Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Disambiguation task force/Archive 2

Discussion on the intro

I'm still compiling the table that shows the extent of how Ireland (as island) articles currently jar against each other - especially in confusing the two Ireland meanings (somtimes it's the state, sometimes it's the island), and with sometimes blurring in Northern Ireland with the Irish state. It will be up sometime today. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

moved here: --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We'll get nowhere if you insist on having an intro that is wildly ignorant of Irish history, Irish constitutional law and lacks world point of view (rather than the UK PoV that was there before I corrected it). When the rest of the world and all mainstream encyclopedias say one thing and you say another, then don't you think that maybe you might be just a teensy bit wrong? --Red King (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

From on human being to another - I've had it hugely from one side today, please don't give it me from your side too! We can work together on this. I'm am not propatating anti-Irish propaganda, I'm just trying to write something we all can agree in (so doesn't present fact that are disputed). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Up and running!

As this has been a couple of weeks now, I'm starting with a proposal. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not the best idea I've ever had - the proposal is now on hold (in the top right archive). --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

there is talk at the MfD of this taskforce opening with a section in which all contributing editors can make a statement on what they want and don't want to see (presumably having a personally named sub-section each). The rules would be that nobody can be personal, and in return, nobody can edit within each other's sub-section. Somebody uninvolved then collates it all.

I personally would prefer a set of pertinent questions, as people will then be inclusive, and are more likely to be fully open, in my eyes. My worry is that a 'POV session' that is too un-regulated in content will omit too much, and could lead to data that is so varied, cagey, and even ambiguous that it will be very hard to meaningfully compile (in fact, the act of compiling could be a dangerous thing in itself). People have different ideas on what are hard 'facts' too. If we can together compile the best questions to ask, things would be much cleaner. A question I would suggest is "Do you insist that Wikipedia should have an article named "Ireland" that includes historical/political information of Northern Ireland?".

Does anyone else like the Q&A version (and perhaps has a question to ask?). The "question and answer session", by the way, is a valid approach for these things - but can be difficult (even unwise) too in sensitive areas: so the questions need to be accepted by everyone first.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the last few words are the most significant. The first priority has to be deciding what questions are acceptable to everybody. Actually asking the questions is the easy part - if the first part has been done right, it's often a mere formality. Scolaire (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would bet BHG is working on a neutral kicking-off page. She is fully aware of all the issues involved here and she is eminently qualified to present all of them in a non-partisan way. Any perception of possible bias is a failure to WP:AGF and is a lack of understanding that her starting points are existing wiki-rules. Give her a chance; she will do a good job. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

She suggested us using a neutral person herself, so I doubt it. I'm not suggesting a she has a possible bias - she's admitted to having one herself! It's hard not to when you are so involved, and she has much to say on the subject. She approached the AfD as pro the status quo, and negative about the posibility of change (though of course this can change). We are much better off having her participating.

We need someone:

A) We don't know - and so no one side is particularly eager to have, which makes the other side paranoid.

B) Is totally neutral in terms of optimism/perssimism about that idea/likelyhood/possibility of change.

Either that or we sort it out between ourselves, and get unbiased mediation if and when we get stuck. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• No. She suggested it be wrapped up by a "neutral" person. But she did not preclude herself from writing the starting off page. Which she would do well, informedly and neutrally. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't you work on what we have? What do you think is unfair about it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• It does not approach the issue in the way BHG suggested on your talk page - which everybody (except you) is happy to go with. Her suggestion gets everyone stepping one pace backwards in a way that can only take things forward without thoughts of forum-shopping. Your proposal by contrast is that we work from the Matt Lewis starting point. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you know what "everyone" is happy with? You have ignored the questions I asked you on what is wrong with the intro. Or is it too good? And you have ignored to my basic concerns with BHG - she was negative about change from the outset, so she is NOT a good conditate for this. It's not a character judgement - it is a simple fact. That you want to see her work on this so much, simply makes me paranoid - I haven't forget those stupid emails you sent me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNINVOLVED admin involvment

• WP:MEDCAB - does anyone object if I ask here for a WP:UNINVOLVED admin to start this up? I have postponed the opening proposal (as an act of good faith), and the taskforce is now needing direction (although I am currently myself building the usage tables). We all seem to agree that we need to start with some kind of individual opinion-giving session. My preference is for us to work out questions between us, and each of us answer them. It seems we need a neutral admin to start this up, as whatever we chose to do, we need someone we can all answer to and have no personal problems following. Whereas certain polls can demand participation and discussion, these kind of approaches can more easily be ignored without somebody neutral guiding the show.

I've also posted this on the the MfD, please reply here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• It can't hurt to ask Medcab if somebody would be willing to get involved. On a cautionary note, though, it may take quite a while before somebody is actually installed. I think we should use the time to discuss the kind of approach we might take, and canvass interested editors to get involved so that we can have as broad a section of opinion as possible. I also think that discussions such as this one and the "Up and running" one above should take place on the talk page, and that this page could be spring-cleaned per the ideas I have expressed elsewhere. Scolaire (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think it would be a mistake and lead to very long and contentious disputes about history. At least some of us think that an awareness of the issues may be more important than neutrality. Actually the more I think about it, the more I think that is important. I'm happy to support someone like BHG who while on the other "side" appears more than able to take a neutral but informed position. I'd suggest that those of us who have been active protagonists (and that includes Scolaire and Matt) should step back for a bit and let some new voices structure the debate. --Snowded TALK 06:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I hear what you're saying, Snowded, but TBH I think it's wildly optimistic to think that some enthusiastic editor is going to come on here and do all the donkey work while we look on in admiration. At best, they will be willing to moderate or chair a process that involved (in the rolling-up-the-sleeves sense) participants have agreed on. The dialogue between Matt and myself is very new, and if the two of us, coming from opposite directions, can work towards a structure or process that might move this forward, I can't see how any third party, whether uninvolved or neutral-but-informed, could object to that. Also, I believe that, whoever takes the job (if anybody does), we will all need to re-state our positions in some format or other, but I don't see why that should lead to "very long and contentious disputes about history" (I presume you mean the history of this debate). Nobody really has scores to settle, do they? Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people will need to be involved Scolaire, but let someone less involved structure it. You are a strong protagonist as it Matt, stand back for a bit (although the table and supporting material are great work). You and Matt are taking a route which brings in solutions far too quickly (my opinion) in keeping with the way this task force was set up. You have both been active players in the debates. My STRONG advice, stand aside for a bit. --Snowded TALK 08:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Solutions? The entire thrust of my argument is that we can't begin to talk about solutions until we have a proper (i.e. clear-headed and prejudice-free) discussion of all the issues, and we can't even begin to do that until we reach a consensus on how the project should be structured. My reply to Matt's idea of "pertinent questions" was, "the first priority has to be deciding what questions are acceptable to everybody." In other words, asking pertinent questions has to be the outcome of the process, not the opening of it. My reluctance to stand aside has nothing to do with ownership of the TF (far from wanting to run it, I avoided even posting here as long as I could) but rather with the conviction that if the "strong protagonists" let go, nobody else will take up the running, least of all a neutral. Believe me, I would far rather go back to Easter Rising - I'm not good at multi-tasking. Scolaire (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When I suggested MEDCAB I was really just looking for places we could ask for an admin who is willing chair this kind of thing - nothing beyond that. I (as I'm sure are others here) am happy to do move things along according the various consensuses on where to go, but only a neutral has a chance of getting everyone (or near to everyone) responding. I thought MEDCAB might be the best place to ask. We could also asked the Admin noticeboard perhaps? (but do general admin have the same experience chairing these things?) BHG is tempting as she is clearly popular, but I can see many possible future problems there if things get a bit rough. If we start from neutrality nobody can complain. She was rather negative about change when she initially supported the status quo, and suggested herself that we need someone neutral - lets take her advice. Shall we post a request in the admin noticeboard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC

Last things first: BrownHairedGirl has hardly been online since she posted to the MfD two and a half days ago; I don't think we should assume she's really keen to get this job! As far as asking someone to help out, I don't think a neutral has any chance whatever of getting everyone responding - that's our job. A neutral can only guide us, curb our worst excesses of enthusiasm and try to assess what comes out of the process. And why does it need to be an admin? Many people with excellent mediation skills have no desire to be an admin, and some admins have even shorter fuses than we do. Seek wherever you can; I still think we'll be lucky to get anybody at all. Scolaire (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has disagreed with this all weekend, so I've placed this request at MEDCAB. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Duh, I disagreed with it and in the prior discussion several editors supported the option of an informed editor prepared to be neutral. I placed a request on BBG's page asking for her to clarify her intent. If she says no then OK I would support this, but even then the request needs qualification or we will all wind around the same old arguments again and again. --Snowded TALK 23:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What kind of language is "Duh"? Brown Haired Girl suggested a neutral party (which she is manifestly not), and hasn't been involved with this for a few days now. You did not state you that have sent her any message. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I clearly indicated that I thought we should look at the internal choice first Matt, as as far as I am concerned the matter was not closed. Given that you have jumped into action (defining yet another problem by yourself) I have provided the information that I sent her a message (look at her talk page) to clarify issues. I have also said that if there is not an internal agreed candidate that I would support the proposal. just leave it a couple of days and see what happens, the world will not end over this issue. --Snowded TALK 23:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth did you not tell us that you had contacted her?

After all I have said regarding her previous involvements and expressed opinions (with Irish issues, specific editors - the whole thing) - the chances of her suddenly turning up and putting herself forward (after suggesting that we need a neutral too) are slim indeed! She has even said she rarely gets involved anymore, and that is she for the status quo, and can't see the likelihood of change! She'd be fantastic as a contributor, but hardly as a chair! And where is she anyway?

And where is she anyway? As Scolaire said above, it doesn't look like she is still closely following this. She's on Wikipedia sporadically these days too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down Matt. She had been silent for some time and not responded so I popped a note on her talk page. Normal practice. I don't see you and Scolaire asking permission to discussions on yours. She may well not be interested, she may not be acceptable, her lack of involvement and the response of other editors when she engaged was, I thought ecouraging, even though her position is different from mine, Given the sort of polemic and invenctive I wouldn't blame her (or anyone) for never coming back to these and related pages.

Whatever before a mediation request is made it should be discussed, You have this distressing habit of initiating Wikipedia processes without consultation, then getting indignant if people don't immediately fall in behind you. I think for the record that there are serious issues with anyone neutral who does not have a knowledge of the sensitivities and the history. --Snowded TALK 00:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you quit your "calm down, Matt" and personalised "Mat..." edit-note tactics? I find them provocative. I do not "get indignant when people do not fall behind me" - I happen to discuss things with great patience, and have the courage to put myself in positions where I get a huge amount of flak, and where I have to stand my ground in no uncertain terms. Wikipedia has benefitted from it a number of times, and simply makes me an easy target for easy blows which a simply not fair at all. You said "duh" to me above - if you had kept the taskforce in-touch with what had done, and your reasons for it, you would not have wasted my time tonight. Finding someone is clearly the step we are all waiting for! Saying what you did at MEDMCAB is not going to make anything easier for us - can you remove the whole request section, to replace a fresh request when you are happy? I does not look very inviting to someone right now.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment on the MEDMCAB says what I said here Matt, lets wait a few days and see what happens, in all probability there will not be an internal candidate, but I would like to see if one is possible. I was checking some stuff in background, not imagining that you would go to MEDMCAB without further discussion so I don't see the point about keeping the task force in touch. My experience of discussions with you would not support the "great patience" position but I accept its your perception and I don't doubt your good intentions and good faith. I would suggest a discussion on the words to brief a MEDMCAB request here to secure commitment ad make it attractive. --Snowded TALK 00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How was it unattractive? We have to be honest, and it wasn't off-putting was it? It was perfectly sound - why have a dig at it? What is the point in that? It is simply requesting a chair - nobody said we must pass the wording in here first. I don't want to delete your comments - perhaps you could delete the section and copy it here to work on, as I suggested above? And you can then play around with it until we get the same thing again. How I lose patience is depends to the length of time I have been patient - I always know what to expect with you (measured repetition and a stab at my supposed temper when I say something you don't like) but it never makes it any easier to deal with you, especially when you go your own way - as you often do, despite all your insistence that others go by the letters of the book. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

i think it would be more attractive if it clearly came as a result of consensus gained here first as to the brief. Happy to take your text as a base and suggest some changes here (although that will have to wait for tomorrow after PST (I am in San Jose not the UK this week) as I have work to complete tonight and a conference to keynote at tomorrow morning. However if you think that the result will be that "we will get the same thing again" then there is little point (unless I have misread your comment). Measured repetition is a reasonable response if facts and arguments are being ignored, but you are entitled to your opinion about me as I am in turn about you. --Snowded TALK 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

When you have given SG enough time, can you remove the extra comments from the request and add/remove whatever you want. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Will do, tomorrow (today in the UK) is probably long enough. I will post a draft here for comment --Snowded TALK 04:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Being BOLD

I've moved all of the discussion-type sections from the project page to here, archived the previous discussions (now that the MfD is closed), and slightly re-formatted the project page itself. The main change I've made is that what was headed "Current approach on Wikipedia" etc. is now headed "Statement of the facts by Matt Lewis". It should remain as a statement of the facts, but nobody thinking of joining the task force need feel that they have to subscribe to all the facts before they do. What is above the TOC can still be edited, and I would like to see something like a consensus statement (i.e. input from as many people as possible) at the top. My own suggestion in a user sub-page, User talk:Scolaire/IDTF main page. It is a sandbox, so anybody is free to edit it, add comments below it, or comment on it here. In a day or so, if it's not ruled out altogether, I'll put it on the project page and it can be further edited there as desired. Oh, and I've also done a page move so that this is now a subpage of IMOS, as agreed at the MfD. Scolaire (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the intro per my ideas above. Please edit it as required until we get a statement of the case that we're all happy with. Scolaire (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've modified slightly, as I believe it's more accurate to say that the locus of the dispute was on the name of the wikipedia article, not the state name itself, which isn't in dispute, I believe. What was in dispute was the best way to handle the ambiguities resulting from different entities having the same name, and trying to find the best/least-bad DAB solution. Regards, MartinRe (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the name "Republic of Ireland" is very much in dispute, Martin. To summarise the argument for you, the Constitution of Ireland says "The name of the state is...Ireland", while the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 says "the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." Anti-ROIers say that therefore this is not the name of the state and that anyway, since the Good Friday Agreement, nobody uses that name any more. There's also disagreement with using ROI within other articles to refer to the state, hence the piping "solution". Scolaire (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, you'd be wise to give weight to the fact that since "Republic of Ireland" is the official British name according to UK domestic law (1949 act), no surprise that this translates into an added reluctance to accept the official British name over the official Irish name. It also goes some way to understanding why the term "Republic of Ireland" appears in so many British publications and media. --HighKing (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It speaks volumes for Wiki and the total disregard for WP:NPOV when we find the name of the article about a country is the official name of the former colonial occupier rather than the modern, common, internationally recognised name of the country. Sarah777 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make my own statement about all that in due course. This task force seems to have gone awfully dead since Matt Lewis reduced his involvement. Scolaire (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardly surprising, seeing as it was very much a one-man band. ETA: Not even linked from the main IMOS page, either, it appears. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've only just realised what you were saying there (I had been trying to figure out why ETA should be linked from IMOS). I've added the link now. Scolaire (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to be bold, I have now added my statement to the project page. If anybody wants to take up any points with me, I would ask you to open a new section here on the talk page. I am happy to provide clarification, but I'm not willing to be drawn into an argument. I would encourage other participants, especially those who have posted here, to think out their position and make a similar statement of their case. Scolaire (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)