So if you say "Cork is the second largest city in the Republic of Ireland" that demonstrates a British POV? If anything, I would think that pretending that Belfast is not part of Ireland would be Unionist POV. This argument is self-evidently absurd. john k (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well those of that opinion are very mistaken. The Irish government decided they were a Republic, they came up with the term Republic of Ireland and made it an official description. The Irish government, members of parliament and the Irish media have all used it. The Irish football team plays under the name Republic of Ireland.. There is nothing anti Irish and pro British about this term. IF a compromise is even slightly possible, it would have to recognize that "Republic of Ireland" is not British POV pushing.. its an unacceptable and misleading claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is not what I said - the point is that some object to using RoI as the name of the state. Clearly there is a need for disambiguation with the name of the island ClemMcGann (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooops! Another Irish editor says it! Block him! I'll stop saying it BW if YOU and the rest stop calling it a fabrication, OK? Sarah777 (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "...it is seen (by some) as an imposition by the former colonial power..." - Even if the imposition of it was by Irish people against the will of that power?

People on Ireland articles freak out when someone says "British POV". It's like a panic the sweeps across the editors: the whispers start, rumour spread, lines get drawn ... nobody stops to think about how real the rumour is - the mere thought of it, that it might be ... ooooohh ... "British POV", that's enough to scare people and start a stampede away from whatever it was that was rumored to be the POV of the British boogey man. It's a load of old trollop. And so long as Ireland and Irish people live under the fear of "British POV", Ireland will never really be free. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And the Irish government said the name of the country is "Ireland". While the British 1949 act used the term "Republic of Ireland" - that is why some see RoI as British pov - but you know this already - [1] ClemMcGann (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey!ra -I reckon the sovereign country of Ireland is free. That's why we need it treated with the respect due to a sovereign state and not hangovers from the Empire. I see you are now extending your paddy-characterisations from just Irish Editors ( the folk you want 'dealt with') to the "Irish people". Gosh no, sure and begorrah you don't support British pov atall atall - it's just ye can't see it! Sarah777 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

BW, I think you already know that asking every editor (or is it just Sarah?) to sign up to something that says there is no British POV before any compromise can be made is an impossible task. Why ask for it? Jack forbes (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Because he wants to use this to silence Irish Editors who might elsewhere oppose names like "British Isles" (still simmering I can see, without any input from me btw). He got real hysterically excited about defending that British term in his Sony-youth:) Sarah777 (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think its much to ask if a compromise is to be reached by the Ireland Collaboration project. It is needed because its something i think is vital for supporters of F who have had to put up with Sarahs claims to be convinced to change their vote when at the current count it looks like they are the ones being asked to compromise the most. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

to put up with Sarahs claims - well bless their wee hearts but if we must shield them from the truth to made them able to come out and compromise; so be it. But that is linked to a pre-agreed compromise and certainly will not involve show-trial confessions of guilt. Sarah777 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

your comments make it harder to compromise, the truth from your point of view is not shared by the majority. Even Evertype who wants compromise and is opposed to F says your actions aint helping and these claims of British POV are wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are truly looking for a compromise then good on you BW. If you are making it a pre-condition that everyone on the collaboration project (I'm not on it) sign up to something that says Republic of Ireland is not British POV, then that is what I'm saying I think is impossible. I think you know that already, which is why I'm asking you, why ask for something that's not realistic? Why don't you compromise on your compromise proposal. Jack forbes (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not and i still dont think its impossible to reach agreement on those grounds. Its quite possible now to consider the continued claims of British POV pushing as a violation of WP:AGF. If there was agreement its not POV pushing (which i and many others dont think it is) and an aim for such offensive claims to not be tolerated in the future following a change then it would make it ALOT easier for supporters of F to support compromising. Sarahs claims simply make it too difficult, especially considering the current vote results. Consessions are meant to come from all sides, whilst i dont think F has won it yet (still 30+ days to go), its got the majority of votes so far and there for supporters of the status quo are clearly giving up the most in an attempt to compromise.

Without agreement on the fact Republic of Ireland is a perfectly acceptable term and not POV pushing, it will simply mean attempts by a small number of people over the years by raising hell has paid off. It sets a bad precedent. The only justification for change made has been to make more people comfortable and happy with the setup, why should people want to make those making false claims happy?

Far from compromising on my compromise suggestion, im close to striking it out because it doesn't look like there will be committed support for it from either side. Sarah was the first to respond to my post, she said it sounded reasonable then less than 10 mins later she was making the same wild accusations again. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I made no wild accusations. I stated that in my opinion RoI is a British imposition that would have been removed (perhaps long ago) if it were not for that fact that it is supported by such a large majority of British editors. This was, ironically, what I said in my position statement and attracted only mild abuse. It was only when the polling figures clearly showed my earlier observation was correct and I demonstrated that here that the hysterics, calls for blocks, bans, the lies and misinformation from the core "RoI" group started. Obviously any "precondition" for a "compromise" on this name that extends to beyond this specific case is a complete non-starter. You have been told that. So what you are now proposing isn't an attempt at compromise. It is an attempt to extend this row across the whole range of articles on which you edit war to impose British pov. Sarah777 (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why "Republic of Ireland" is contentious

OK, after some helpful pointers above (special thanks to ClemMcGann for indicating the year 1949) I think I get it now. So for the others who are clueless like me about Irish (and UK) history, and also to give everybody a chance to correct any mistakes or important omissions, here is what I found in a nutshell:

1937 second Irish constitution

Contains claims to Northern Ireland. Says nothing about the head of state (i.e. republic or monarchy). Very roughly, it's internally a republic but considered a monarchy by other states. The state is called Eire, not Ireland, by the UK.

1948 Republic of Ireland Act

Éire/Ireland becomes a republic and adopts the term Republic of Ireland as a description, not as a new name. A change of name would have required a referendum to change the constitution. Also, the names Éire and Ireland are more in line with the constitutional claims to the "whole island of Ireland".

1949 UK's Ireland Act

Gives Ireland a special status as "not a foreign country" to prevent dramatic consequences. Permits Republic of Ireland as an alternative name for Ireland, in addition to Eire. Guarantees that Northern Ireland may remain in the UK if it wants to.

1998 Belfast Agreement

Irish constitution now clarifies that union with Northern Ireland would require a referendum there, territorial claims given up. UK accepts Ireland's name as Ireland.

So Ireland put a formal claim to Northern Ireland into its constitution. The name of the state, Ireland, was without alternative due to ambiguity about whether it was a republic or a monarchy, and it also expressed the territorial claim. The UK did not accept the territorial claim and therefore predictably did not accept the name. In 1948 the name was not changed, presumably because of the continuing territorial claim as well as for practical reasons, but a "description" Republic of Ireland was added. The UK acknowledged Ireland's further complete secession by adopting Republic of Ireland as an alternative to Eire for referring to Ireland. When Ireland gave up the territorial claim, the UK accepted the name Ireland.

If that's correct and essentially complete, then rejecting the name Republic of Ireland is a very extreme position indeed. I can see nothing wrong with the UK's adoption of Republic of Ireland as a name for Ireland. It's not reasonable to expect a state to accept claims on a part of its territory where a majority of the population objects, and it's not reasonable to expect a state to accept a name for another state that expresses such a claim. As I suspected, the claim that the term Republic of Ireland is offensive seems to be tied to the desire to create a United Ireland by force. Hans Adler 02:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that Hans. I would lessen the severity of the description "rejecting the name Republic of Ireland is a very extreme position indeed" however. Possibly "old school", but the forcefulness of Sarah777's rejections here may have clouded things for most outside observers such as you and I are. I don't list "Republic of Ireland" in my vote not out of any political leaning, but out of a sense of practicality and common sense. To keep you from having to look for it above, here is part of my thinking quoted from a location several sections and paragraphs above:

I like the comment by john k about making things easier for readers as opposed to editors. I think it is clear that readers are much more likely to expect the single title "Ireland". Using the dreaded Ghits method, trying http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Ireland&num=50 reveals that of the first fifty hits, exactly four use the term "Republic of Ireland" in the title and results summary. Those four are hit #3 wikipedia.org; hits #22 and #23 from FIFA.com, and hit #48 from interrailnet.com. All editor POV arguments aside, based on familiar popular presentation of information that suggests to me rather convincingly that readers are more likely to expect and comprehend "Ireland (anything)" than "Republic of Ireland" at first glance.

So, there are other reasons to not support choice "F" that have nothing to do with politics. Unfortunately the offer of compromise above, which would not have changed rules as one editor suggested but rather asked for people to change votes within the rules, hinged in part on a forced end to the sniping over the very issue you describe. The compromise proposal doesn't promote one of C,D or E as a naming scheme with better appeal to readers but as a way to stop the troubling stubbornness on both sides of the Irish Sea over their interpretations of the status quo. Sswonk (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

First, to Hans, good work there. I think that's basically the gist of it. I think it's interesting, though that one of the main reasons that the name was not simply officially changed to Republic of Ireland in 1948/9 was not because of any objection to that being the name on the part of the government that adopted it as a "description," but because the government didn't want to hold a referendum on the question. From the discussions of the issue, it appears that if not for this constitutional issue, the name would have simply been changed. Second, to Sswonk - since you were responding to me, I thought I should respond. I'm glad to see that someone is trying to make an actual argument as to why Ireland (state) should be preferred to Republic of Ireland. To some extent, I suppose it's a matter of personal taste whether one prefers parenthetical disambiguators (which can be pleasantly uniform) to natural ones (which are not so uniform, but make article names more aesthetically pleasing). However, I think my personal preference for Republic of Ireland is supported by the naming guidelines we have put in place. See WP:NCDAB: For disambiguating specific topic pages by using an unambiguous article title, several options are available: 1. When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used. john k (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hans and John K, that's about the bones of it. If you click on my statement on the position statements' page, there's link to an very accessible academic article on the history of the various names of the Irish state.

Sswonk, I don't really get what you are arguing ... so if you search for "Ireland" you get hits for "Ireland" (both the state and the broader country). What happens if you search for "Republic of Ireland"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this was an excellent pointer. I am not sure why, but after reading about the early discussions concerning use of the term Ireland (in section "The Irish Free State") I feel more respect for the attempt to push the term here against practical concerns. Nevertheless, 10 years after it has become a non-issue between the two states, it seems quite odd. Oh, and I learned another reason why condemning the term Republic of Ireland as "British" is quite odd: Apparently on the British side it had to overcome significant opposition by those who preferred to call the state Irish Republic in order to negate the territorial claims more thoroughly. Hans Adler 09:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, you get lots of results for "Republic of Ireland". As outlined here (section 2), this includes plenty of uses by the Government in legislation and statutory instruments, in parliamentary debates; uses by Government bodies, such as the office of the Taoiseach, and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners; commonly use by Irish media,and by the general public. 1.3 million results on a Google search (restricted to Ireland).[2] 67.8 million results when extended to the whole web.[3] This, of course, proves nothing other than that the term is commonly used both within and outside Ireland. And I really doubt our Taoiseach, government, commercial bodies, and media are going out of their way to offend Irish people. (Though sometimes I have my doubts about the Taoiseach... ;-) ) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If I read Hans above correctly, what he is saying is that British pov is legitimate due to the beheaviour of the Irish Governemnt in 1948. Is that correct? Sarah777 (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No. "British pov" is begging the question. ROI is legitimate because it's the standard way of referring to the Irish state when disambiguation from the island is needed (example 1, example 2). Everything else is an attempt to understand your position which you don't have time to explain because you are too occupied with yelling. If I read all your statements that I have seen so far correctly, the only reason why you call ROI British POV is because it's contaminated by the fact that the Brits once used it exclusively when the Irish would have preferred them to just use Ireland. Is that correct? Hans Adler 10:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we are all aware of the FIFA imposition of RoI; you'll note that the Football Association of Ireland does not use "RoI" to distinguish itself from the Irish Football Association. "RoI" isn't "the" standard way; there are many ways depending on the context. Sarah777 (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The IFA/FAI split predates the Republic of Ireland Act by three decades. And yes, the FAI do use the term "Republic of Ireland", as can be seen in large letters on their site right now. In the sam way, the IFA play under the name "Northern Ireland" despite that name also being imposed on them by FIFA in 1952. (For those unfamiliar, up until then both teams played under the name "Ireland".) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe the point of this poll is to draw people from outside the conflict in so that they can evaluate the arguments neutrally and vote based on this. In this situation "we are all aware" is not a particularly good argument; it assumes special knowledge about Ireland and football, and I have neither. Now that you have drawn my attention to the possibility that there may be something special about football in this respect I have tweaked the search on the RTÉ site and the result is less clear, although there are still quite a few significant non-football hits left among the search results.[4]

If you can point me to any coverage of a recent (preferably after 1998, but the last 30 years or so will do) dispute concerning the naming of the Irish football team this would go a long way towards convincing me that there is more than one person in the world who thinks that the term is contentious. (That's how it currently looks because you have been dominating the discussion and all those who argue against F seem to do so to only to humour you, not because they personally think it should be an issue.) Or any other indication that the use of RoI to refer to Ireland can be controversial. Hans Adler 11:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I will not presume to question the motives of the other editors who have opposed "RoI"; nor should you as it is a clear breach of WP:AGF, according to the "RoI" supporters. The other opponents of F can speak for themselves. I could add that it is only a rather small handful of editors who seem committed so uncompromisingly to "RoI". All humouring DJ maybe? But, whatever the motives, the majority of Irish editors agree with my attitude to "RoI". Sarah777 (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL your opinions on reasons why people are supporting option F hardly seem in line with WP:AGF. And again you continue to say misleading things like the majority of Irish editors agree with your attitude, they clearly dont. This is reflected in more reasonable and reliable data collected by other editors, but also the fact that no one has provided information Republic of Ireland is a big deal in the real world today. This clearly isnt a big issue to most Irish people and the only justification for change has been to appease the small minority who have raised hell over the years. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This is not my idle speculation. I have been actively looking for explanations why the term is considered offensive. And what did I find? (1) Your protestations that it's offensive because it's obviously British POV, a "fact" further proved by your spreadsheet. Now I don't consider my POV British at all, my decision for F had nothing at all to do with politics, so for me it's not obvious that it's British POV. As far as I am concerned it could be equally reasonable to call it Irish POV. And your spreadsheet doesn't prove anything to me because I can't verify your numbers since for most people here I haven't got the faintest idea whether they are Irish, British, Australian or Nigerean, and there is far from a general consensus here that your numbers are correct. And based on your obvious zeal I am not inclined to believe you more than those who contradict you. (2) Several people saying they are against F because there would never be peace with that option, and a lot of people saying your debating style is a problem. (3) Nothing else. — I suppose by DJ you mean the user who is somewhat active on this page and whose name might be abbreviated this way. I didn't get the impression that this user has any particular importance, and without looking it up I remember neither the user's full user name nor the user's opinions. Hans Adler 13:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now become aware that about 3 hours before I started this section, Clem McGann has also started making clear statements that he considers RoI an offensive term. Two editors are significantly more credible than one, but that's still nothing compared to some kind of corroboration by a reliable source. Hans Adler 15:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding any purported dispute regarding the name of the Republic of Ireland soccer team, there is no such dispute. (The soccer team is unique in that it is based, roughly, on the two jurisdictions - ROI and NI - owing to an internal split within the Irish FA that coincided with independence from the UK. Virtually every other sporting team is all-Ireland based and are thus named simply "Ireland". The FIFA ruling had to come in 1952 because both FAs were playing under the name "Ireland".) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On this tangent the national teams issues is more convoluted. The pre partition Ireland team was run by the IFA based in Belfast. After political partition the IFA sought to continue. However demands for the game's national institutions to be based in Dublin led to the setting up of the rival FAI with its own team in about 1923. Both teams competed as all-Ireland teams, picking players accordingly. As the IFA, together with the other three Home Nations FAs, was not in FIFA in the inter-war years this was not a serious problem for two decades as the two Ireland teams were not in the same competitions, and indeed some players played for both teams.

After the war the four Home Nations FAs rejoined FIFA and this created the problem of two Ireland teams, but what brought things to a head wasn't the name but some players playing for both teams in the same tournaments. After this happened in 1950 FIFA partitioned the teams on the basis of the border and required them to use the names "Northern Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland" in FIFA tournaments (including UEFA). However for non-FIFA run games they could still use the Ireland name (and in theory pick players from the whole island for those games but they didn't - this is different to the FAI's later period of heavily exploiting the granny rule) - for instance there's footage from the 1960s of George Best playing for the IFA team and it's called "Ireland", presumably a Home Nations game. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hans, for your good work. As your link shows, the term "Republic of Ireland" is used by official sites in the republic when needing to distingush it from the Ireland. In fact it is the official description. Here in Wikipedia we need to distingush the republic from the island and what better way than using the description officially sanctioned by the Irish constitution? This constitution does not say that "Ireland (state)" is the official description but that "Republic of Ireland" is. There is obviously the alternative of having the article on the republic be the main Ireland article, but that would be a failure to recognise the substantial number of people who live on the island who aren't in the republic. (And it should be noted in this that not just the unionists but the majority nationalist party has a problem equating the republic with Ireland, hence there use of "the twenty-six counties".) Hence why I regard F as the best option.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Act does not say "RoI" "is the official description". Moving on from 1948 and the days of Empire, here is what the New York Times says: [5]. More in keeping with the vast majority of non-English Wikis. Sarah777 (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." - The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, article 2. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, I've just clicked on that link and it takes me to a page which says:

"Reference Material on Ireland

Columbia Encyclopedia

Ireland, Irish Eire (âr'ə) [to it are related the poetic Erin and perhaps the Latin Hibernia], island, 32,598 sq mi (84,429 sq km), second largest of the British Isles. The island is divided into two major political units—Northern Ireland (see Ireland, Northern), which is joined with Great Britain in the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland (see Ireland, Republic of). Of the 32 counties of Ireland, 26 lie in the Republic, and of the four historic provinces, three and part of the fourth are in the Republic."

That doesn't support your argument at all. DrKiernan (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the link takes you to the NYT position which is that "Ireland" refers to the sovereign state unless otherwise stated. As to the Colombia Encyclopedia; please note that their article about the state is titled "Ireland (Republic of)". Maybe Wiki should copy? I could live with that though I much prefer the NYT formulation. Sarah777 (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be correct, Ireland is normally referring to the state, and 'island of Ireland' refers to the island. Tfz 13:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the Columbia article is not called "Ireland (Republic of)." It is called "Ireland, Republic of." This is because the Columbia Encyclopedia is a paper encyclopedia, and has to alphabetize. "Ireland, Republic of" is functionally identical to Republic of Ireland. john k (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Sarah: "Vast majority?" 62 by my count (not 76, as you claim above) have the state at your preferred option, Ireland. 46 (not 35, as you claim above) have the state at Republic of Ireland. Including the Irish-language wiki. As Tim points out above, some of the wikis with the state at Ireland don't yet have an article on the island... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Still a vast majority. And as I have pointed out it is all the more illustrative when you consider that many Wikis take their titles from En:Wiki. Re the Irish Wiki, I have my suspicions about that - it also has the Ulster Banner as the flag of NI, which I recall was once a cause supported by many of the current RoI folk. Sarah777 (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And again, as Tim pointed out and which you ignored - many of those don't yet have an article on the island. Therefore they do not yet need to disambiguate. Re the Ulster Banner - what's that, throw enough mud and it will stick? I never defended its "cause" (except, perhaps, its use in a historical context) and in fact I'm pretty sure I've deleted it from articles a few times. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah's figures are confusing the 62 which have the state at "Ireland" (of which only 16 have island articles to disambiguate from) with the 76 total (I actually count 75 - I think there was a minor duplication or the 76th is Sardu which has the island at Ireland and no article on the state) that don't use RoI. The other state articles are at: "Ireland (republic)" (1), "Ireland (country)" (6), "Ireland (state)" (1), "Ireland - Éire" (1), "Éire" (3) and "Írország" (1). The Magyar island article is at "Ír-sziget" and I don't know what the literal translation of either is; both articles give "Ireland" and "Éire" as translations, with the island throwing in "Airlann" for good measure.

This makes the figures for those with two articles: 37 with the state at "Republic of Ireland", 16 at "Ireland", 8 at "Ireland (some disambiguation", 3 at "Éire", 1 at "Ireland - Éire" and 1 where the language seems to have separate single word terms. So it's 16 for using "Ireland" against 50 that don't and for those that chose not to have the state at "Ireland", it's 37:13 for using "Republic of Ireland" for disambiguation. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re the Hungarian one, Ir-sziget translates as "Ireland (island)". – iridescent 14:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ír = Irish, ország = country and sziget = island. It seems that the Hungarian solution to the disambiguation problem was to coin ír-sziget = Ire-isle, making the decision for the Hungarian Wikipedia straightforward. Unfortunately that sounds extremely awkward in English. Theoretically we could use [the] Irish island as a natural disambiguator, but that's not much better than Ireland (island) and would come close to an attempt to coin original terminology. Hans Adler 15:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be wrong to say that's "Ireland (island)" since it's not bracketed. A lot of languages don't have different versions for "Adjective-Form Noun" and "Word of Noun" (which must make trying to explain the distinction between, say, "north of Ireland" and "Northern Ireland" rather tricky...). "Irish country" and "Irish isle/island" seem the most literal translations though "country of Ireland" and "Island of Ireland" may be sufficiently correct (what's the reverse literal translation for them?). "Island of Ireland" has a bit of use but is rare as a capitalised term (I think the Ypres Peace Park is the main formal use). Timrollpickering (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if the Irish Government uses the term "Republic of Ireland"

Peter Cohen said:

• "As your link shows, the term "Republic of Ireland" is used by official sites in the republic when needing to distingush it from the Ireland. In fact it is the official description. Here in Wikipedia we need to distingush the republic from the island and what better way than using the description officially sanctioned by the Irish constitution? This constitution does not say that "Ireland (state)" is the official description but that "Republic of Ireland" is"

It's true. Our government does use the term, in a variety of contexgts. It won't stop doing so, either. But that isn't the problem we have on this encyclopaedia. The problem we have here is that the use of the term in the article title. It is that which is the problem we have to solve. The Troubles are irrelevant. Anglo-Irish relations are irrelevant. The Real World is irrelevant. We are a community here, and some members -- rational and irrational -- have fundamental philosophical problems with the article about our country being named by its "description". We can try to argue with that, but it will never change their views. Or we can agree that this one article title be changed to avoid that particular problem, and then we can all get on with being encyclopaedia editors. -- Evertype·✆ 18:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the term is some how British POV and offensive is the only real reasons being offered up for change. The fact the Irish government continue to use the term is important, it makes it a reasonable well known way of describing the state and clearly disproves the reasons for finding the term offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not EVER said anything about the red herring about "British POV". Nor do I believe it. What I do recognize is that we have a social problem here, and pretending that we don't is not going to make it go away. Nor is digging in heels for the status quo. -- Evertype·✆ 18:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem, i dont see the evidence that we must make major changes to article titles to solve it. This poll is binding for two years, the result will solve this problem for that period. If it kicks up again afterwards.. then we will need another 2 years of lockdown unless in that time "Republic of Ireland" suddenly has stopped being used. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The real world is irrelevant? It really does not matter whether people in the community have "fundamental philosophical problems" with the name. What matters is whether there are reliable sources that point to this being a problem in the real world. Wikipedia's content is not about catering to the personal hang-ups of editors. john k (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

John, be realistic. It's not a couple of cranks. It's many editors over a very long period of time. And this isn't about content. It's about an article title. -- Evertype·✆ 18:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Real World is irrelevant." --- eh? so why are we holding this poll again? Djegan (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We are holding this poll because editors cannot agree on a solution to a long-standing problem. -- Evertype·✆ 18:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So I really want to ask... John, Hans, the rest of you. Are you really so insensitive that you can ignore the fact that this has been going on for seven years, and unable to believe that even if it gets a two-year lockdown, the issue willl just return to plague us? -- Evertype·✆ 18:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A few people viewing something as offensive can not justify change. Sarah has attempted to rename British Isles on several occasions because it "offends her". This is not justification for changing article titles, whats worse is no evidence has yet to be produced showing WHY Republic of Ireland is so offensive, we are just told it is despite plenty of evidence seriously questioning such claims. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's easy for me to ignore something that I have not experienced. Since apparently nobody can prove "RoI" is seen as a problem in the real world, by anybody, and since there are very strong arguments to assume it is not a problem in the real world, the correct solution seems to be to ignore the two uncompromising editors, and let them run into a permanent ban if they so desire. It's not OK if apparently unreasonable positions can be pushed through by bullying. I might feel differently if I had worked together with Sarah on multiple articles, or knew her in real life, but that's not the case. Getting uninvolved editors with no affiliations or personal considerations in is exactly the point of putting something to a vote by the wider community, isn't it? Hans Adler 19:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's just super, Hans. Fine, if you want to be swayed by Sarah's behaviour instead of my plea for compromise on something that most editors on both sides can support, I can't do anything to change your view. I remain convinced that Ireland (state) is the only option that can help us move out of this perpetual argument. -- Evertype·✆ 19:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that you are not even making an effort to make the objections against RoI appear reasonable. That's the problem. If someone claims that waterfall absolutely must be renamed to cascade, because the word waterfall is Muslim POV and offensive to some Christians, what are we going to do? Are we going to give in after this editor has complained loudly for a few years, while never providing any reasonable explanation why it is offensive or Muslim POV? And with no indication that anybody in the real world is really offended? Or, for a less far-fetched example, what if someone decides everything other than RoI is British POV and offensive, because RoI is the official description and was "obviously" meant to supersede the original name, and because leaving out the word "republic" suggests the article may be about the Irish Free State? Which bullying are we then going to give in to? It's the same as with edit wars: If we don't want Wikipedia to fall apart, then once it's been escalated to a wider community the side with the better arguments must win, not the more energetic side. Otherwise we encourage destructive behaviour. Hans Adler 19:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland(state) is an option I've heard some editors of opposing positions say they would be happy with, if selected. Has anything changed? If not, why can't there be a compromise? Forget all the point scoring over what is pov and what's not. Jack forbes (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hans, I'm not making such arguments because I'm exhausted by months and months of this. And I'm deeply demoralized by the lack of care for the future taken by, sorry to say, people like you. It doesn't bloody well matter whether I explain the arguments (which are not even MY arguments) to your satisfaction or not. What you ought to be hearing is that even though Republic of Ireland may seen to be "perfectly acceptable" to you and even though you may not have any sympathy for those who think otherwise it is still the case that if we cannot manage to get this ONE article re-named to Ireland (state) this problem will NEVER go away. It will just be back here in two years. Is your confidence that "Republic of Ireland" is the BEST name for this ONE article so high that you can ignore that? Is it worth it? I say it is not. -- Evertype·✆ 06:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Id still support compromise, but it would require recognition by the collaboration project that Republic of Ireland is NOT British POV and it should seek arbcom to consider such claims to be a violation of WP:AGF. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting until Sept 13. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Republic of Ireland" is NOT "British POV", BritishWatcher. However, it is nevertheless a controversial name and we can avoid controversy. GoodDay, you waiting till 13 September for your one vote doesn't help. What would help is agreement by members of the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to recommend Ireland (state) -- Evertype·✆ 19:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a patient fellow, I'll wait (remember, I'll be accepting any result come Sept). I'm not in panick mode. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't expect everyone to sign up for something saying they believe it is not British pov. Beliefs are not that easily changed. You can ask them not to repeat it over and over again. Two different things, BW. Jack forbes (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Im sure one or two would find it difficult to agree to that, but a clear agreement by the Ireland collaboration project that this term is NOT British POV, would make it alot easier for supporters of F to support a compromise because it clearly rejects Sarahs wild and offensive claims. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a better idea if you put it to them that the claim should no longer be made (whether they think it true or not). Whichever way you want to phrase it there is only one way to find out, and that's to ask them at the Collaboration page. Jack forbes (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked on this page above, the responses did not give me any confidence. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't believe 'Republic of Ireland' is a British PoV. RoI is merely used to differentiate the country from the island. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to accept BritishWatcher's pre-condition to be made in a genuine spirit of compromise. Whether he has set the bar too high is one thing. But I will say this: I removed A and B (which I favour philosophically as I believe the State to be the primary topic) from my vote without setting any pre-conditions. Indeed, I find the fact that BritishWatcher has said several times that I have "nearly" convinced him to compromise to be little more than a cruel teasing of me, who have earnestly tried to make this WikiProject Ireland Collaboration work. Evidently my work attempting to get people to understand compromise (and then to do it) is less important than bearing a grudge against Sarah's trollery. -- Evertype·✆ 06:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"state" tag

FWIW, the precedent we have on having to give a UN member a dag tag is (country), with (state) used for sub-national entities. Strictly speaking options proposing a dag tag should use this, or propose the moving of the Georgia article. I spotted elsewhere that someone mentioned that some believe the country should be 32 counties, though I fail to see how support or otherwise for a united Ireland is relevant 'to the choice of "(state)" vs. "(country)" (very specifically that feature and no other). I'm not going to comment on the substance of the debate, as an otherwise uninterested editor. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Georgia is a bad example, because it overlaps with the United States "state" term, even though the state itself is at Georgia (U.S. state). To come up with (state), there was a mini-poll at IECOLL that asked what dab terms to include on this poll, and overwhelming it was only (state) that was supported, even though we also asked about (country). --MASEM (t) 04:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A complicating factor in this case may be that the UK is a union of countries held together by having the same monarch, the preferred terminology in this context being country (or apparently nation when it's about Scotland or maybe England), not state. (Editors from the North-West European Archipelago may take this for granted, but I didn't know this before I joined Wikipedia and started editing UK-related pages because that's where I am temporarily based. So it seems worth pointing out.) If Irish editors prefer state to country in part because that sounds less as if they were still living in a constituent country of the UK, then that's definitely something I would respect. Without this complication I would also consider country more natural, but with it I consider both so awkward that it pushes me strongly to Republic of Ireland. Hans Adler 08:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also the question of what is "Ireland (country)": the traditional country of Europe of the modern European state? If you are talking membership of the UN then clearly you mean the latter. If you are talking about influence on world culture, you are talking about the former. "State" unambiguously refers to one "Ireland" only. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. That was why as a compromise I removed my demand for "Ireland", then "Ireland (country)" and settled on the further compromise of Ireland (state) or a version of Ireland (republic). Sarah777 (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Earlier this year I proposed article title Ireland (sovereign country) to get around the "country V nation V state" issue, and it got a some support, but not enough to move it into the poll. I still think it is a very good compromise. Tfz 14:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The demand for the country to have the prime spot at Ireland was never going to be supported by most reasonable people, backing away from that option is hardly a real compromise. As for what word should be used like Ireland (state), the poll showed a very clear majority supporting state over any other term, again hardly a compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What complete bull. BW, it is clear that you have zero interest in a compromise. Sarah777 (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry what did i say that was bull? as for zero interest in compromise, i went alot further than you. I said i supported compromise and i laid out what i thought it would take to get agreement, you said it sounded reasonable but less than 10 minutes later you were continuing ur crap that Republic of Ireland is British POV. thats a lie, it should be considered a violation of WP:AGF and whilst you continue to make those sorts of claims.. compromise is impossible. And you continue to mislead people over Irish editors view on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from using the word "lie". Please accept that to some people using "Republic of Ireland" as the name of the state is British pov because its use as a name, rather than a description, was so defined in the British 1949 Act. Please refrain from using the word "crap". ClemMcGann (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And what do you think the difference between a name and a description is? Republic of Ireland is, in practical terms, an alternative name, regardless of its legal status. Mooretwin (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You just answered your own question - a description has no legal status. For our purposes here we can use the Irish legal name "Ireland" or we can use the (until GFA) British legal name "Republic of Ireland" or we can choose another name as a compromise. That is why it can be said that to use "Ireland" is Irish POV and to use "Republic of Ireland" is British POV. I know there are many justifications for various POVs. But let us at least acknowledge the issue 15:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC) ClemMcGann (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find this answer confusing. (1) In this case description DOES have a legal status, viz. Republic of Ireland Act 1948. (2) I was saying that whether or not it has a legal status is irrelevant, because it is used in reality as an alternative name. Just because UK legislation recognises/recognises RoI as a legal name doesn't mean that it is not also used as a (non-legal) name elsewhere, including in the Republic of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Republic of Ireland is not British POV, i refuse to accept that and i think compromise is out of the question whilst people are even suggesting it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ClemMcGann, there are two ways of reading that. Either:

1. You (and/or maybe others here) find it offensive, for whatever reason, it's none of my business. In that case it's simply a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and so is not an legitimate argument for the purpose of a page move on Wikipedia. (No offense to you and/or anyone else, what you like/dislike is what you like/dislike, but that's just the way it is.)
2. Or there are published sources showing that Irish people find it offensive. In which case, please, where are they?

Contrast with the British Isles example. There, people didn't believe that Irish people could be offended by the term. They thought assertions of the kind were a case of a few cranks causing trouble. So published sources, many of them, were produced, saying explicitly, "Many Irish people find the term British Isles offensive" and so forth. And the issue was put to bed.

Now, as an Irishman, and as an Irish nationalist, I know that the same is not true for "Republic of Ireland". No such sources have every been produce in the case for this page move. But, please, now is your chance - in front of the world - if it is not simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, show us the sources. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

so you say that the term "British Isles" was found to be offensive and put to bed - yet it is still used on wikipedia - and you dare not alter it - so there is not any point in quoting sources - but lets not get distracted

I did not say that I - or anyone else - found the term "Republic of Ireland" offensive - nor did I say otherwise. I was simply attempting to explain why it could be said that to use "Ireland" is Irish POV and to use "Republic of Ireland" is British POV.

The most probable and possibly inevitable, outcome of this vote is that more will favor option F. It will be revisited in 2011. In the meantime it would be more congenial if it could be accepted that some have a reason - whether you agree or not - for considering "Republic of Ireland" to be British POV, without having words such as "lie" and "crap" used. ClemMcGann (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We cant change history and stop using terms simply because some find it offensive. The issue with the British isles was put to bed, sources were provided that some have a problem with it and now on the British Isles intro it states clearly about this problem and theres an entire article on its use. Just because a couple of editors here claim ROI may be British POV, does not make it true or accurate, no sources have yet been provided to back up the fact there is deep unhappiness about the term. This outcome will be binding for two years, if F loses then the status quo will change and theres nothing supporters of it can do about it. If F wins. then the majority view is clear and the status quo remains. People who engage in edit wars after Arbcom has ruled the articles must remain in chosen locations for two years will not cause trouble for long. Especially those with a history of sanctions for pushing anti British POV. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ClemMcGann, sure, I read too much into what you wrote. What you wrote was that "..to some people using 'Republic of Ireland' as the name of the state is British pov...". What I read was that you had meant that some Irish people find it offensive (because it carries a British POV). But let's take what you did write at face value. Where are the sources to support a claim that Republic of Ireland carries a British bias? I've heard it repeated ad nauseam for two years now. But never once have I seen any source to support it. (Remember, in the case of the Br*tish Isles, sources, explicitly supporting such a statement can readily be produced. The same is merely all I'm asking.)

The Department of the Taoiseach uses it. The Irish Revenue uses it. RTÉ uses it. Authors of all nationality use it. Yet, nowhere can I see it mentioned that the term carries any pro-British bias. (I can see that for year, and maybe even still, it was the UK's preferred name for the state, but that is nowhere near the same. What would that mean? "Well, if the Brits like it, it can't be right!"?)

So, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. "Lie" is an unpalatable word, I know, but would "untruth" (or maybe "mistruth") go down any better? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to disambiguate when we have Republic of Ireland? Why do we need to consider daft "alternatives" like "Ireland (country)", "Ireland (nation)", "Ireland (state)" and such when we already have "Republic of Ireland" endorsed (in law) by Oireachtas Eireann? People say they are insulted by "Republic of Ireland"; how about my right to be insulted by "Ireland" (for the state) or insulted by "Ireland (country)", "Ireland (nation)", "Ireland (state)"?

We need better reasons than "well the constitution says x" (sorry this is not a legal dictionary, but the article makes things clear anyway), or "that by using y your a British POV pusher" (sorry that sort of stuff sounds like 1880's speak or MOPE). Djegan (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Still living in the past I see DJ. Sarah777 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is not British POV

But it's still a bad title for this article because (rightly or wrongly) a bloc of editors find it problematic. Ireland (state) avoids this problem. -- Evertype·✆ 18:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that some editors - including me - find Ireland (state) offensive. I would also find any other parenthesised construction which was designed (by a noble few) as faux-NPOV, to be offensive. Why not treat us as sentient beings and allow us to make our own minds up? Fmph (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Who (besides you, I mean)? And why is it "offensive"? Is Georgia (country) offensive? Is Georgia (U.S. state offensive? As I see it, there is little choice. Personally, I think that State is the primary topic, and I'd like the article to reside at ireland. There is little or no chance of that happening. So given Republic of Ireland which has been a source (rightly or wrongly) for strife for seven years and Ireland (state), I have to prefer the latter, because it (at least) does not attract attacks. -- Evertype·✆ 07:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So if I start attacking it, you'll change your mind? Fmph (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked you a genuine question. What's "offensive" about it, and why aren't the Georgia articles offensive? -- Evertype·✆ 12:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A separated reply to rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid

This is a direct reply to rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, who asked Sswonk, I don't really get what you are arguing ... so if you search for "Ireland" you get hits for "Ireland" (both the state and the broader country). What happens if you search for "Republic of Ireland"? I am calling this out separately because: I posted last night from Boston when many in IST/BST were asleep and then I went to sleep. Now this morning I find several pages of continued debate, and I fear that replying above will have limited effect.

To answer your second question: this is why I called it the "dreaded" Ghits method. It would be difficult to ask Google to answer the question: what do people and websites call Ireland, how often do they think in the exact term "Republic of Ireland" rather that "Ireland" by itself, etc.? Your question: "What happens if you search ...?": results: "Republic of Ireland" exact: 7,360,000 hits, "Ireland": 286,000,000 hits. However, the results are near to meaningless, since large swaths of time covered by published literature would not have used "Republic of Ireland", and all "Republic of Ireland" hits are a subset of "Ireland" hits.

The first question is more important: What am I arguing? I was trying to show that common sense might be applied to shift the focus of discussion away from the political and frankly esoteric organizational concerns of a handful of editors and towards the servicing of our constituency, the readers. Look at the toolserver stats. Sarah777 and BritishWatcher each dominate here with nearly twenty percent of the posts per editor. If it were further broken down into the use of the words "lies", "POV", "my country" and animal descriptives, a trend would appear that indicates a total disregard for the readers in favor of emotional defense of each side's feeling about the other. I want this to be about what is best for the reader. I would request that Sarah and BW refrain from saying anything here before rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid has a chance to respond.

Hans is in the middle of the list of contributors provided by the toolserver stats, but I commend him for raising the level of debate to something better than a game of Space Invaders. I was born in Michigan and am a U.S. citizen with three major nationalities in my ancestry, plus a little of others including Native American. Irish and English are on both sides, with the German surname Swonk coming from my paternal grandfather. My wife's grandparents, however, were from Galway on both sides. Eastern Massachusetts is the most Irish area in the U.S. I have a cousin through marriage who is a presenter on RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta. So I understand much of the emotional content of the debate: I know of an incident where a friend of a friend was reduced to tears upon being forcefully berated by Bostonians of Irish decent for expressing simple sadness at the passing of Princess Diana. This is not helpful behavior, but it is understood by me as part of a historical legacy. My response here is also a plea, asking you as a nationalist to attempt to end the shrillness of this debate by promoting the fact that there are outside considerations backed by a desire to apply common sense to the names of the article, concerns that have nothing to do with and outweigh politics. I think without statistical analysis it is obvious that Ireland is what people—readers—think of when they want to learn about this subject. That is what I am arguing, and why I support seeking a compromise vote. Sswonk (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow i need to cut down here lol, im ahead of Sarah :O BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not far behind! I need to take a break here!

My perspective on the impact for readers is given in my position statement. In summary it is this:

Ireland is the common name for two topics: Ireland-the-island and Ireland-the-state. So disambiguation is required. When dabbing, the first question we should ask is, Is there a primary topic? Yes, there is. "Ireland" is a primary topic. When someone talks simply about "Ireland" - be it the history of Ireland, the culture of Ireland, sport in Ireland, religion in Ireland, geography of Ireland, politics in Ireland, and so on - it is almost invariably the broad topic of "Ireland" that they mean. Ireland-the-state is sub-topic of that in almost every respect. This is simply a corollary of real life, where, despite political partition, "Ireland" is still a single epistemological entity from a global perspective. Thus, the proper way to dab is through "Ireland/[some title for the article on the state]/Ireland (disambiguation)". The links pointing at each of the respective pages, and the number readers of each further supports this view (see http://stats.grok.se/).

The remaining question then is, what do we call the article on the state? "Ireland (state)" would be a fine way to do so, and it is my second preference, it is supporteed by guidelines (" disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses." - see WP:NCDAB). But the need to disambiguate Ireland-the-island from Ireland-the-state is not an issue confined to Wikipedia. In the real world people need to do the same thing on a daily basis. Otherwise, we would find ourselves saying things like, "Belfast is in Ireland, not Ireland"? The common way to dab Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island is to use the phrase "Republic of Ireland" when speaking about the state and "Ireland" when speaking about the island (see example). This too is per guidelines ("When there is another term ... that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used." - see WP:NCDAB)

Since this is the common way of dabbing - in real-life, daily speech and other publications - since it is clear and unambiguous and since it is based on policy, I think it is a vastly more useful and usabe way to dab the two topics for our readers than using adding an artificial disambiguating word in parenthesis. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

While I won't pick this apart point by point like John K to Sarah, I would like to comment that I am quite impressed with the both of them for putting so much thought into their comments. No more of the "did so!" "did not!" stuff from everyone would be a blessing. I'll simply say to you that I don't understand how option C, with the example China given to show how an all-Ireland topic would help route readers, is less useful than the status quo, option F. Sswonk (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Obviously you didn't ask me, but if I may answer anyway: I am afraid of the duplication. I am also a bit worried there might be disputes about the contents of the main Ireland page. And I would prefer option C', i.e. C but with RoI. But the duplication is really the most important point. Is there anything about the island that shouldn't be on the main Ireland page? In contrast to the case of China we are not dealing with a clear geographical separation. Therefore C seems very much inferior to D. But I don't actually want D, I want D with RoI, which is an available option: F. Hans Adler 23:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Before continuing, let's look at WP:CFORK to see if that is what you mean by duplication, or rather is it something else? Sswonk (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it would be neither an unintentional fork nor a POV fork, so CFORK doesn't really apply. But I am afraid the potential overlap is so massive that WP:Summary style wouldn't work well. There is simply no clear demarcation between the general topic of Ireland, and the supposedly more specific topic of Ireland (island). Either Ireland would be a duplication of Ireland (island), or the readers would get terribly confused about which information is where. I am not even sure the solution at China is correct. Ignoring the compelling political arguments not to do this (lest Wikipedia explode), People's Republic of China should be at China and Republic of China should be sort of a subarticle. With the present structure: Where do we find basic information about Chinese geography? In China or in the two subarticles? How about religion? Hans Adler 07:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sswonk, I don't disagree with you. I have always imagined the Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland articles to be akin to the China example (or Korea). The article on Republic of Ireland was historically spun out from Ireland. (The separate article on Northern Ireland was originally red-linked from "Ireland", although it was from the start given treatment as part of Ireland.)

That was seven years ago. If an separate article dealing specifically with the island as a uniquely geographic entity (i.e. a specific Ireland (island) article) was also spun out then great. There is certainly scope for that to happen. It just hasn't happened yet. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Republic of Ireland" title is the problem

Ireland is the legal, official and most commonly used name of the sovereign country which has its capital in Dublin. Unarguably it would be the only name allowed for the article about the State per WP:COMMONNAME, were it not for the fact that the geographically entity, the island of Ireland, is also frequently referred to as simply "Ireland". In order to disambiguate the country Ireland from the island of Ireland (of which the sovereign country occupies 83%), Wiki currently employs the name that was the legal British name until the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

The article was first called "Republic of Ireland" shortly after its creation in 2002 and in the 7 intervening years this name has been continuously contested, mainly by editors who live here, on the grounds that it is not the official name of the state nor is it the common name of the state. "RoI" has led to edit warring not just in the main articles (the island and the sovereign country) but has sparked edit wars throughout Wiki where there is a reference to the country.

The numerous attempts to correct this situation have been repeatedly blocked by a small group of hardliners who reject any compromise. When votes are taken they swing the issue with the help of a preponderance of British editors who either don't fully understand that the "RoI" is politically loaded (or in some cases support it because of that). As there are at least 15 times more British than Irish editors it takes only a few of them to keep the status quo intact - in the face of all Wiki policies and principles, not least WP:NPOV.

In 1948 an Irish law said that "Republic of Ireland" was a description of the state; it was never used as a name. Yet it was only after five years of debate that the pro-RoI lobby on Wiki were finally obliged to accept the fact that "RoI" is not the name of the sovereign country. They then switched tack and defended the legal British name, "RoI", as the "best" dab name available.

In law, in the United Nations, the EU, in common speech, in nearly all international bodies where Ireland is represented the country is known as "Ireland".

So how do we disambiguate the island from the sovereign country?

Certainly not by using a title that only in British law was regarded as a "name" in a manner that clearly implies the description is actually a name. The is what the current article does.

There are various acceptable alternatives that solve the WP:NPOV problem; including calling the primary "Ireland" article the one about the sovereign country. It has been clearly demonstrated that when readers type in simply "Ireland" they are usually looking for the Country, not the island. But in a spirit of compromise those opposing the use of a "description" as the country's name on Wiki have suggested that "Ireland" could become a dab page giving the two main options. This was rejected.

In a further spirit of compromise some those who found "RoI" demeaning to the State suggested names such as Ireland (Republic); Ireland (State); Ireland (the State) etc as disambiguations that would (a) remove the WP:NPOV issue by not adopting a British name (which, btw, Britain no longer uses since 1998) and (b) would make clear in the article title that "RoI" was not the name of the country - rather than propagating a politically biased name that is not longer used in most circumstances. And thus restoring the principles of WP:COMMONNAME.

All attempts at compromise have been rejected. Until we agree on some alternative (of the many suitable options) to the toxic title "Republic of Ireland" this issue will never be laid to rest. Sarah777 (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Its ashame you go out of your way to mislead people as always by suggesting this is a "British name". BritishWatcher (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

BW, it *is* a British name (note, names are different than description). And the reason why you and other people continue to believe/talk about/mention that it is a valid and official name is because you don't distinguish a name from a description, and you don't distinguish when a term is used in the context of a name or a disambiguating term. And a large contributory factor is that British media use it as a name, and people both in the UK and Ireland consume British media and some end up not realizing that the *name* used in British media is unique in usage.

Step back for a minute though. This isn'a finger-pointing exercise in fault finding. It's a fact that for many people, GFA 1998 was a significant event, and one of the notable events was that the UK would refer to "Ireland" rather than "Republic of Ireland". By itself, this shows that it is a notable event, and shows how important a point it was. It's one thing to be able to use the term "Republic of Ireland" when it is needed as a disambiguating term. It's another to find that the term is used inappropriately as a name, and the correct name is denied. This vote is about the article title. The objection of using "Republic of Ireland" as the article title stems from official British usage as a name, British media usage, and British resistance (till 1998) to using anything but RoI. Keeping the article title at "Republic of Ireland" sends out the wrong message about what exactly is the correct name. (Feck. I swore I wasn't going to start explaining stuff that we've gone over and over before. Apologies.)

Many of the instances noted in debates here, such as the envelope send out by the Dept. of Finance which states "No Postage required if posted in the Republic of Ireland" is an example of where using the term in a disambiguating context is normal. And you'll find that when "Republic of Ireland" is mentioned in government papers or debates, it is also in the correct context - to disambiguate from the island or from Northern Ireland. This doesn't mean that RoI is, suddenly, an acceptable name. Nor does it mean that official sources approve of RoI as a name. It merely shows that there are times when RoI is needed as a dab.

This debate has been going on for 7 years. It's ugly and disrputive, and we're all a little smaller because of it. A solution seems obvious. --HighKing (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re "Feck": Thanks for explaining it. It seems stupid to me not to explain your position when lots of new people, unfamiliar with previous discussions, are streaming in to vote and you want them to vote your way. OK, so the fact that since 1998 the UK refers to Ireland as "Ireland" rather than "RoI" is seen by some as a key fact. Therefore using "RoI" in Wikipedia seems like a step backwards. Is that it? I don't think it's a valid reason to be offended, but at least I can respect someone who is offended for this reason, and it restores my confidence that somewhere in the real world there are enough people who actually are offended to make it into a reliable source somewhere. Now if someone can show such a reliable source to me I will change my vote. This one paragraph was so much more effective than your "This is why we're here in the first place, let's put things right and avoid this option." and similar non-explanations by other opponents of F. So far the best approximation to a reasonable explanation why we shouldn't choose F in the position statements was by Rannpháirtí anaithnid. [6] Since that user is for F it didn't even occur to me to look in his statement. Hans Adler 11:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Irish government came up with the term, they use it often, there are many quotes from the Irish parliament of its use, Irish media have used it. The Football team play under the name, there are endless examples of why this is not just a "British name" or "British POV".. funny enough there doesnt seem to be any evidence many find the term Republic of Ireland offensive / a problem.. which is the only excuse used to justify a change from the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is a "problem" then its the fact that some editors go into "offended mode" when the term is used. Djegan (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take sarah point by point in the hopes that this might accomplish something.

Ireland is the legal, official and most commonly used name of the sovereign country which has its capital in Dublin. Unarguably it would be the only name allowed for the article about the State per WP:COMMONNAME, were it not for the fact that the geographically entity, the island of Ireland, is also frequently referred to as simply "Ireland".

I completely agree with this. This is an accurate statement of both the case for, and against, using Ireland as the title of the article. john k (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In order to disambiguate the country Ireland from the island of Ireland (of which the sovereign country occupies 83%), Wiki currently employs the name that was the legal British name until the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

I find this characterization problematic. It is true that Republic of Ireland was the name used by the British government before 1998. But this is not all Republic of Ireland is. The term "Republic of Ireland" was devised by an Irish government, and it was accepted by the British only with considerable reluctance (many Brits preferring "Eire" or "Irish Republic"). The government of Ireland for fifty years accepted diplomatic representatives accredited to the "Republic of Ireland," from the UK and elsewhere. It is also a term which is frequently used in Ireland, in Britain, and elsewhere when one wants to be clear that one means the "Irish state with a capital of Dublin" rather than "the island of Ireland." This is a true statement, but it is only a half-truth, and it misleads more than it explicates. john k (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The article was first called "Republic of Ireland" shortly after its creation in 2002 and in the 7 intervening years this name has been continuously contested, mainly by editors who live here, on the grounds that it is not the official name of the state nor is it the common name of the state. "RoI" has led to edit warring not just in the main articles (the island and the sovereign country) but has sparked edit wars throughout Wiki where there is a reference to the country.

"Continuously" is clearly incorrect. If one looks through the archives there was some initial disagreement in 2002. Then there was nothing until 2005. Then there was some discussion, and a vote. Then nothing until early 2007 (when Sarah herself became one of those arguing most strongly against the current title). I got bored looking through the discussion since then; it might be accurate to say there has been continuous dispute since February 2007. I would add that, while it is true that those who have disputed "Republic of Ireland" have primarily been Irish editors, the most prominent defenders of the term have frequently also been Irish. As to edit warring in other articles, I can't speak to that. The construction is oddly passive, however. john k (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The numerous attempts to correct this situation have been repeatedly blocked by a small group of hardliners who reject any compromise. When votes are taken they swing the issue with the help of a preponderance of British editors who either don't fully understand that the "RoI" is politically loaded (or in some cases support it because of that). As there are at least 15 times more British than Irish editors it takes only a few of them to keep the status quo intact - in the face of all Wiki policies and principles, not least WP:NPOV.

This is the usual nonsense. This poll sees almost as many Irish as non-Irish voters. Furthermore, an analysis of just the Irish participants shows that the status quo wins eve with them. There has been no evidence to suggest that "Republic of Ireland" is a politically loaded term. Furthermore, there is no situation to "correct" - the current set-up is fine, and it is only a very small (but outspoken) minority that have a problem with it. There are absolutely no POV problems with "Republic of Ireland," which is the most common way of distinguishing the Dublin-based state from the island as a whole. john k (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In 1948 an Irish law said that "Republic of Ireland" was a description of the state; it was never used as a name. Yet it was only after five years of debate that the pro-RoI lobby on Wiki were finally obliged to accept the fact that "RoI" is not the name of the sovereign country. They then switched tack and defended the legal British name, "RoI", as the "best" dab name available.

It was arguably de facto used as a name by the Costello government, perhaps illegally. At any rate, the whole dispute is basically semantical. The reason "Republic of Ireland" was not called a name of the state was because of practical political concerns - for all practical purposes it is a name, just as South Korea is not the official name of the Republic of Korea, but is, for all practical purposes, treated as though it is. This is, at any rate, irrelevant. Ireland (state) is not the name of the state, either. It is also not the legally approved description of the state. Between a description of the state which is very commonly used for this very purpose, which was created by the Irish government for this very purpose, and which is legally considered a correct "description" of the state and a term made up by wikipedia editors, I don't see why we should go with the latter. john k (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In law, in the United Nations, the EU, in common speech, in nearly all international bodies where Ireland is represented the country is known as "Ireland".

But we can't use Ireland as the title, as you yourself admitted. At any rate, there are frequent contexts when one might use "Republic of Ireland" in common speech. "Cork is the second largest city in the Republic of Ireland," for example. "I crossed the border from Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland." These kinds of contexts are exactly the context that this article's title finds itself in. john k (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So how do we disambiguate the island from the sovereign country? Certainly not by using a title that only in British law was regarded as a "name" in a manner that clearly implies the description is actually a name. The is what the current article does.

So long as we state clearly in the article text that the name is "Ireland" there is no "clear implication" of the sort you contend. Furthermore, the idea that it was only in British law that "Republic of Ireland" was regarded as a name is nonsense. It is of course regarded and used as a name all the time. It is not the official name, but it is a name. And it happens to be a name which is the "official description" used by the Irish government. john k (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There are various acceptable alternatives that solve the WP:NPOV problem; including calling the primary "Ireland" article the one about the sovereign country. It has been clearly demonstrated that when readers type in simply "Ireland" they are usually looking for the Country, not the island. But in a spirit of compromise those opposing the use of a "description" as the country's name on Wiki have suggested that "Ireland" could become a dab page giving the two main options. This was rejected.

How on earth has it been clearly demonstrated that they are normally looking for the country? Was Brian Boru the high king of the Republic of Ireland? Did Cromwell conquer the Republic of Ireland? And the POV problems remains asserted rather than real. Simply because the UK (for pretty understandable reasons) refused to use "Ireland" before 1998, even when there was no ambiguity does not mean that we cannot use "Republic of Ireland" in contexts where there is ambiguity. At any rate, how is it a compromise between people who think the article should be at Republic of Ireland and people who think it should not be at Republic of Ireland for it to not be at [[Republic of Ireland? john k (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In a further spirit of compromise some those who found "RoI" demeaning to the State suggested names such as Ireland (Republic); Ireland (State); Ireland (the State) etc as disambiguations that would (a) remove the WP:NPOV issue by not adopting a British name (which, btw, Britain no longer uses since 1998) and (b) would make clear in the article title that "RoI" was not the name of the country - rather than propagating a politically biased name that is not longer used in most circumstances. And thus restoring the principles of WP:COMMONNAME.

There is no POV issue. Just because the British used a term does not mean it is a POV problem for us to use the term as well, especially since we are not using it in the same way that the British government did before 1998. john k (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

All attempts at compromise have been rejected. Until we agree on some alternative (of the many suitable options) to the toxic title "Republic of Ireland" this issue will never be laid to rest. Sarah777 (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Because they are not actual compromises. A compromise would be working out ways within the article text to be clear on the limits of the meaning of the term "Republic of Ireland," and to insure that it is only used in running text in contexts where it is necessary for disambiguation purposes. I'll thank Sarah for putting her case at such length, but I still find it completely unconvincing - in particular, there are a number of logical leaps here which simply do not seem to be warranted. john k (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats one of the most articulate and intelligent edits I have seen yet... Djegan (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

@John Kenney - "A compromise would be working out ways within the article text to be clear on the limits of the meaning of the term 'Republic of Ireland'..." Such a "compromise" already exists. (Although, it's not quite a "compromise" since it has the ready consensus of all virtually editors the involved editors.) After this vote, we will be deciding on that - although it is essentially a foregone conclusion since it has been agreed on already. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well said John K. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We give ourselves a round of applause! "This is the usual nonsense. This poll sees almost as many Irish as non-Irish voters. (actual figure; roughly 1 Irish for every 5 non-Irish!!) Furthermore, an analysis of "just the Irish participants" shows that the status quo wins eve with them. (actual fact: F is the least favoured with Irish editors) - John K. With that piece of manifest tripe falls all the rest from John K. Sarah777 (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "almost as many Irish as British voters." Obviously the former was nonsense - an unfortunate mistake on my part. At any rate, F is not the least popular option with Irish editors. The analysis by Ran here contends that, at least as of a few days ago, Option F had more first preference votes among Irish voters than any other, and also that it ultimately won the STV. I generally fail to understand Sarah's constant obsession with first preferences, when this is not a FPTP vote. john k (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the above is all very interesting

Interesting? If is repetition of the same mix of lies, misinformation and denial we get from the same core group of hardliners over and over. Sarah777 (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

… but it does not address the problem which we have, which is sociological, not logical. Both Republic of Ireland and Ireland (state) are accurate possibilities for the article title. Clearly the former is more useful for in-text disambiguation. I see John K and others being rather haughty about how "completely unconvincing" Sarah's case was. This ignores, however, that Sarah is not the only person who has taken this view over the past seven years. Blue-Haired Lawyer's formulation is fine for article content. But for the sake of a lasting peace, I remain convinced that the article about the state ought best be placed at Ireland (state). I've yet to find any argument against making this compromise to be convincing. (The only argument against it is "It's bad precedent" and I don't find that credible.) -- Evertype·✆ 07:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think Ireland (state) is best, then vote for it. That is the purpose of the poll. No need to waste bandwidth agonising about it here. Mooretwin (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Over the last few days, I have become convinced that "for the sake of a lasting peace" is not an appropriate reason for a page move. We should not do things just because a small cadre of editors will kick up a stink if they don't get their own way (the overwhelming majority of those who don't put "F" as their first preference excluded, of couse!). There are good reasons for both titles (for "Republic of Ireland" and for "Ireland (state)"). The majority are falling on "Republic of Ireland" - as they had done again and again in the past. Proponents of both (the small cadre excluded) could happily live with either title for the page.

The compromise is an obvious one: you can live with "Republic of Ireland" (as I could live with "Ireland (state)"), what I am unprepared to do is to reward disruptive tactics and misinformation from a small but disruptive cadre (it will set a bad precedent/example). Were the majority unfortunately allied with the cadre, it would be a different situation - but as things stand the majority are in favour of "Republic of Ireland". "Compromise" to the majority, Evertype, not the other way around. We agreed to a vote. Now, let "Republic of Ireland" be. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)There are small but disruptive editors on both "sides" of this debate - neither side has a monopoly. Your statement that you are unprepared to reward disruptive tactics and misinformation is aimed squarely at Sarah, but there's more than Sarah involved in the non-F vote. Voting for F will solve nothing. When you get beyond personalizing the discussion, as I have done some months ago, you'll see the amount of disruption and negative energy that this debate (and ones like it) consumes across multiple articles and over 7 years is destructive to the project as a whole. --HighKing (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How will it "solve nothing"? By the same logic, none of the solutions will solve anything, since there will always be people unhappy, whatever the chosen solution. Mooretwin (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It will solve the problem of disrpution, edit warring, and negative energy that has plagued this article, and related articles, for 7 years. The other options have little or no dissenters, and there is at least one option that everyone appears to be happy with. --HighKing (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow. This vote is about the titles of the Republic of Ireland and Ireland articles. Edit-warring will continue regardless of the outcome of this vote (as I have pointed out repeatedly - the real cause of edit-warring is not the titles of the articles, but the usage of the name of the state in the texts of other articles). This vote will not stop edit-warring. It should, however, put a stop to RMs, etc., by people trying to change the names of the articles in question. Ironically, a decision to drop "Republic of IReland" as a title is more likely to increase edit-warring, as anti-ROI editors would be likely to see it as a green light to start purging the term completely from the encyclopaedia. Mooretwin (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So, just to be clear. Are you now dropping the "Mooretwin" proposal??? Which had the support of nearly everone? And the only reason it wasn't adopted was because a parallel process was started in Arbcom, and we wanted to get an Arbcom approval on a decision? Let's be clear on this. It seems to me that there are a great number of editors here that are treating this process like a chance to declare "victory" over an individual, and renaging on the goodwill and tentative agreements pre-process. I can understand why editors might want to use this opportunity to set the "terms of compromise" out clearly, and making sure that a compromise isn't viewed as a victory for any editor, or that the reasons for compromise don't get inflated with ideas of British impositions, etc. But. From where I'm sitting, it now looks like there is no intention of compromising at all. --HighKing (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I never dropped the compromise proposal. On the contrary, I fought a lone battle to have it adopted by Arbcom, only to be ignored or dismissed. It was Arbcom and those editors involved in this process - Evertype, etc. - who rejected the compromise and decided on the current process. It seems to me to be the height of cynicism for those who appeared to support the current process suddenly to be calling for it to be abandoned because they don't like the anticipated outcome. You still fail to explain how dropping option F from this poll would end edit-warring. Mooretwin (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a "lone" battle. I, for one, have always supported it, and I never saw support wane for it. I believed that the way forward was to introduce the compromise into a Arbcom sanctioned vote, get it ratified, acknowledge all sides and all arguements, decide the rules, and move on. That's what I believed we were engaging in here. That's why we agreed to this vote. And it would end edit-warring because both "sides" would have agreed on a compromise, and have settled the rules on usage, leaving absolutely no where for edit warring to take place. If "F" is votes, what have we gained? There will be no agreement, we're right back to where we started. I, for one, entered this vote in the genuine and honest belief that we would be ratifying your proposal or something very close to it, and we could end this. It's why my position statement does not argue right or wrong for any title, but states that the intention is to end the edit warring with a title that is acceptable and agreeable to both "sides". Now, why is it that I get the feeling that a "majority" of editors has decided to use this opportunity to chose to do nothing instead? --HighKing (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you supported it during the Task Force, but I fought a lone battle on the Arbcom pages, arguing that there would be no solution to this dispute without a COMPREHENSIVE package compromise that dealt BOTH with the article names and the usage convention within articles. My pleas were ignored and it was decided to deal with both issue separately, thereby removing the incentive for compromise. With the package compromise rejected, I no longer have any incentive to vote against my preferred option, as I have no guarantee that I will receive anything in return. The whole raison d'etre of my proposal was that "everything had to be agreed or nothing was agreed" - this raison d'etre was rejected, despite my best efforts, and I will not risk appeasing the anti-ROI-brigade here when there is no guarantee that they will appease the pro-ROI-brigade on the other issue. Mooretwin (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Highking i understand some where against this vote taking place, but i honestly dont understand how you could think this vote was in any way going to lead to adopting Mooretwins proposal or something else along those lines. We went into this vote because everything else had failed and we decided to let the community decide. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

All previous attempts at consensus have failed, we came to this vote knowing the outcome would be binding for two years. I cant speak for anyone else but im still prepared to compromise on the condition that the Ireland collaboration Project declares that Republic of Ireland is NOT British POV, and that such accusations in the future should be considered a violation of WP:AGF and we aim to get Arbcom to agree to that so in future such misleading claims are not made or people punished for making them. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The previous failures were why the Arbcom process was started, and the most productive series of discussions is where we all but agreed to the "Mooretwin" proposal. Your request above, to include conditions surrounding the compromise, is exactly what I expected to happen before, during, and after this process, in the context of where we were aiming to get to. My concern is that since voting has started, I've seen very high numbers of editors vote for "F" even though they previously agreed to Mooretwin's proposal. I've even seen Mooretwin appear to now argue for "F". What I want to know at this stage is if there is still an intention to compromise, or if some editors will renege on their pre-vote discussions for the prize of what? Stuffing it to Sarah? --HighKing (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not about stuffing it to Sarah, although i confess her comments and actions make it FAR FAR FAR harder for me to accept a compromise. The case has just not been made for a change in the status quo, the only valid reason is it will make some people less unhappy. But Sarah herself and a few others have pushed for British Isles to be renamed because they dont like the title. That isnt a valid reason to change a name there, so i dont really see why its a valid reason to cahnge it here. All i know is i cant compromise until there is agreement on conditions, and that the Ireland Collaboration Project will declare that Republic of Ireland is not British POV. If it did that then it would reject Sarahs claims and make it easier for others to accept compromise i think.. it would for me anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What you are proposing for conditions is similar to a bill of attainder. There are other ways of dealing with that issue and I don't think a compromise should hinge on such an act of repudiation of an individual. It is within reach however the conditions you suggested make it much less likely. Sswonk (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As a non-project member who has watched this page nearly from the start, I saw "Stuffing it to Sarah" as unquestionably a motivation for some of the voting changes and that is a reason why the tone needed to be shifted away from name calling and accusation and toward compromise that benefits the readers. Sswonk (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sswonk as a neutral observer, apart from making some editors less unhappy and possibly helping to prevent future disputes / edit wars, Have you seen any other valid reasons for a name change, because i havnt and i think in recent days the case for change has weakened not strenghtened. Options D and F are the same except for use of Republic of Ireland. I certainly have not seen any case made for the island having its prime spot taken away, and there is no reason to not use Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking about that, will respond later but now trying to avoid edit conflicts so this is brief. Sswonk (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen some valid reasons interspersed among comments here; I support C and refer you to parts of Red King's statement for some of the reasons. I have stated as much in a couple of places here, but basically my feeling is that the natural and official name of the country is Ireland, and "Ireland (state)" is a better disambiguator than "Republic of Ireland" because it is less likely to be misunderstood as having something to do with the exact term discussed in negotiations over various accords, legislation etc. since the 1940s. It is simple, and begins with the (by far) most common term, and is only parenthetically qualified by a single word to distinguish it from (island). No such problem exists with Northern Ireland, and my reading of the various official Irish websites that use the RoI term indicates that they are disambiguating for people physically standing on the island itself so as to be clear about meaning "within our borders" as opposed to "on this island". Others, and I believe Hans Adler and rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid are in this camp, see "Republic of Ireland" as the only correct answer to the Wikipedia decision tree that deals with naming conflicts, a secondary name that is semi-official and doesn't contain a parenthetical qualifier. I simply disagree on the grounds of common sense trumps rules. Appeasing Sarah and others who object isn't a primary motivating factor in my choice, although it is another minor reason joining the major one, which is to avoid forcing "Republic of Ireland" on readers when "Ireland" is expected by them to mean the country. Option C will direct them to the appropriate place they may be searching for, within an article context that will also result in having search engines title the top result "Ireland" along with a single, excellent result summary. Sswonk (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sswonk for your reply. Ireland is the official name of the state and Republic of Ireland is not, i fully accept that but i think there are so many examples of its use by the state, Irish media and members of parliament aswell as it being a legal description of the state (in my opinion clearly created because they knew theres be a ambiguity problem with the island / Northern Ireland), and evidence that Republic of Ireland is known internationally to justify keeping the title Republic of Ireland. The introduction of the article on the state makes very clear and always should that Republic of Ireland is only a description and the legal name / internationally used name is Ireland.

I am not obsessed with the title Republic of Ireland, i use to support option D which removed the ROI but i only did that at the time because i was under the impression it was hardly never used and as some had tried to make out that this was only a "British thing". But extensive evidence of its use really does take away such an excuse to justify change and i still dont see any other reason for the title to be changed apart from making the few people happy which is not a valid reason. If there was clear reasons against using ROI then i would support option D, but the more one side pushes the claim (which i do consider offensive) that this is a British only POV, the harder it becomes.

I would rather C than E but i do think out of all the options D is the best alternative. I think the island of Ireland is the primary topic and deserves the prime spot, people are more likely looking for information on the whole island of Ireland not the sovereign state which has existed for less than 100 years. This is the case with Great Britain, instead of it taking people to the article on the country Kingdom of Great Britain or a redirect to the UK its about the island. Aslong as those who arrive at the island article can easily find their way to the Ireland country article (which they can) i dont see the problem with that. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The outcome of this vote will decide the articles locations for the next two years. The problem is solved for that period of time, yes perhaps in two years time people will try to raise hell again but hopefully by then we will all of moved on to other things and not feel the need to fight over a perfectly acceptable and reasonable title. To change the status quo requires reasons, so far there has been no reason for change apart from appeasing a few editors who raise hell hoping it will lead to peace on earth. I still have not seen evidence explaining WHY Republic of Ireland is so offensive and how many are offended by it. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. BTW, there are many arguements (some of which were covered in position statements) as to why RoI is not a good article title. Don't say that you seen no evidence or see no reasons to change the title. At this stage of the discussion, that is extremely disingenuous. I gave some reasons myself in response to a different post above. Let's not start re-examining all the arguements once more. We've been round and round too many times for that. I respect the amount of time and energy that has been put in here, and I know that many have read the arguements several times. This isn't about being a winner or a loser any more. This is about what is best for the project. --HighKing (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The only real reason i have seen for change is that SOME oppose the current title, there for changing it may reduce conflict and make everyone happy. That is the only real reason i have seen and i do not think it justifies a change just on those grounds. What is best for the project is to follow the project wishes, we agreed to hold a poll. Evertype was one of leading members pushing for a poll to happen sooner rather than later. Just because the poll is currently in favour of option F is no reason to scrap the plans and try something else. That might be possible if it wasnt for the misleading claims being made by some about some British POV pushing. I could only accept compromise if the Collaboration project clearly accepted that Republic of Ireland is NOT British POV, and that it should be considered a violation of WP:AGF to say otherwise, with the aim of having Arbcom agree to ensure future misleading claims aint made. But its clear the time for compromise seems over, the poll must go forward and what ever wins wins. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, it's not about Sarah. There are a cluctch more as well. If, as you say, the problem of disruption is on both sides then how will satisfying only those disruptive editors on the "anti-ROI" side "solve the problem of disrpution, edit warring, and negative energy"? The reality of course is that the disruption has come from a very small cadre of editors who (for whatever reason) scream blue murder that there is something inherently biased about a term used everyday in Ireland and worldwide.

We can appease them now, but so what? They will just invent something else to scream blue murder about. That is not something that I want to encourage. So I am asking the majority of calm-headed "anti-ROI" editors to simply accept the majority view. This is not a *big issue* so really it's not a whole lot to ask. On the other hand, asking the majority of editors (who are "pro-ROI") to acquiesce to the demands of a very small belligerent cadre "for the sake of peace" is a lot to ask. And it will not lead to peace. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. If I wanted to "stuff it to Sarah" I'd just vote for F. the reason I don't vote for F is that history shows us that it hasn't a hope in hell of giving any reason to a large group of editors to cease some kinds of disruptive bahaviour. I would rather leave off editing any articles about Ireland at all then go through month after month of this pointless regurgitation of argument. -- Evertype·✆ 12:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But Evertype, the vote and 2 year lock on page moves by Arbcom will prevent disruptive behaviour. No matter what the outcome of this vote (which is still far too earlier to decide with 30+ days to go), the matter will be over for 2 years.. theres just no point in anyone making a fuss about it because it will bring about no change. If F loses, supporters of F wont be able to argue to have it returned to the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Arbcom decision will be for this article title only. The problem is that if both "sides" don't find a compromise, chances are that the "discussion" will end up somewhere else - maybe another article title, maybe how to dab within articles, etc. There will be *no* goodwill between both "sides". It'll probably actually be worse, cos some editors will blame others for not settling on a compromise when we have come so far, and the opportunity and solution was sitting in front of us within our grasp. It's why Mooretwin's proposal covers more than just the title. It's why if "F" wins, we've all really lost, and we've rubber-stamped the past 7 years and helped create an environment for many more years of disruption. --HighKing (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The arbcom ruling will mean the article on the state and island will remain in their places for 2 years, and that no amount of fighting will change that. After this vote we have to agree on certain other matters. However if F wins it wills how the setup of the past 7 years is justified and supported by the majority of the community. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If F wins, I'll continue using "Ireland" within articles where no disambiguation is necessary. I'm sure others will do the same. That's not contentious. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The current setup has always been supported by a "majority". If the status quo wins, things will continue as they are (probably why it's called the status quo....). I entered this process to change things and to end the stupid edit wars. If no change occurs, I can easily foresee where the debate on this article will simple get switched to "Politics in the Republic of Ireland" or some other title, and this nonsense will simple go on and on. And I can also foresee how a number of editors will be pretty bitter over the wasted time spent trying to work out a compromise, which will only make the chances of future compromises even harder. And I can foresee triumphalistic language from the "winners" which will probably result in extremists being given a louder voice. Let's stop making it seem as if compromise is showing weakness, or "giving in". It's not. It's simply being practical and sensible, and trying to bury the stupidity and embarassment of the last 7 years of bitchy one-upmanship. --HighKing (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If the status quo wins then it will be the wish of the community, the vast majority have NEVER been involved in this matter before. Consensus was impossible to reach, so we came to this poll. The idea that we should somehow not allow the status quo to be supported seems strange, it had majority support in the past and looking at the poll the majority support it now (so far). After this vote we must deal with other matters like other articles such as Politics in Ireland or politics in Republic of Ireland etc that has to be sorted before the article positions becoming binding for 2 years.

You mention triumphalistic language, well that is one reason why if i am to compromise i want the Ireland collaboration project to declare that Republic of Ireland is NOT British POV and it should be against WP:AGF to say otherwise. Because if supporters of F do back down who at the moment have the most to lose (because the status quo would change + the way the vote is going) i am sure Sarah will continue her claims that Republic of Ireland is British POV and that a change justifies her stance. Thats something i find totally unacceptable, so if there is to be compromise i cant see it happening without a clear message rejecting her offensive claims. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"If no change occurs, I can easily foresee where the debate on this article will simple get switched to 'Politics in the Republic of Ireland'..." It will anyway. And why not? That is a separate and far more substantive matter. But let's not move on to there thinking that the person who cries the loudest will win the day. (And "F" 'winning' is a whole lot better than the inevitable mass-move to the likes of Politics of Ireland (state) that would follow anything else.)

My 2¢ is that if a thing about the state doesn't need dabbing from Ireland-the-island then IMHO it should be at "Ireland". And I think we are broadly at consensus on that. Same goes for in-article references: "Dublin is the capital of Ireland." Not "Dublin is the capital of the Republic of Ireland." All this wrangling over where we put the article on the state owing to the technical limitations of the encyclopedia software has distracted us from the heart of the matter. But I think we are all fine on that one. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(Adds: And BTW MHO is that Politics of Ireland is the proper place for the article on the politics of the state since there is no article about the politics of the island as a whole.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Id go along with that, on politics which is really confined to states it should be about the state aslong as there is a link at the top of the page to Politics of Northern Ireland. But in the case of things like the Culture of Ireland, to me that should always be about the whole island, with links available to culture of NI / ROI if there are separate articles. After the vote, I do not think it should be too difficult to get agreement on all these matters about other articles / how to word things in the text but the agreement that we are left with there must leave no gaps or be open to ones own interpretation. For any matter relating to an Ireland article name or use in text, anyone should clearly be able to look at the agreement and know exactly what to do, that will take time but it would be worth it. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There could be an article about the politics of the island as a whole, except that for some inexplicable reason Politics of X articles at Wikipedia tend to be about the system of government of the state, rather than its politics. I'd agree that Politics of Ireland, under the circumstances, might be fine for the article currently at Politics of the Republic of Ireland, so long as we include a disambiguation notice pointing people to Politics of Northern Ireland. I think it's kind of a tough call, though. Foreign Relations of Ireland, though, would clearly be a case where the article should be at that location, and not at Foreign Relations of the Republic of Ireland. I don't think this is necessarily true for all situations where we don't have an all-Ireland article. For instance Education in Ireland would be an ambiguous title for the article on the education system in the republic. So, yeah, the idea that every collateral article is going to get moved to Education in Ireland (state) and the like is one of the main reasons to support the status quo. Because you absolutely know that this is where people are going to go after this if the status quo loses. john k (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it really is dependent on the article in question thats why i think we need very very detailed agreement on these things after the vote and not just broad statements or basic points which can be seen in different ways. Military of Ireland is rightfully about the state, but when you throw in the word history Military history of Ireland it clearly has to be about the whole island and id say anything with the word history in should be relating to the island. So History of the Republic of Ireland, is clearly where the state belongs and not at History of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This page is 481 kilobytes long.

Dare we move any discussion to an archive? Timrollpickering (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah archive, most of the discussions are repetition. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Djegan (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My poor, crappy work computer was paralysed with despair when trying to access this page earlier today. ~ mazca ^talk 20:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

archive = "all" Sswonk (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Nearly all of this bar my new data is recycled stuff. Sarah777 (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't but help yourself - assume good faith? Djegan (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DJ. I learned everything I know about conducting these debates from the crash course I got from you. Be proud! Sarah777 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay archiving all discussions that ended up to 5 days ago takes out 120 kb. Is a 3 day limit okay? Timrollpickering (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

3 days is reasonable. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's now down to 261kb - and all the remaining threads have had at least one comment in the last three days. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Timrollpickering. How about adding the following to the top of the page?:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(3d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 2
|maxarchivesize = 250K
}}

In English that is "MiszaBot, automatically archive any threads on this page that are older than 3 days to archives starting with Archive 2, and start a new archive page when the content of an archive exceeds 250 kilobytes." Sswonk (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Will add. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that automatically add the latest archive link into the box or does that still need to be done manually? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: yes, the list will be updated. Long answer: technically, the MiszaBot configuration continues to name the archives with a name that the {{Archive box}} will understand so it will list them all even if new ones are created. It is set up to do that already, see Template:Archive box/doc#Automatic links to confirm. Sswonk (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Net British bias = +4 votes out of a total of 149

Sarah's been blocked for personal attacks. Reviewing the predictable ensuing drama on her talk page, I had the chance to see her profiling data again, and realised something more amazing than last time, which maybe demonstrates my previous points better than trying to be all subtle about it and try and talk about weighting and NPOV and how it applies to Wikipedia polls and how simplistic votes counts just don't cut it if the aim is to prove systemic net effects. This British POV that is allegedly making this poll a foregone conclusion due to the existence of an alleged systemic bias, has thus far using her figures (usual disclaimer: they might be total nonsense), has only produced a paltry 4 vote net effect swing in first choice votes in the direction she says it has an influence. All this from a theoretical (but undemonstrated) potential numerical advantage of 15:1 with which it could be exercised. Weird eh? A full breakdown with my latest thoughts is on her talkpage, in this version, although understandably she didn't take the time to read it. I say she should be unblocked to reply (or not) in light of her constant comments here on the subject of systemic bias. Infact I repeat my call for full transparency, now archived. MickMacNee (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And looking above, before anybody even thinks of dragging me into the winners/losers camp or characterising me as a POV battler, I am all for Option C, which merits of which Redking has so magnificently explained here, framed in the full glory of actual Wikipedia policy and purpose, which does not violate the NPOV, and does not have the sovereign state located at Republic of Ireland. If C wins, everybody wins! MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of disruptiveness

There's a lot of talk about how disruptive the current set-up is, and that this is why we should change it to something else. But I haven't seen too much in the way of actual evidence of disruption in the main namespace (as opposed to lots of arguing on talk pages). Could someone who is concerned about disruption and the like provide some evidence for the disruptions supposedly caused by the current set-up, which has been in place for the last seven years? What are we talking about here? john k (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, based on the number of move requests, page protections, blocks handed out, collateral edit-warring on related articles, and sheer volume of discussion on the Talk page by numerous different editors, that it's pretty obvious. --HighKing (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

All of these things have happened at British Isles, with Sarah involved in that matter as well. Just because it happens does not mean there is any justification for a change to take place and despite many many requests, no evidence has been produced that there is many in Ireland who find the Republic of Ireland offensive. Far from it, evidence of constant use by the state, its government ministers, members of the Irish parliament, its national football team playing under the name ALL suggest this is NOT a problem in the real world.. But according to a post earlier we are meant to forget about the real world, all that matters is a few editors on here are unhappy and we must try and appease them. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave the "British Isles" discussion off this page. As to the rest, I've already answered those questions about football teams and government uses earlier today. --HighKing (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the British Isles is directly related, there we have a few editors including Sarah who for some time have continued to try to get that article moved despite it clearly being a well sourced and defined geographically location known by many. If we are to give into edit waring / endless move requests on here, its only going to encourage more of the same on other articles. As i said before it sets an awful precedent. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Some citations on this, please? Move requests do not strike me as disruption. Show me the revert wars, page protections, blocks, and collateral edit warring. I was asking for specifics, not just general statements that it has occurred. john k (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We have been through all this before, and newer editors ought to acquaint themselves with the archives, and later ask some of these questions. There have been disputes that may be difficult to find, and link to. The disruption has happened, as most 'older' editors here know. I for one don't have the time to be compiling a list. Tfz 16:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Cheeky sod. Do your own searching, or just take the words of *all* editors here. It's why this ended up at Arbcom ffs. --HighKing (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

All such things have happened at the British Isles articles too, vandalism and edit wars are no justification for changing everything. This vote is going to put this issue to bed for 2 years which is why Arbcom ruled in such a way.. so the idea that if F wins the same old things will carry on is just wrong. The winning vote will have the articles locked in place for 2 years.. there cant be conflict on that afterwards. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a statement somewhere that someone can point me to? I am asking this not because I am lazy, but because Evertype and others are offering the "disruptiveness" of the current situation as the basis for supporting the name change. This is done repeatedly without offering any evidence of what exactly is meant by this, and what it consists of. If I'm to make an educated decision on this point, I think it would be worthwhile for those advocating this as a reason for change to provide some summary of what exactly they mean. john k (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Block

BTW, for those that don't know already, Sarah777 has been blocked by DrKiernan for this comment. It has been discussed on her Talk page and the reasons for the block, to me at least, don't stand up to scrutinity. This is very unfair. --HighKing (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The 24 hour block was unfair considering all of the comments on this talk page as well, however responding with personal attacks by calling an admin a clown twice is hardly going to help her case. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a great believer that the block should stand up on it's own merits. This one doesn't. Post-events shouldn't be used to justify the block. --HighKing (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. I'm no great fan of Sarah's, but she's not dished anything out to anyone who wasn't dishing an equal amount back. I can't imagine RA, BW etc being offended by anything she'd said. – iridescent 15:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

He(DrKiernan) is a participant in the debate" on the Ireland talk-page and has silenced an opponent. Sarah777 (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC). unquote from Sarah's page. I agree with Sarah here. Couple of months ago I had an encounter with the same gentleman over very 'little indeed'. We need cool heads here. Tfz 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was rather offended when she called me a monkey, but i think that was a misunderstanding. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it was a joke, would you agree? Tfz 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes BritishWatcher (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As for DrKs involvement here ive never seen him declare a preference on this talk page, he hasnt voted.. hes just from what ive seen rightfully disputed Sarahs methods with her little spreadsheet. Considering all of the fuss that spreadsheet caused, its not a shock other editors / admin took an interest in it. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, DrK is involved all right. See this statement and this one where he participates in an earlier process with views that are ... not in line ... with Sarah777's. Not to mention his own little Sarah-like tally of votes. --HighKing (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point, i didnt remember the statement, but hes not voted in this poll and his involvment on this talk page has not been in favour or against any option. I see no problem with the tally of votes thing though, several have been doing their own sums in order to counter Sarahs tally and prove it wrong. I would hope anyone and everyone who sees the problem with Sarahs tally challanges her / tries to prove her wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't agree that DrK has a POV and has engaged in this process on the one hand, and say he's not involved on the other. And more especially, as Tfz points out below, he previously voted on this poll. --HighKing (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I said he was uninvolved becase I looked at his comments here, on Sarahs talk page and the fact he hasnt voted in this poll, i didnt remember hed wrote a statement months ago. The previous poll was just on what word to use after State, if hes a supporter of F as claimed then it doesnt make much difference anyway that he voted in that. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The statements linked by HighKing do not support or oppose particular options. They are designed to be neutral summaries of arguments both for and against, or statements on which everyone can agree, not statements in favour of any particular outcome. DrKiernan (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur, and if she had called admin a dick but blue-linked it, she'd be OK. Clown > dick? Irony. Sswonk (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DrKiernan has voted before on this a couple of months ago, and then deleted his vote[7]. Tfz 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's ironic then that in that vote they were supporting Ireland (country), Ireland (republic) and Ireland (Republic of), the absence of which Sarah has spoke about often, yet she now paints this admin as an F supporter no less. MickMacNee (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Folks there is an administrators noticeboard if you want to make a complaint. This isn't the "free Sarah, unjustly banned blog". It is time to move on and keep to the issue. Djegan (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't. But the implications won't. Due to the existence of an admin (or, as it turns out, a number of admins) who disagree with my point of view, and who can then arbitrarily decide to block me, or other editors they disagree with, with no justifiable reason, and for other admins to do nothing about it, is enough for me at least to withdraw from this process, as I've done. I could take this to ANI, but why should I? As you've pointed out, that part of the action is not part of the issue. The implications of DrKiernan's actions, however, are. --HighKing (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If Sarah felt that DrKs actions were totally unacceptable then she should of requested an unblock, she said herself other admins would come along look at what happens and AGREE with the block. Had Sarah not gone on to call that admin a clown twice im pretty sure shed be unblocked by now considering other editors who disagree with her point of view think she should be unblocked too. Sarah gets herself into a whole and keeps digging, i saw someone say that to Sarah the other night when there was the spreadsheet incident.. its very true. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This page is clearly a civility free zone. Being from the Palatinate myself I personally have no issues with this whatsoever. If an admin feels they need to do something against this special status that's also OK with me, so long as they do it fairly and not by banning a random (or worse: not at all random) editor for what many have been doing for a while. As it is, this block doesn't look good, and I guess it will eventually be reversed.

By the way, something else that's not particularly nice is packing in your toys and going home when you feel things may not be going your way. Withdrawing one's vote in protest against something mostly unrelated is not fair against the others who are voting the same way as yourself, and it looks like an attempt to get an advantage in later, premeditated disruption once the vote is over. Hans Adler 17:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hans. I know you're due a response above (Re:feck) and I intend to respond. Sometimes it's hard to know where to start - I'll respond on my Talk page and ping you. I'm sorry you've labelled this "packing in your toys and going home" - but having had a long discussion with some editors on my Talk page today regarding the objectives of this vote, I realized that this isn't the process I believed I signed up for and was participating in. Somehow it got changed, and I wasn't aware of that. And that conversation, coupled with the triumphalistic language and bullying techniques (admins included) in play on this page, pushed me over the line and convinced me. --HighKing (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Highking i understand wanting the sort of mooretwin proposal that was suggested, but i do not see how you thought going into this vote would somehow lead to it? we tried to get agreement and failed, the only option left was a community wide poll that decides the future of the articles for us. Before the vote started, how exactly did you think it would lead to it? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I wasn't just addressing you, it was also the earlier struck votes. Whatever the ultimate outcome, it will probably be quite narrow. It would be very odd if F won because too many of anti-F votes were struck or withdrawn, and then these very events would be cited as proof of irregularities in the poll that are grounds to annul it. Hans Adler 17:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does DrKiernan say why he/she made the block? HighKing, you say it is because of this comment. Where is that said? That comment seem fairly innocuous in the stream of things, though Sarah's overall behavior has not been a force for the good on this page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

See Sarah's talk page ClemMcGann (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see where DrKiernan states why there. Only where HighKing states by DrKiernan did. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. Sarah had removed it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Registered by unease with the block. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

registered my disappointment --

This entire process has been corrupted, but then perhaps it was so from its beginning? -- ClemMcGann (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how Sarah being blocked for a period of 24 hours in a poll that lasts 30 more days makes the process corrupted. She could of got out of that block very easily, instead she went on the attack calling him a clown twice and refusing to contest the block. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And now Jack Forbes has withdrawn [8] ClemMcGann (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Practical problem with "Republic of Ireland", and an American POV

Confusingly (and this may not be Wikipedia's fault but that of historians), the Irish Free State is described as a separate state from the present republic of Ireland, which came into existence in 1937 (or was it 1949?). On the other hand, if you asked me when the country Ireland came into existence I would say 1922, when it became (almost) independent from the UK. This may be technically incorrect but it makes intuitive sense. Using "Republic of Ireland" simply to disambiguate Ireland from Northern Ireland can created some confusion, as it refers to both a country and a specific constitutional arrangement. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland states that "some people born in the Republic of Ireland before 1949, but after 3 March 1922, are British subjects." But there was no Republic of Ireland in 1922!

If this were an American encyclopedia Ireland, the country, would definitely be the primary topic. We just don't use Ireland or Irish to mean "all Ireland", even in contexts when we ought to do so. Dublin is in Ireland, to me, and Belfast is not in Ireland but in Northern Ireland (though it happens to be on the island of Ireland). The term Republic of Ireland is not widely in the States (except among the Irish diaspora and Irish historians), though it would probably be understood. I would naturally speak of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, even though this is apparently deprecated in Wikipedia articles (I'm not sure which side it offends). Since all this is totally contradictory to the usages of many on either side of the "British" Isles, this is a good argument for there being no primary topic for "Ireland", globally speaking. 67.187.92.105 (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Id agree with your point on when the current country came into being, although its interesting to note that the UK is handled the same wayon wikipedia.. with separate articles on Kingdom of Great Britain, Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before the article on the present state at United Kingdom.

But i disagree about the state being the primary topic. On St Patricks day if the American president wishes the people of Ireland well surely he is talking about the whole of the island not the state and when you talk of having Irish ancestory that is not defined by the current border between Northern Ireland / Republic of Ireland. The ambiguity problem is not between Northern Ireland and the country Ireland, its mainly between the island and the country which both have the same name. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The unfortunate reality here is that Éire/Ireland/the Republic of Ireland is not a sucessor state to the Irish Free State. The theoritical limits on the sovereignty of the Irish Free State were removed by a mixture of the Statute of Westminister, amendments made to the Free State Constitution and statute changes. The line should be that in 1937 the state adopted a new constitution and in 1949 a act of parliament described the state as a republic. Stating that it is a sucessor state is a point of view as it tried to interpret what these documents did. I tried to make appropriate changes at Republic of Ireland but I was reverted by Sarah777. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that should have been User:MusicInTheHouse. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the year of coming-into-being of the state, you are correct. Regarding the name of the state it is not so clear. The issues are addressed very well in this article: The Irish Free State/Éire/Republic of Ireland/Ireland: “A Country by Any Other Name”?

Regarding what is the primary topic, this depends on what you mean:

• Some example of areas where Ireland-the-island is the primary topic: citizenship, culture, religion (e.g. Roman Catholic, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian, Methodist), sport, geopgraphy, travel, history, society, trade unionism, and so on and on.
• Some examples of where Ireland-the-state is the primary topic: government. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As a immigrant saoránach I kind of don't think that "citizenship" counts as an "all-Island" topic as citizenship has to do with one State or the other. -- Evertype·✆ 22:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The qualification for citizenship (by jus soli) is to be born anywhere on the island of Ireland. A resident lives in the Republic of Ireland, but citizen was born in Ireland (adds: yourself excluded of course!). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

By convention the primary topic should be the state, especially that it covers 85% of the island. NI Unionism is beginning to reclaim Ireland, as some years ago the claim was the NI was Britain. There are a lot of POVs to deal with here, but saying that Ireland is the name of the state is not a POV in the least, because it is true. And Sarah has a good point in that UK based Wikipedians will generally opt for RoI, which is not the name of the state, but is a description that Ireland is a democratic republic rather than a monarchy. That was the intent of the RoI act. Tfz 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And options A and B are my preferred option because of this. But I have opted not to give A and B weight in my vote (nor F) because I believe that only C, D, and E offer compromise, which is what we need. -- Evertype·✆ 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

85% of the territory. But what percentage of the history? Of the literature? Of the sport? And what convention? Most states do not share a name with a broader topic. Look at China and Korea - the common names for People's Republic of China and South Korea. The broader concept of "Ireland" stretches beyond the institutions and operations of the Irish state 1922-present.

(And just because the Brits say black does not mean you have to say white. We are not in a spitting game.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

'Spitting game'? To be honest with you, I haven't got the foggiest as to what you are talking about. Tfz 23:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, the modern day state cant claim ownership over all of Irelands history, its far more offensive than the title Republic of Ireland ever could be, thats why i strongly oppose A / B. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't think anyone is saying that RoI is offensive, it's just not the name of the country that covers 85% of the island. But you keep on repeating that same mantra, hoping it will eventually stick. It's a big problem with this page where Masem should be more involved. Sadly that you are offended by the country called Ireland, it's not a reason for any change/no-change outcome. It's simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tfz 02:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Im not offended that the country has the same name as the island although i think they should of avoided it. I would be offended with option A or B because i do not think the state which has existed for less than 100 years can claim owenership over the entire islands history (A) or take the prime spot from the island (B). Thankfully it doesnt look like those two options are popular with most people. As for ROI not being offensive, i dont think it is but some people here have claimed it to be, thats the only argument ive heard here for a change. WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies more to those seeking change, when no reasons to justify change has been made. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you saying that "no reasons to justify change has been made". There were a number of reasons given, maybe you just didn't read them. They are in the archives. If you really can't find them, then I'll do a search later today for you. It's important that we respect the different opinions so we can move onwards, and most here are willing to do that. Tfz 02:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of some people may find it offensive and changing the title may prevent future conflicts i still have not seen any reason i consider valid to change the status quo. Changing something because a few find it offensive or to prevent edit wars just is not a good idea, it sets a bad precedent and exactly the same things could be said to change the British Isles article. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is anybody trying to change the title of the article British Isles. There are some editors who would change the content slightly, and that includes me. You have made the same charge/mantra again that editors are saying 'RoI is offensive', and that is wrong again. RoI is not the name of a country, no more than E.II is titled the .Queen of England. The only issue here is disambiguation, and nothing else, AFAIK. Tfz 03:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah has tried to have British Isles renamed on two occasions. Ireland is the name of the state, but it is also the name of the island. The island has had the name for longer and is its the primary topic. So that just leaves what we call the country. We could have Ireland (state) i dont oppose that, but Republic of Ireland is a common alternative name, used by the Irish state, Irish government ministers, Irish members of Parliament, Irish media, The Irish football team, and its known internationally, There for i fail to see why we cant use this term provided it makes very clear (which it does) in the intro that Republic of Ireland is ONLY the description of the state and not its official name.

"Queen of England" is sadly used by mistake with people thinking that is her title, when everyone should know Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia etc and that there has not been a Queen of England for over 300 years. That is very different to using an alternative name because Ireland is ambiguous. An alternative name created as a description by the state and is often used by it as i said before. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible compromise?

This section below was copied from my talk page and posted here by Jack. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, if it were you and me alone, do you think you could come to a compromise on this? Jack forbes (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was seriously prepared to compromise, although ofcourse it had to be if other supporters of F agreed and with others accepting the certain conditions, i wouldnt unilaterally change my vote lol. Declaration that ROI is not British POV and that such accusations in the future should be considered a violation of WP:AGF with the aim of having Arbcom agree with that view, seemed like a reasonable outcome. Sure some would not agree that it isnt POV, but like i said before surely a name change is more important if the term really is such a problem.

I must admit it didnt take me too long after seeing some of the responses to change my mind. Sarah was the first to respond to my post and i was stunned because it sounded like she would accept it, but then 10 minutes later went on saying the same things again, which disappointed me. Strong responses by those who support F saying bad idea to compromise, also supporters of F getting called extremist by a moderate helped changed my mind. I certainly think now compromise is near impossible.

Also i get rather nervous with a live poll, F doesnt have this in the bag yet. A compromise to secure the second best option which i could easily live with would be better than a sudden change / surge in the vote which leads to an option i dont support winning. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If it was just me and you then quite possibly we could come to a compromise.

• We agree that Republic of Ireland is not British POV and such accusations should be considered a violation of WP:AGF.
• We try to get Arbcom to agree with this view to prevent future accusations or have accusers punished.
• Move country article to Ireland (state).
• Lock it for two years, problem solved.

Both sides are reasonably happy. One side gets the name change, the other side gets recognition that there is nothing wrong with Republic of Ireland and ensures that there are no future claims of British POV about the term Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I could agree with that. Depending on the second point (arbcom)
• We try, but if arbcom don't go with it the agreement still stands
• Agree
• Agreed

Although we can't guarantee the impossible. That is, a rogue editor claiming British pov. Jack forbes (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse, but i think if it was all part of a package to get a compromise i recon they would agree, even if it was just to get them to accept such claims cause problems and should be avoided rather than will result in warnings/ blocks etc. How to deal with all the other articles like Politics of Ireland is alot more complicated though.

But anyway like i said before i cant see compromise being possible anymore with everyone. I support F, i hope it wins but im not going to lose sleep if it doesnt. My main concern going into this vote was that A or B win, both of which i strongly oppose. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well - I was going to respond to this - but now I see it is, as the lead sentence implies, a conversation between just two people... ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please form an orderly queue to discuss this. No barging, one at a time. Bastun, join the discussion, don't be shy. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

LOL thats the last time i stay alone in a room with Jack!!! Just to avoid confusion, the above conversation was stolen from my talk page and posted by Jack here :| BritishWatcher (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Note to Jack: That being the case, as born out by the page history, Jack I strongly urge you to place some sort of notice that you are copy-pasting whenever you do that here or anywhere in the project as a courtesy to others attempting to follow threads. Thanks Sswonk (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's me told off. :( Jack forbes (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

serves you right lol BritishWatcher (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you must agree that conversations are differently handled by people than are debates, and I think it is important that you let people know you are transferring a conversation into a debate, that's all. It's important to context, no bad feelings. Sswonk (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I endorse the four points discussed above. -- Evertype·✆ 10:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't this discusssed above already? I can't find where. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but i striked all my comment out including the title so its no longer on the contents. its below the "I go away for five days and what happens?" section BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

The reason some editors are against the use of Republic of Ireland as a title is because it's suggesting that ROI is the name of the state. With the island at Ireland and the state at ROI it could be viewed that the layout is suggesting that Ireland is only the name of the island and not the name of the state. If ROI is going to be used, maybe another compromise would be to make Ireland a disambiguation page, keep the state at ROI and move the island page, it would make it clear that both are called Ireland, but also would use ROI.194.179.120.4 (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The island of Ireland is the primary topic in many peoples minds, i think its right it has the prime spot. The island article makes very clear at the top of the page where the article on the state is. The state article makes very clear (rightfully) in the intro that Republic of Ireland is just a description. The only official name of the state is Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(yet another ficking edit conflict) Hi BW, don't get me wrong I am not looking to get in a pissing match with the following, I just want you to hear it as a comment to take into consideration. You have said several times that "island of Ireland is the primary topic" in a definitive way, generally qualifying it with "many, most, etc. people". A poster above has pointed out, and I will reiterate, there is a somewhat different view of what exactly that means here in the United States. Just food for thought. Sswonk (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There has never been a requirement that articles be located at their official names. The way to deal with any misconceptions brought about by the title is to explain them in the article intro. Which Republic of Ireland does. john k (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to the introduction, "Republic of Ireland" is only "sometimes used" to describe the coutry, which makes it a very poor candidate per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Actually the name of the article initially misled me into thinking that ROI was indeed the official name of Ireland until I read the Irish Constitution. I'm sure that people who only quickly skim through the article (and miss the name clarification in the lead) get to the same conclusion too. Laurent (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. That is the main bone of discontent. It's just misleading.194.179.120.4 (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is probably understating the case. "Republic of Ireland" is almost always used to describe the country in circumstances when one needs to disambiguate it from the island as a whole. Obviously, this isn't in most circumstances, but it is in many. And the circumstance which we find ourselves in with the article's title is precisely one such circumstance. Furthermore, the fact that some people don't bother to read carefully is not a legitimate content concern. Also - seriously, you can't be bothered to read the introduction to the article, and were forced to learn the truth from reading the Irish Constitution? That sounds implausible. john k (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it's simple - I've skimmed through the article, missed the name clarification, and went on to read the constitution because I didn't understand why the article was called "Republic of Ireland" when everywhere in the article it's simply called "Ireland". Maybe it's just me though, but I'd be interested to know how many people end up thinking that ROI is the official name. Laurent (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If they read the first paragraph of the introduction, nobody should. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Many - possibly most - countries are not at their official name (short selection below) without controversy over whether their position is misleading.

Guest9999 (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the only reason they're not at their official names is because they are at their most common name. Ireland is at neither.194.179.120.4 (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But they're able to be at their common names because there isn't another entity residing there. Whereas we have an island and a state "competing". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion or any other compromise would make it a bit more of a fair fight.194.179.120.4 (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Both the most common name and the official name are ambiguous. Another title is required. In that circumstance, we go to the most common name which is unambiguous. This is Republic of Ireland. And the idea that Republic of Ireland is some kind of obscure form, rarely used in the real world, is just bollocks. It is very commonly used, and for the exact purpose that having the article titled at Republic of Ireland serves - to disambiguate from the island as a whole. john k (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read my suggestion, I was saying to use ROI as the title, but with different setup elsewhere, there will be less confusion and readers being mislead about the facts.194.179.120.4 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think, in fairness, very few are actually "confused". And to be honest, it's way too late now to add additional options to the poll. But might be something to remember for two and a bit years time... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This suggested poll option really is of limited use, and would still be objected to for the usual reasons for having the state at ROI. It would only help readers in a limited respect, namely only typing in Ireland in the search box. And arguably, it helps nobody who is not absolutely clear when they get to their two choice option, whether their intended target was a whole island or a post 1922 sovereign state (and arguably, these are the very people who would not be confused by the current hatnote arrangement, if the phrase Repubic of Ireland already lights a bulb of recognition in their head). People have tried to get around this limited use issue by having a million dubious entries at an 'Ireland' disambiguation page, but that's just bad practice imo, and not what dab pages are for (read the disambiguation policy, the current Ireland dab page is totally IAR). There is an WP:Outlines project which aims to do those sorts of things better, but their Outline of Ireland effort to cover all the island seems to have got lost in the post, for the very same reason that this poll exists. MickMacNee (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Other issues...

I have open a discussion at WP:IECOLL on the wider issues surrounding this vote (excepting discussion of the three articles being voted on here). For reasons stated there, I think now is a better time to discuss these matters - for both practical reasons and to encourage a spirit of fairness and compromise, as well as to shift focus from one narrow matter back onto the substantive matters. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea BritishWatcher (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Some background on the name "Republic of Ireland"

I am slowly beginning to understand why somebody might conceivably, though IMO without real justification, be offended by the term Republic of Ireland. I asked for a reference to a reliable source indicating that this is not just a fixed idea of some Wikipedia editors, but that people are offended by this in the real world. I promised to change my vote if provided with such a reference. So far nobody has presented such evidence, and I started looking for it myself.

The closest thing I found was a European Union styleguide that instructs to call Ireland Ireland and says: "Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’." [9] This styleguide has been written for a context in which highly formal language with sometimes unusual definitions and conventions is normal, and in which Ireland appears much more often as a state than as an island. So it doesn't completely convince me.

Looking further, I found a few things that I believe are of general interest for clueless outsiders like me and perhaps even a few insiders. I had to quote extensively because the sources are very long documents. Therefore I have collapsed the quotations to save screen space. It begins with the Dáil debates concerning the Republic of Ireland Act. There was also a Seanad debate in December 1948, which was a bit more confused. E.g. Republic of Ireland was sometimes referred to as a "name", and Ireland as a "description".

Dáil protocols 1948
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
24 November 1948, Dáil reading Republic of Ireland Bill [10] Section 2 [of the Republic of Ireland Act] provides: “It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.” [...] Deputies will recall that under the Constitution the name of the State is Éire or, according to Article 4, the name of the State is Éire or, in the English language, Ireland. Now, this section does not purport, as it could not, to repeal the Constitution. There is the name of the State and there is the description of the State. The name of the State is Ireland and the description of the State is the Republic of Ireland. That is the description of its constitutional and international status. Deputies are probably aware of the fact that tremendous confusion has been caused by the use of that word “Éire” in Article 4. By a misuse by malicious people of that word, “Éire”, they have identified it with the Twenty-Six Counties and not with the State that was set up under this Constitution of 1937. In documents of a legal character, such as, for instance, policies of insurance, there is always difficulty in putting in what word one wants to describe the State referred to. Section 2 provides a solution for these difficulties, and those malicious newspapers who want to refer in derogatory tones to this country as “Éire” and who have coined these contemptuous adjectives about it, such as “Eireannish” and “Eirish”, and all the rest of it, will have to conform to the legal direction here in this Bill. Section 2 does these subsidiary things but it does more than that. It does something fundamental. It declares to the world that when this Bill is passed this State is unequivocally a republic. It states that as something that cannot be controverted or argued about and we can rely, I think and I hope, on international courtesy to prevent in future this contemptuous reference to us and the name of our State being used for contemptuous purposes, as it has been, by some people and by some organs in the last few years. Taoiseach John A. Costello (Fine Gael) I hope, as I have already said, that we will see the day in which it will be admitted by everybody that the State that we have will be the Republic of Ireland which was proclaimed in 1916, which was ratified by the vote of the people and formally proclaimed by the Dáil on 21st January, 1919, and for which very many lives have been given. Ex-Taoiseach Éamon de Valera (Fianna Fáil) Everybody who has listened to this debate cannot but feel that this is a memorable day in the history of our nation. The expression “The Republic of Ireland” has a far greater historical significance for our people than any language we could utilise here can express. Mr. Dunne Section 2 of the Bill makes me suspicious—suspicious that that recourse to the people is being deliberately avoided. The name of our country cannot be changed without altering the Constitution and, therefore, without a referendum; so in the Bill we are to be described as the republic of Ireland. To me that is a quibble, especially—and I say this advisedly—when we look back at the type of thing that was said a few years ago, by those who were then in opposition. When Deputy de Valera was talking about the republic, scorn was poured on him because the word “republic” did not appear in the Constitution. I certainly clearly got the impression that those in opposition firmly believed that we would not be a republic until the word “republic” was in the Constitution. If it was felt essential then that, to make our position clear as a republic, the word should appear in the Constitution, why are those same people now avoiding it? I believe that the answer is that it is felt undesirable that the number of our people who are opposed to this should be clearly known. I admit I may be quite wrong about that, but there is that element of doubt. It is more than probable that my sentiments towards the Crown are not shared by most of the members of this House, but I am sure that many members, and certainly many people in the country, are disturbed by the way this matter is being rushed. Mr. Sheldon 25 November 1948, Dáil reading Republic of Ireland Bill [11] There was one reference in the Taoiseach's speech, however, which caused me personally some concern. The Bill declares that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland and it seemed to us that that was intended to be the formal declaration of Deputies opposite that they had now discovered that to be the case, but the Taoiseach rather suggested that the reason why that section was inserted in the Bill was merely one of convenience, a device to ensure that it would be easy to distinguish between this 26-county State and the whole of Ireland, and thus to avoid the use of the word “Éire” as meaning only this portion of Ireland. I find there an indication of the circumstances which made us hesitate to use in connection with the enactment of the Constitution of 1937 the term “Republic of Ireland”. That name had for us a sentimental connotation. It signified not this 26-county State but the whole of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland, as proclaimed in 1916 and ratified in 1918 by the people, was a 32-county republic and there was a reluctance to use that name in relation to any other State [...] Mr. Lemass There was also considerable concern in this debate whether, after Éire had been "degenerated" into a term for the 26 counties, the same might now happen with Republic of Ireland.

soc.culture.celtic FAQ and Irish FAQ
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What to call the Republic and the North [12] This is an obsolete part of the soc.culture.celtic FAQ. It used to have an Ireland section, which said: Regularly posters get flamed for calling the Republic of Ireland, Eire or Southern Ireland. This is seen by some as pandering to the British as the British Media insist on using the terms Eire or Southern Ireland, as a way of differentiating between the North (the part inside the UK) and the Republic. If you don't wish to offend use the term Republic of Ireland when refering to the 26 counties. Note that this information seems to pre-date the Good Friday Agreement. I'm a bit confused by all the names. Please explain [13] From the Irish FAQ: British people often call the Republic Éire (possibly because it was the word used by the BBC for years) but this is not popular amongst Irish people. The word is grating to many Irish ears when used in English. "Éire" is the name of the state in Irish, "Ireland" is the name in English. The Constitution says as much (but also contains the phrase "We, the people of Éire" in its preamble, arguably a case of mis-translation). Some Irish don't mind the mix and even use it themselves, however if in doubt, you call it "Ireland" if you are speaking English. "Ireland" is ambiguous: it may refer to the island or to the part governed from Dublin. You may want to say "the island of Ireland" to avoid this ambiguity. "The North" and "the South" are often used as shorthand for Northern Ireland and the Republic respectively. [...] Finally, you cannot tell someone's political allegiance reliably from what names they use: these are all generalisations. The safest terms are "Northern Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland".

Hans Adler 18:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that the style guide suggests any form of offence, its important for an international organisation to get the name of the state right especially when so many do have "republic of.." as their official titles. Having a note saying never use Republic of Ireland, is just the same in my opinion as having the current intro saying Ireland is the ONLY official name of the state.

Interesting quotes / info though, is a good insight into it. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the styleguide. That's why I said the closest and why I am not changing my vote yet. I often go against the mainstream here and get attacked with references to WP:NOT#CENSORED because I argue against gratuitously offending significant numbers of readers. But in this case I only found some indications that RoI outside a football is slightly less idiomatic in Ireland than elsewhere, but no indication that it's actually offensive to anybody.

Except... those in the Dáil who in 1948 were concerned about RoI eventually referring only to 26 counties had a valid point. The state name Ireland still expresses the claim to a united Ireland in a way that RoI probably stopped doing shortly after the RoI Act. But certainly that isn't a valid argument for a naming discussion. Hans Adler 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice research, and informative. It's a pity more editors don't read the sources. Tfz 01:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Its ashame those seeking for the status quo to change do not provide external evidence of the dispute / offence Republic of Ireland causes. It would help their case. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The EU issue makes me laugh actually. Recently, the Irish media triumphantly announced that the EU agriculture bods had declared Ireland free of some goddawful cow-borne disease that can infect humans. This fact somehow made it onto Wikipedia In the News, and surprise surprise, somebody came along to point out that it should be Ireland not Republic of Ireland in the hook. This disease is transmitted by contact, and the Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border is totally open to humans, and escaped cows. I searched and searched the cited links, and the hooked article, and came away none the wiser as to whether the declaration meant the island or the country, and whether the nominator had simply guessed it should be ROI, before the obligatory piping request. There's an example of the logic behind some of these Wikipedia disputes, and how they have zero grounding in actually helping the reader, and are instead all about national pride (even when highlighting your country was recently blighted by a deadly disease!). It would be interesting to see if, in their press release, the EU made any distinction, as we can at least forgive the Irish media their worldview (even though the internet has no borders). MickMacNee (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Lmao @ escaped cows. I would think the EU always only refers to the state when it talks of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of the naming, here's some comments I made on Sarah's talk page and on my own:

I understand that the official name is Eire in Gaelic or Ireland in English by the constitution, but plenty of Irish people, books, newspapers, etc. use Republic of Ireland, and that's how the country is generally known worldwide, not just by we Brits. I did find a letter to a psychiatry journal noting that Eire shouldn't be used in English, and noting disapproval of Irish authors using the name "Republic of Ireland",[14] but they didn't seem offended by the use, rather they were being a stickler for strict accuracy by my reading.

"The South" and "The North" are colloquialisms, and I've heard that the phrase "Southern Ireland" isn't well accepted, and it's also inaccurate as parts of the Irish state are in Ulster and are more northerly than Northern Ireland... I had a look for recent news coverage using the term "Republic of Ireland", trying to exclude football. See [15]. The British press uses it, such as the BBC, Guardian, Independent, and many US sources use it too. On a quick search, I found a couple of Belfast Telegraph stories - I realise Belfast isn't in the Republic - and a couple of RTE stories. On a search of RTE, again excluding football, there are plenty of stories using "Republic of Ireland":[16]. In contrast, the Irish Times seems to have very few references:[17]

The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 says the state will be known as the "Republic of Ireland",[18] so it has been an official description and not one that caused any offence at the time, and it certainly wasn't imposed by a British point of view. The difference between a name and a description would seem semantic, and to rest on the fact that the act would have had to be a constitutional amendment to officially change the name. I think there's no dispute that the strict legal name of the state is "Ireland", but Wikipedia goes by the name commonly used internationally and not what a state rules, e.g. see Union of Myanmar.

There's many hits for "Republic of Ireland" on Irish government sites, see [19].

The reason it is seen as British POV is that from the '50s, the Irish government wanted to be referred to as "The Government of Ireland", and they wanted the state to be officially referred to as simply "Ireland". The British government refused to play along, presumably due to Unionist sentiments, and consistently referred to them as "Republic of Ireland" or "Irish Republic", which annoyed the Irish. When Ireland was admitted to the UN and the EC, they were admitted as they wished, as "Ireland", but the British government protested. The Irish get their own back by refusing to acknowledge the full official name of the UK as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", preferring to drop the "and Northern Ireland" bit, originally because the Irish state still had territorial claims on that part of Ulster.

But this bickering between governments is pretty irrelevant to what we should call articles on Wikipedia - we go with the widest recognised usage internationally. I don't much mind whether it is Ireland or Republic of Ireland, but the idea that the usage of Republic of Ireland is universally offensive to the Irish is wrong, especially as many Irish sources use it themselves. Some Irish people don't like it, and that's acknowledged, but we can't please everyone all the time. Fences&Windows 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples of Disruption, again

Since nobody answered my question before, I'm going to bring it up again. What kind of disruption are we talking about? Could anyone present any specific examples, or some kind of relatively detailed summary of what is going on? If you want to get people to support a compromise on the basis of the status quo supposedly resulting in some horrific amount of disruption, I think it behooves you to actually explain what that disruption is. Nobody answered my question above - I was told to research it myself. But why should I research it myself? Is it really my job to wade through several years of archives in order to understand the situation? I think Republic of Ireland is the best title. People have tried to persuade me otherwise on the basis that that title causes too much disruption. But so far as I can tell, this is just a bald assertion for which nobody has presented any evidence. Obviously the current title causes a lot of irritation on talk pages. But that's not disruption. People arguing is, more or less, what talk pages are for. I want to know how often and in what ways this has crossed over into the main namespace - how has it affected Wikipedia content? If nobody can provide me with any examples of this, I'm going to assume that by "disruption" is largely meant "people arguing on talk pages." That is not, imo, disruption. This poll and the discussion of it, as impolite and irritating as it may be, is not disruptive - normal users can look at the Ireland articles just fine without having any sense that this is going on.

But if there's real disruption I'd be interested to hear about it. If the situation is so bad as it is claimed to be, people should have an answer beyond "read the archives." john k (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody answered because nobody wants to go there again. It was hellish. Repeated polls, call for polls, simultaneous polls (e.g. at one there were near weekly polls with three or four identical polls being conducted simultaneously on different pages - the ArbCom arose after an admin closed one that was being held in an obscure corner of the encyclopedia that showed a different result to others being conducted at Talk:Ireland, Talk:Republic of Ireland and the IMOS at the same time, and made the page move). Flame wars, uncivil accusations of POV pushing or outright bias, naming calling. Tenacious postings to talk pages (e.g. if one discussion wasn't going the way a particular editor wanted another would spring open - maybe on a different page or on the same page or on multiples pages - supposedly discussing a "newly unearthed claim of bias"). Campaigns by sub-groups of editors to militantly change in-article names, moving of categories and related pages to preferred titles, ensuring edit wars, WP:POINTy edits (e.g. of the kind "Ireland is a name of the state in Europe that is called Republic of Ireland by the British and their supporters." and other 'blah blah' being added to articles). Isolated incidents of page blanking or full content replacement. Reprisal edits (e.g. changing another editors preferred terminology on unrelated topic just to piss them off, or stalking opponents across the Wiki reverting innocuous edits and demanding sources) or reprisal stances in unrelated discussions (e.g. taking a position against an "opponent" from the Ireland-name-issue on an unrelated discussion that an editors would not normally hold or give a fig about, just to piss their "opponent" off and/or make sure they didn't get their way). Wikilaywering, being a dick, trolling - not just by one or two troublesome editors (who you could always ignore) but my groups editors in concert. The worst is simply the great chasms of ill-will that has been gouged across the Irish Wiki community over this. It was truly hellish. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW the above was not merely weeks, it was years, recurring in spasms, bring quite for maybe long periods, or taking the form of low-level hostilities being conducted over months, and exploding into to spitting games and throwing tables and chairs at each other, then dying down out of exhaustion and stalemate. All the time, you felt every operation was a new tactic, or a reinvention of an old one, not a new discussion. Hellish. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And I would say that's a pretty fair assessment. EverType and HighKing will (in good faith) possibly argue that the above exactly is why we need to compromise. I would contend that "compromise" is not any real compromise when the very small but vocal minority essentially get everything they want, and that it's a signal that similar tactics will work again elsewhere. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Whilst it may be used on many different articles i cant help but always think of the British Isles article where Sarah has been heavily involved in attempting to get a rename too. If it can work here when theres a valid name, then it may work elsewhere if enough hell is raised. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ran - this is useful. I just wanted to be clear that we were talking about real disruption in the main namespace, rather than simply flame wars in the talk space. This is certainly problematic, and something should be done to put an end to it. My preference would be for sanctions against people who are disruptive, rather than giving into them. john k (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The hellishness (even if the most rational of editors may recognize that it is and has always been entirely unnecessary) is there—and will be there—if the status quo doesn't change. Gods, I'd love it if we just TRIED changing the name to Ireland (state) and locked it there for two years and see what happens. I am absolutely convinced that life would be a lot better for everybody in the Irish Wiki community. It's distressing that people like John K and Hans just don't seem to care that we've suffered such strife for such a long time. That we're all exhausted. What's very sad, though, is seeing people like HighKing quit the project entirely, is seeing people like BritishWatcher and others argue against compromise for no good reason, or for spurious reasons. Nobody's gven a decent argument against the name Ireland (state). It's bland, it's got precedent, it's accurate, and it's NOT a red flag to a bull. BritishWatcher says above that he's been worried that A or B (my own preferred options) might "win" the poll. And I removed both A and B from my vote, in an effort to seek compromise—because I know that people like BritishWatcher find A and B problematic. I hoped that people like BritishWatcher would understand that F is also problematic, and that is why I asked—and ask—people to avoid voting for A, B, or F entirely. No winners. No losers. No fits of ego or righteous smugness. Good for the Irish Wiki community. I hope. I hope. I hope. I hope. I hope. And I keep hoping. -- Evertype·✆ 10:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I don't care. It's just that I don't like rewarding people for being disruptive. I also think that Republic of Ireland is the title mandated by our naming guidelines. It's not that there's anything wrong with Ireland (state), per se. It's that it's less right than Republic of Ireland, and I don't like the idea of using a less right title for reasons having nothing to do with content. john k (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That is how the other wiki solved this issue [20] ClemMcGann (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So? Did you not notice the big disclaimer there? Do you not know how Citizendium works? MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is Evertype apart from trying to make a few editors less unhappy i still have not seen a valid reason for changing the article name which has been the same for over 5 years, such change needs justification. I think Republic of Ireland is the best title for the article, its certainly less messy than (state) especially when we get on to how to handle other articles like Politics of the Republic of Ireland, Culture of Ireland etc.

Most of the people voting dont have anything to win or lose they are voting for what they feel is the best setup/names, their verdict (so far, although it could easily change) is clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an idiot, BritishWatcher. I already KNOW that you don't think that making "a few editors" less unhappy is a valid reason to make a change of this one article title. That, in my view, is selfish and mean-spirited. I have YET to see any serious argument against Ireland (state). Those of you who want to give two fingers to the "few editors" must just want to perpetuate the bad feelings throughout Irish Wiki users. You want to win, and you want them to lose. So if Option F is chosen, nothing will be resolved, and in two years we'll be back here in this shite. -- Evertype·✆ 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

STOP! - "...any serious argument against..." of course you would say that, and obviously you are selectively reading the material here; you see only the "facts" that suite yourself. John Kenney has written some excellent points and is neew to this issue. As for this two years nonsense, who is to say we would not be back here again irrespective of the outcome. People need to decide for themselves what way to vote after examining the issue; but no one should be backmailed or coerced into voting a particular way. Your an intelligent and articulate person and its just about the most patronising and simpistic reason I have ever seen for doing anything. Openess and tranparency is the way forward; the qualifications and rules are clear. Djegan (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this "process" is now dead. I'll be coming back to that later. It is clearly not the process mandated by Arbcom. Sarah777 (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So what? So you're unhappy about the process. Let's all throw our toys out of the pram? NO! NO! NO! Let's talk to each other, let's keep talking to each other. Let's try to build a consensus understanding that A, B, and F are all problematic for some people whilst the other options are much less problematic in the same way. -- Evertype·✆ 11:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A genuine offer of compromise doesn't begin by you ruling out all of the options you don't like and leaving only those options you do. The number of editors that cannot live! with the status quo vis-a-vis the IRL/ROI/(dab) articles titles are a tiny. A great problem, IMHO, is the inordinate amount of time we spend getting bent up over the issue of one article title. The wider issue - references to ROI/IRL in articles, use of ROI/IRL in other article and category titles (scores of them!), use of ROI/IRL in templates - is forgotten about in all of the stress over one article title and the supposed national insult that stems from it. It is from the wider issue (where we are all broadly in agreement) that compromise can come. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "start" by ruling anything out. I have come to the conclusion that if we are mature and reasonable editors we will do the ruling out on our own. You may scorn the "supposed national insult". That's still not a reason to dig heels in and insist on Republic of Ireland which —RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY— is controversial for "a few" editors and has been for years. That's the problem which ought to be faced. The wider issue, as you rightly point out, is less of a problem than this one freaking article title. I earnestly hope we have the will to deal with the problem. -- Evertype·✆ 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Evertype, could you point me out to the policy or guideline which tells us that one of the things we should consider when deciding what content to include is whether a subject is controversial for wikipedia editors? Obviously, when a term can be demonstrated, using reliable sources, to be controversial in the real world, that is one thing. But this does not seem to be what you're saying. So, chapter and verse? john k (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

John, I don't wikilawyer. I don't cite "chapter and verse" because the chief rule here is "Use your intelligence". If the use of Republic of Ireland as an article name has been controversial or problematic for seven years here, then that should be indicative of its controversiality or problematicity regardless of whether someone like me bothers to try to invest time in trying to find external sources for controversy. In my view, exercising one's natural intelligence on this matter leads me to be convinced that if the article resided at Ireland (state) it would be less troublesome than where the article resides now. I am tired of these debates. I'd like to edit articles about Irish river names or something. But here we are, over and over and over and over, and now we're looking at a poll which (at present) shows that there is more support for Options F and E than for any other options. Option E, if chosen, has a greater likelihood of ending this misery. This is why I advocate that people who don't like Option F much don't give it any transfers at all. And, in order to foster a spirit of collaboration, this is why I have removed A and B from my own vote—even though I happen to prefer them. -- Evertype·✆ 08:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you assume you'd have a quiet life if A, B, or F weren't adopted and you started writing about rivers?! The "problem" is not those options, but is endemic to any and all articles related to anything to do with these islands. (Can't use another term for fear of offense!). View - well, any wide-enough ranging watchlist or the Irish project pages... there are currently disputes on British Isles (what's the longest river there, by the way?), how many people the IRA killed and/or injured and how and whether WP should be saying it and what form their infoboxes should take... and that's just from my watchlist for the last few hours. Regardless of what option "wins" on this poll, there will still be disputes on a huge range of articles directly or vaguely related to Ireland. But at the poll's conclusion, subject to some additional consensus (as being discussed on the project page) - we won't have pagemove/naming disputes for two years. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I've been watching this for years and the greatest part of the conflict has been about the article title. We often have fairly decent consensus on what to do within articles. This (the article title) is the one thing that really stands out as needing a solution. -- Evertype·✆ 14:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

(e/c) Be careful. You are now going against DrKiernan. And you've used all caps to SHOUT. You will now probably get blocked for ... being abusive? (I suppose the reason won't matter) --HighKing (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, indeed. Seems to me nobody in the F camp are much in a mood for compromise. They have never been . Goes back before my time. Sarah777 (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I'm unhappy that I no longer feel this process can be fairly conducted with all the censorship and blocking on one side by the other. I know not all of the RoI side supported all the attacks, but tha's not really relevant. Sarah777 (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC) And yet we have the opportunity to continue to try to compromise. -- Evertype·✆ 11:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Well, I'll be busy asking for a review of the actions of some Admins who are party to these proceedings. They need to be relieved of the burden of Administration. Sarah777 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC) You would have a better case if you didnt start calling admins clowns. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Why? That happened *after* the block. --HighKing (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC) blocks are more likely to be undone if you respond with reason rather than attacks. Also she never contested the block saying a random admin would probably come along and agree with DrK. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Once again, you're trying to justify the block using post-block events. Why is that? And if you look at her Talk page, Chillum was hovering to rapidly endorse, and when she hadn't used the template, came along and blocked the Talk page. Now you might think that everything was done above board and legit, but that'll be a reflection on you. What's that story about nobody standing up and letting people get taken away, and only realizing the error when it's your turn?? --HighKing (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I think u will find i agreed the original block was harsh and unfair considering all that was said on this talk page before. But that doesnt mean sarah is an innocent victim in all this, im sure DrK would of been convinced to unblock her sooner had she not caused more trouble by calling an Admin a clown. If i was in the same boat, i wouldnt of called someone a clown which would of left more options open to getting the block lifted. Had she responded with the post that you made originally on her talk page following it listing reasons why the block was unfair, instead of starting abuse then he may of accepted and undone it or she could of contested it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Looking at Sarah's actions as a whole, it's utterly unsurprising that someone would block her. I guess she's been around long enough to be pretty careful about not saying anything that clearly would allow a ban, but, really, she skirts the edges all the time. Beyond that, it seems to me that Sarah should probably be banned from this page for making "anti-British remarks," since virtually all of her comments qualify as such. Overall, Wikipedia would almost certainly be vastly improved by banning her altogether from anything having to do with Ireland. She seems to make some useful contributions to articles about small Irish towns, but her activity very largely consists of going to articles whose titles she doesn't like and accusing people of being racist. Maybe DrKiernan made a bad call, and it's not one I would have made - I myself am always incredibly reluctant to block anyone, but I tend to view my role on wikipedia as "editor with a few extra abilities" - Rolling back vandalism and moving pages over redirects is about the only admin power I ever use. But the idea of doing all this weeping for horrible injustice done to Sarah is a bit much. john k (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC) While I find the idea of admins abusing their tools a bit much.... takes all sorts I suppose. And it's absolutely another fantastic example of the sort of bullying that goes on here now that you've set your stall up. So Sarah should be perma-blocked cos she's really crap - am I interpreting that right? And she's a bad person because (shock) she has a different opinion than you? Gods! --HighKing (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Indeed HigKing. And Sarah made a point that voters in the UK are very much more likely to vote for RoI, I cannot see what is racist about saying that, and it is a position I too endorse. That is why I objected to the UK being the "only" other state to be directly informed about the poll. Some UK voters would agree with that view too, and there is nothing wrong with stating that. It's best put all issues on the table in my experience. Tfz 13:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I don't think I ever said she was racist, and I certainly ever said she was a bad person. I said she spends a lot of time accusing other people of racism. The whole thing about noting that UK voters are more likely to vote for RoI (which is apparently pretty dubious on the merits, given that Option F wins with non-British voters, too) can only be an implicit claim of racism, because Sarah is drawing from this supposed fact the conclusion that this means "Republic of Ireland" is an unacceptable title. Basically, Sarah's whole argument here has been "British people are racist against the Irish and they use 'Republic of Ireland,' therefore Wikipedia cannot use that term without supporting a racist POV." This is a poisonous claim, and it does nobody any good. She has been disruptive about this issue for years, and she is constantly violating the spirit (if perhaps not the letter) of the Arbitration ruling to which she is subject. This has nothing to do with whether she is a good or bad person. In fact, I'll stipulate that she is probably a good person - loves her family, kind to old people and animals, that sort of thing. I'll even admit that what she is doing here is probably being done in good faith - that she really thinks that this kind of behavior is aimed towards making Wikipedia a better and more neutral encyclopedia. Most POV pushers think that. But it's really beside the point. Her involvement in this subject is poisonous, and it hurts your cause more than it hurts mine. People have been banned from involvement with topics for considerably less. john k (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I think you should AGF, and address an editor's input rather than the editor. Your opinions on such should remain with you, and not be vented here. I too could accuse you of being disruptive for making such broad generalisations. Please address the issues. Tfz 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland what countries share the island of Ireland? This matter only involves those two countries but many project pages were informed.. EU/Geography/History i came across an advert for this poll on the disam project which we forgot to include in the original list of places to advertise. Most who have voted are not British editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Partly agree with you, but there are two issues here. Whether naming the state the "RoI", or "Ireland (state)", is not the exclusive interest of UK area. Tfz 13:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the title is all we seem to talk about on this page, its not the only thing involved in this vote. several options attempt to move the island from its prime spot.. thats what i have a big problem with not the title. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

John K: I said she spends a lot of time accusing other people of racism. As that is not a statement consistent with the facts (any diffs?) I would ask you to withdraw it. I don't assume political bias is always an expression of racism. Sarah777 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You have certainly argued that Wikipedia's coverage of these issues is racist. I don't think you've specifically accused any users of racism, so I'll apologize for phrasing my statement in a way that might be unfair. Let me reword - you spend what seems to be a sizeable percentage of your time on wikipedia engaging in nationalist grievance-mongering. Is that better? john k (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that isn't better. And I'd apologise and withdraw that remark too or you will soon experience the joy of being blocked. Sarah777 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to further engage with you. If you want to try to find an admin to block me, go right ahead. I'm not going to apologize for saying things I believe out of fear that you're going to get me blocked for a day. john k (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OMG -- Sarah you are living in a fantasy Ireland all of your own making. Djegan (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Being an Admin you'd have a certain confidence you can get away with what I got blocked for I guess. Sarah777 (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sour grapes?

To date, six editors have either struck or removed their votes from the poll in order to protest the process:

• Tfz[21]
• BigDunc[22]
• Sarah777[23]
• Jack forbes[24]
• HighKing[25]
• Sswonk[26]

Sarah, HighKing, and BigDunc provide their rationale here, Tfz, Jack, and Sswonk in their edit summaries. I note that none of them even ranked F, which has been the winner in ever count done so far, whether of all votes or just Irish and British subsets, by Rannpháirtí anaithnid: here, here, and here. So I ask: is it really the process? Srnec (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe we don't care about blocking and censorship - it's all a pretence? Sarah777 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Let's not forget the sinister "Ve haf vays of making you *not* talk!" --HighKing (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Poll shall continue on. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Another useful Turner's Bird there G'Day. Sarah777 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sour Grapes??? It doesnt smell of sour grapes :) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What does it smell like then? I removed my vote for the reason given. It's a free world isn't it? Jack forbes (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically no, there our still absolute monarchies & communist countries. As for this Poll? yep it's your vote, you can change it, re-arrange it, delete it, re-add it; etc. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the added information GoodDay. What would I do without you. Jack forbes (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that Wiki isn't a democracy. Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Have faith, who knows what'll happen in September. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This topic really can serve no good. Please don't turn the vote into a competition or a battle. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that this vote will not end up being binding for two years, in which case many will have wasted their time. Very little of the discussion that has accompanied this poll has served any good, yet some editors just cannot seem to do anything else. Srnec (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. It's all been a complete waste of time. Some editors forgot that this vote is only step 1 of a process, but they've decided to not bother with the "compromise" part of the process (which we all discussed in good faith and were still discussing into the middle of June) and try to lock down the status quo. Only problem is, this step isn't a standalone step - it's part of a process, and when the process fails (as it inevitably will now), then we don't get a 2 year lockdown of anything. Perhaps when the dust is settled, one of the editors who switched from pro-compromise to anti-compromise will let us in on whatever brain fart occurred. --HighKing (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So what, in your considered opinion, is "pro-compromise" if accepting the preference of the majority of editors is "anti-compromise"? I can only speak for myself, but "F" was my least favoured option. I believe accepting that my preference is not shared by the majority of editors with a modicum of grace and respect is compromise on my part. Is all well and good bandying about such terms, but they do no good whatsoever in actually help us reach a solution. Put up or shut up, HighKing: tell us how we make a better decision, rather than persistently bitching about the ongoing process we agreed on. Rockpocket 00:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Good man Rock. Now that you are back I'm sure you've delivered those warnings to Kenny and DJ. Sarah777 (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice how Sarah has not addressed what Rock said. She has delivered a subtle ad hominem, implying that he is being uneven in his criticism, rather than actually trying to show that his conception of compromise is incorrect. Srnec (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"I note that none of them even ranked F." It may have been an oversight or I may be misunderstanding what was meant by that statement, but " F " was originally my third choice. Here is my complete voting history, with the original copied directly and the rest dated, with edit summary italicized and diff link provided:

• B A F  Sswonk (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:26, August 3, 2009 ch BAC [27]

Revision as of 17:29, August 7, 2009 ch CBADE [28]

Revision as of 23:45, August 9, 2009 ch CDE [29]

Revision as of 17:48, August 12, 2009 stricken for reason of: poll itself should be declared invalid [30]

The discussion process was valuable in determining the course of my voting. The reasons given by me above at the bottom of the "Strike out votes" section are not simply bitterness at the prospect of losing. Similarly, the long history of previous statements by others who have chosen this course have been given here and elsewhere, and are important and valid. The contention that the votes have been stricken or removed is an example of "sour grapes" is: bullshit. Sswonk (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

this is getting very intense and im not quite sure why. We have the separate issue of the recent block incident which i think people from all sides agree originally should not of happened considering people from all sides here (including myself) have been making rather direct comments at times.

But then we have this attempt to make this vote some how invalid. Now Highking is going around saying that this vote we were having was never meant to decide the outcome of where the articles belong, and that we had some how agreed on a compromise on where the articles would be BEFORE the vote started.. that just does not make sense. We agreed to the vote because we failed to get compromise on the main question of where the articles are meant to be (we agreed to agree a compromise on how to use Ireland in articles or in other titles after this vote), But we started the vote, the ballot clearly states what its for and we have to live with it.

What exactly are the reasons for this protest? and what are the demands? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've explained on the IECOLL talk page, the discussion of the process leading up the vote is right in line with what ArbCom directed the project to do. ArbCom knew this would possibly come to a vote, there was general agreement to do a vote (yes, a few outspoken against it), and the process was generally agreed to. There are people treating this like a battleground and are feeling they are "losing", insomuch as that means on WP, and fighting to prevent that. Discussion is fine, but this is turning into a very hostile, uncivil environment. Unfortunately, there's no one finger to point at, so there's no point in bringing admin action to this, but I remind everyone to try to keep a civil mouth. If the type of antics that are going on continue, I will seek an uninvolved admin to get involved. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, those that think they are "winning" should not be rubbing it in others' facing. No single side is necessarily at fault for the current incivilty. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, although i think you should get an uninvolved admin to police this place now so its a more calm enviornment. Should take action on future outbursts from anyside so its fair. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

HighKing says this vote will inevitably fail. All he really means is that this vote will not give him the result he wants. This is the problem. I would love to have an uninvolved admin step in, especially to remove the strikethroughs that you, Masem, are unwilling to remove. In my opinion, quite without justification. The edit summaries and comments elsewhere demonstrate that the strikethroughs are comments on the validity of the process, just as one would expect. This is not the place for such discussion. And the voting page clearly states that the result of the poll will be binding. I repeat: sour grapes! Srnec (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket, if Option F was your least favourite option, why did you give it any weight at all? That's what helps putting F in the lead. -- Evertype·✆ 07:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also my opinion that, however principled their reasons for removing their votes may be, Tfz and BigDunc and Sarah777 and Jack Forbes and HighKing and Sswonk have made a mistake in doing so; their votes for C, D, E, (and even A, B, though maybe not as firsts) are more valuable than their not voting at all. (I am encouraged by what Masem has said recently.) -- Evertype·✆ 08:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The "poll" on the 'state' part of Ireland has been given over almost exclusively to UK voters, a clear case of GUBU there, and not as promised. On principal I cannot sustain support for a blatant gerrymander. Tfz 11:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a political stunt which is counter productive, i am sure they will unstrike their comments by the final day if another option is able to beat F. Whilst at the moment it looks like F is going to win, the final round is still far too close for anyone to think this is over yet. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling my strike a "political stunt" is absolute fucking bullshit!!! WTF???? Will someone please!!!! put an end to this constant sniping and point-scoring. That comment goes against AGF, is an ad hominen attack, and is trying to politicize my action. It is grossly grossly unfair. This sort of bullying *must* be stopped, dead, in it's tracks. --HighKing (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To avoid accusations of violating WP:NPA, I'll be oblique in seconding your comment here. Suppose there is a hypothetical group, let's call them "some editors". When some editors ask questions about why others don't support option " F " and then are given reasons, they simply respond "I haven't seen any valid reasons" that aren't about "so-called British POV". Day after day. As if no reasons have been given. Not on the position statements pages, not in the replies given, ever. I guess you and I must be seing things. It appears we are also hallucinating when it comes to reasons for striking or removing votes. My reasons given above, the conversations on Sarah's talk page, conversations about the Mooretwin proposal, nowhere are irregularities listed. Some editors have the remarkable ability to blot out the hallucinations we are suffering, and we should turn ourselves in to the Thought Police and confess our sins, I imagine. For now, rather than kneel before the telescreen and confess love of our leader, I'll just note that for whatever reason I can't shake these awful hallucinations we share. Sswonk (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What else do you want me to call it? This protest is a political stunt, i refuse to take back that comment. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You could try not calling it anything. Why people withdraw their votes is entirely up to them. As for me, there was nothing political about it. Believe that or not, but you shouldn't be shouting your opinion on it here. Jack forbes (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

@BW. It is an ad homenin attack. Masem should be more on the prowl. Tfz 12:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

People are free to strike out their votes if they wish, im not saying every single person that strikes out their vote is making a political stunt, however some of the edit summaries of those strike out clearly show theres a political motive behind it. Yes Jack it is my opinion, and i think i have a right to say that here just as some people had a right to say what they said in those edit summaries. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And all it does is make this place a bigger battleground than it already was. Here's an idea. Why not have everybody take 24 hours away from this talk page and then maybe things will calm down a little. Very optimistic I know, but it's better than this constant sniping. Jack forbes (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is a good idea yes, and its why id like to see Masem get an uninvolved admin to come here and police they place to ensure we dont step over the line and get back into the fight. Would also be alot more productive to try and sort the other things out on the collab page, where actions have an impact on things, we cant change this vote now its started. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need to get our heads out of this. If chill time will do it, then chill time I'm all in favour of. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Give people some space, time to think, chill. OK. --HighKing (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It remains my opinion that, however principled their reasons for removing their votes may be, Tfz and BigDunc and Sarah777 and Jack Forbes and HighKing and Sswonk have made a mistake in doing so; their votes for C, D, E, (and even A, B, though maybe not as firsts) are more valuable than their not voting at all. Self-disenfranchisement simply gives power to others. Your voices should be heard. -- Evertype·✆ 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

All those in favour of a 24hr rest period from this talk page (battleground) please sign below

• Jack forbes (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• (struck out battleground) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• ClemMcGann (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Sswonk (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC) One polite response to Hans below and then I'm done until Friday
• Good idea. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Better late than never, Hans added some interesting input. Tfz 15:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Good Lord YES!!!! Sarah777 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I'll try, but I'm usually quite gabby. --GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)