Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 34

What is the nettle?

The nettle is accepting that no matter how perfect the argument for Republic of Ireland as name for the article about the state, it cannot attract consensus, and this undermines the whole WikiProject Ireland. It is realizing that in the poll in 2009, Republic of Ireland won—but that its "winning" didn't actually solve anything. And since the Wikipedia is not about "winning", the nettle this time is to have a poll on a number of options excluding the Republic of Ireland option. We know that that one can "win". And we know that its winning doesn't achieve anything.

That is what I want the members of WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to be brave enough, and adult enough, to do. To choose another path, a path that—in two years' time perhaps—can allow us to see whether we can collaborate, and work on top-notch Ireland-related articles on this encyclopaedia with a different name-configuration that might be more conducive to us all working together amicably.

I am in Bemidji heading for Minneapolis and Chicago, and Philadelphia tomorrow morning. I may not be able to look in for several days.

I hope that members of the Collaboration will grasp this nettle: the nettle of actual collaboration. -- Evertype·✆ 17:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you explained what a 'nettle' was. I was too embarrassed (these last few hours) to ask what it was. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

All right. It isn't difficult. -- Evertype·✆ 04:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So basically you're saying other editors should change to do what you're saying because you'll keep on nagging about it until you get your way? Well that's a fine idea of consensus and collaboration you've got there. I asked you before and I'll ask you again now, what will you do if the poll does not agree with you? Dmcq (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Basically I'm saying that we have had two years of Republic of Ireland as the name for the article of the state, and that in the intervening two years nothing has changed. The name has not become more acceptable to a selection of editors by constant use. And the consensus of the Collaboration was to re-open discussions about naming. Accordingly, it is clear that Republic of Ireland has failed to be a solution that everyone can accept. Naturally, the thing to do is to examine a range of other options, and try them on, say for two years. If then we see a huge upswelling of demand to return to Republic of Ireland then we should consider that. But I predict that we will not see such a demand. What I am basically saying is that this slow process has proved that Republic of Ireland is a poor name for the article about the state, and so now it is encumbant upon the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to try something else. Once again: the problem is not the truth-value of the article name. A variety of names are accurate. The problem is unending argument over the article names. It is time to do something to put an end to that argument -- Evertype·✆ 04:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What? Things aren't the way you want them to be, so we all have change to something else closer to what you want, even though there's consensus for the status quo? No, sorry, not going to happen. There are a lot of things I don't like WP, but I still have to put up with them when consensus goes against me. And I'm sorry, I reject your central premise. Yes, there's argument now about the article names, but during the moratorium, it was only raised a couple of times, people were pointed here, and kept on working. Pipelinking worked fine over those two years. We likely wouldn't be having this argument now except for one very determined and repetitive user. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please don't feign shock and horror. And please don't misrepresent me. You don't have any idea whether I am one of those people who find Republic of Ireland offensive in an emotional or intellectual way or not; I have merely observed that part of the problem with WikiProject Ireland is that a segment of the editing population think so, and that solutions tried so far have not led them to cease to think so. So it is inappropriate for you to attack me (as you have), accusing me of wanting to force a change because I don't like the name. I want to force a change because I am utterly disgusted by the immaturity of this WikiProject. There is no consensus for Republic of Ireland remaining the article name. There was a poll in 2009 which had a result of freezing the name. That wasn't consensus. It was an election. But when the moratorium was over, it became clear that there was not consensus to retain the freeze. That means that the moratorium on moving from Republic of Ireland has failed to be an effective solution to a problem which the WikiProject Ireland has had since 2002. A number of editors quit working on Irish topics entirely, discontent with the kind of "ownership" people like you took over the Collaboration project. Look at your attack here. You don't respond to the core problem no matter how often I mention it. What is urgent is that we get an editing environment where people who live in the state feel comfortable about the encyclopaedia. Not one where some people lord it over others by having won something. Pipelinking is a navigation mechanism; you can pipelink from anything to anything else, and you will be able to do so when Republic of Ireland is no longer the name of the article about the state. Trying to belittle this whole thing by pooh-poohing "one very determined and repetitive user" is not constructive. If you haven't noticed, other editors have chimed in here agreeing with my assessment of the problem. So it's not just one editor. And you don't own, and don't have any particular authority within the project, simply because you've lurked about on these pages for a long time. It is time we do something constructive and collaborative that has a chance of ending this long and damaging dispute. Will you be a part of the solution? Or will you be one of those who tries to perpetuate a structure which favours one POV and which has been proved to be toxic to the WikiProject Ireland? -- Evertype·✆ 05:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't feigning shock, I was shocked. Above, you don't appear to have much of a problem with my proposal. In this section, you're now demanding that any new poll not include the status quo. I still don't accept your premise - sure, maybe some editors don't work in Irish areas any more. Do they work on WP at all? Editors come and go all the time (and reports elsewhere suggest a substantial number of WP contributors have left over the past couple of years). I'm well aware I don't own or have any particular authority within the project or any single page on WP. Nor do you. Which is why I won't be accepting diktat that there is only one "final solution". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC) PS - the one very determined and repetitive user I was referring to was not you.

(edit conflict)As I see it, all be it from the other side of the globe, we have an island called "Ireland" that has existed for a long time under that name (since before Shakespeare ISTR), we have a country that occupies part of that island, and has existed in its current form for (shall we say) less than 100 years, that country came into existence as a result of an armed struggle, where many (on both sides) died. The circumstances surrounding that "creation" are sill, to a number of the inhabitance of the British Isles, and for a number of reasons painful. That can't be undone, no mater what anyone would like to do. Since an all encompassing article on both the island and country would be too large, we are left with having to have one on the county and one on the island, in the same way there is an article on New Guinea the island and Indonesia and Papua New Guinea the countries or Great Britain the island and England, Scotland and Wales the countries. So the article at Ireland, should be the one on the whole island as it existed before the country did and will exist as long as the country does, if not longer. So that leaves the question of what to call the article on the country, and of all the suggestions so far made, none is any better (and most a lot worse) than Republic of Ireland, stick brackets in the name such as Ireland (State) or Ireland (Country) and know one will find that on a search, I don't for one moment think anyone is confused by the current name, it is used by international organisations to describe the country (I accept not by all, but they don't have the issue of having to distinguish between the island and the country). Mtking ^(edits) 05:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, here you are talking about the truth-value of the article titles, not the problem the Wikipedia as a whole has as a result of the longstanding conflict about the article names in Irish. Sswonk has, above, shown that it is likely that most people looking for an article about the state type Ireland, and most people who type Republic of Ireland are looking for the football team. Yes, the word "Ireland" is polyvalent. But what is needed is an article title that does not just divide the editing community. We must do better.

Good night all, from Chicago. -- Evertype·✆ 05:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If we (again) concentrated on changing the name of the island article, there'd be less resistance to changing the country article title. GoodDay (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't follow, surely the island is at the right place for the article on the island ? Mtking ^(edits) 06:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If concentration was put on moving the island article to Ireland (island), then that would free up the name Ireland for the country article. GoodDay (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That just makes the situation worse ..... Mtking ^(edits) 07:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a general query from an outsider. I stumbled on this a couple days ago and obviously it's been a heated debate for years here and depending on where you live the arguing will go this way and that. I'm in the US and tonight at a party I asked my 20 guests "if they were to look up Ireland in wikipedia, where would they expect to be forwarded to... the Island or the Country? (In the US, country and state are pretty synonymous). All but one said the island which is what I was expecting. I told them of the debate here and none of them could figure out why some mediator hasn't put their foot down and simply said enough is enough, "Ireland" is going to a disambiguation page that lists Ireland (island), Ireland (state), Northern Ireland. I told them that wikipedia doesn't really work that way and they were telling me things like "isn't this encyclopedia for us, not for editors. What's important is for us to find what we're looking for and a page with a list would do that." So this was a group that wanted Ireland to mean the island of Ireland but for the good of the community thought it best to be on a disambiguation page. Why can't that work here? I usually edit tennis articles and we had a problem with the US Open meaning both a tennis and golf championship. Neither side could agree so now US Open is neither golf nor tennis but it leads to both. Maybe there are sensational arguments for why this won't work, but for the good of wikipedia isn't it better that no side wins this thing except our readers? Never voted, never commented here before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think if you did the same down here you would get the same result, most people going to visit the island and not the country. The more pepole try and argue this the more and more sure of the current names I become. Mtking ^(edits) 07:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that hasn't happened because it's not a very good idea? Fmph (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Because? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Because there is no point in wasting Ireland when at least one set of queries can be answered directly. The project should be designed for readers not editors own POV. Fmph (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a very thoughtful contribution, Fyunck. That "Ireland as a disambig" proposal was one of several that were discussed and voted on two years ago. I can see how from where you're standing it looks like the obvious compromise, like the golf and tennis one, but it's not ideal, for two reasons. First, those who don't want to see one page move certainly don't want to see three page moves, so it's not in fact a compromise at all; it only appeals to one side of the debate. Second, to a lot of people, especially Irish people, "Ireland (island)" is as objectionable as "Republic of Ireland" is to those on the other side; it relegates our country (and many of us see the whole island as our country) to what one editor once described as "a lump of rock". Besides, if most people (if your friends are a representative sample) get what they're looking for when they type "Ireland", doesn't that make it the primary meaning, and so why should it be the dab page? Scolaire (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, there be the white elephant in the room. The likely reason behind the arguments over the country article's name - moving to Ireland would create the impression that the country covers the entire island. TBH, a true Irish nationalist would reject having the country at that title, as it would appear as though re-unification was being abandoned. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

@Scolaire. Your "first" absolutely means nothing to readers. I'm not talking about any editors point of view because my friends as readers wouldn't care at all. So they (and I) don't care about 10 page moves if the final result for readers is that they and those who think polar opposite can find the page they want easily. Personally since this is an English based wikipedia I don't really care what the Irish or any particular group feels about things so long as the majority of English speakers can find what they are looking for easily. In reading through these arguments there are obviously plenty of people who also think first of Ireland as the state. The US, being much further from the situation, is going to be biased towards it being an island. And you'll note that even though my friends picked the Island as their first choice they all thought it was best for an article, where readers would be looking at it from a different point of view, to forward to a generalized place as opposed to a place that could confuse/confound many readers. I realize that this little ditty will be buried amongst all the very technical aspects of why it should move or not... and that most here will shrug it off as rantings of some nut on wikipedia. I've worked the Burma article so I know the routine, and that's fine. But since I had recently found it and had a readily accessible pile of friends at my disposal, it became a good topic at the house, and I thought I would share. I didn't really post this as a compromise for editors since I'm not really sure how most voted between all those choices last go around. All I would care about is, given the current climate here, what is the best solution for all our English readers so they can find what they want quickly and easily. There will always be a group of editors who feel quite strongly about one thing or the other (I've been guilty of that myself)... that's sort of the wikipedia beast. Our bottom line though should be to be as accurate as we can while making sure "most readers" can find what they want. There is an Ireland state and there is an Ireland island. It's an argument of common usage at this English Wikipedia. Since two little New Zealand kids might want to study about one or the other isn't it easier for them to be pointed to a page that lays out the multiple uses of the term? That way they'll have more time to watch all that sex and violence on tv :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is its not always easy to just choose between the two options of the island or the country on a disam page. For example, If you arrive at that page, and you are looking for a little information about Irish culture.. you might choose the country article thinking the island article may just be about geographical information. But that is not the case, the island article covers culture for the island as a whole and it is wrong and unfair, for an article about a country that has existed for less than one hundred years to "claim ownership" of Irelands entire history and its culture. I believe your sample of friends returned the result that would be reflective of English speaking people around the world, especially in the case of the USA where ancestry will be important. If someone says they are from Ireland.. they will always mean the island of Ireland, but they will not always mean the Republic of Ireland, a country that has existed for a certain period of time and only represents most not all of the island. Another example would be rugby, there is an all island rugby team but many people who are unaware of that may think they need to choose the country as the obvious choice for something that is usually associated with a country not islands.

That to me suggests the island is the primary topic and this seems to be reflected in stats for the page views. On St Patricks Day 2011, Ireland went from 23,200 views the day before to 41,800 compared to Republic of Ireland going from 8,300 to 12,900. Last month Ireland had 267521 views, compared to Republic of Irelands 133116. The article at Ireland currently provides most people who arrive at the page the information they are seeking, and in the hatnote and the second paragraph the link to the country article is clearly provided. Going for a disam page will mean everyone will have to make an additional click and in quite a few cases click the wrong page because the situation is far more complex than choosing between something like Georgia (U.S. state) and Georgia (country). BritishWatcher (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at this from the other side

Here's a thought, perhaps the new Irish President could solve this and the debt crisis at the same time, why not sell the naming rights to the country, perhaps he could tempt Guinness into renaming the country "Guinnessland", then we could move Republic of Ireland and end the problem, and the new government of Guinnessland could use the money to reduce the black hole in the budget. Mtking ^(edits) 07:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On that note, I commend this proposed new Constitution to ye - especially Articles 3, 4, and 6. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC) (PS - I wonder if Mr McNally is a regular reader here...)

They must have guessed there would be a need for it like that when they put the white area on the flag. I can just see the Guinness harp in the middle there now. Or perhaps the more stylized Ryanair one. :) Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There are ideas that you just can't get out of your mind once you have heard of them. Hans Adler 12:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Archiving not working?

Does anyone with some experience of the archive bots know why this page is no longer being auto-archived? Fmph (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the code i think it's suppossed to archive after 10 days, and the thread at the very top was closed on the 21 October, so it mustn't be working right. Then again the archive box says "Threads older than 10 days may be archived by MiszaBot II.". Mabuska ^(talk) 12:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've manually archived all sections with no comments in November into #27 and #28. I don't know why the bot got stuck, but probably it'll get over the glitch.

—WWoods (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder is it related to the page protection? Fmph (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

Question - this may possibly be too complex, or even impossible as a solution. Currently, for titles of films, books etc, there is a piece of code inserted which renders the title in italic type. There is also a piece of code inserted in articles where the initial letter begins with a small letter (iPod, iPhone, etc.) when it would otherwise be rendered with an uppercase letter, and a piece of code which super- or sub-scripts the initial letter/number in certain astronomical designations. Is it possible to render the title "Republic of Ireland" so that the reader only sees "Ireland"? This way we could allow all current dablinks to remain, keep the island at the unadorned "Ireland" location and the article on the state would be located at "Republic of Ireland", even if the reader only actually sees "Ireland"? ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 20:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It is possible. It has even been done (and quickly undone - see here). There are two issues with it. The first is the simple one: if we don't want to change the title why should we want to pretend we have? The second is the more serious: There will be two different articles apparently entitled "Ireland". Readers won't know which one they're on, they may not even know they're on a different one than yesterday, and they won't understand why they're different, or why they seem to keep changing back and forth. It's an ingenious solution, just not the right one. Scolaire (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh! I hadn't realised it had been discussed before, never mind so recently. Ah well, back to the drawing board I guess! ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 21:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I do really like Rannpháirtí Anaithnid's suggestion of showing the parenthetical disambiguator in smaller font though. That might make 'Ireland (state)' more palatable to a lot of people - myself included. Is there any update on the feasibility of this option? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It can be easily done using {{|DISPLAYTITLE:<small>Republic of</small> Ireland}}. I can't say I'm keen on messing around like that, it just seems like another can of worms to me. Dmcq (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Cosmetic changes miss the point. The title is typed every time a link to the article is created. This title need not be displayed any differently than any other, it should simply be a good title. Sswonk (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Or at least not a bad one. ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 02:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

On Bastun's comments on the nettle

Bastun, I didn't previously comment on your proposal above, deliberately. So I don't know why you assumed that I agreed with you. However, I may do so now. I find some of it quite constructive—just not your point 3, which doesn't address the problem, and your point 7, which is not necessary. Insisting on including Republic of Ireland on the poll seems to me to be an attempt to perpetuate what is clearly something that just does the WikiProject Ireland no good. The previous poll stabilized that name for two years, and now that the moratorium is over we are back at square one. It's time to try something else for two years. Remember, it is not the truth-value of the article name which is the problem. (a) It is possible to argue that Republic of Ireland is good or bad for the name of the article of the state. (b) It is possible to argue that Ireland is good or bad for the name of the article of the state. (b) It is possible to argue that Ireland (state) is good or bad for the name of the article of the state. But everything we have seen since 2002 suggests that both (a) and (b) here just case divisiveness and brinksmanship, creating "winners" and "losers" and damaging WikiProject Ireland. It is WikiProject Ireland that is important. This Collaboration exists to serve WikiProject Ireland. Not to support unionist views or nationalist views or any of that. This Collaboration exists to try to make WikiProject Ireland a better place, a more inviting place, for people to help improve articles that will teach all the world about our island and what happens here. That is why I believe Republic of Ireland on its own should not be on a poll for the name of the article on the state: it will not improve anything. Nor do I believe that the articles about the island and the state should be merged at this time into a single article Ireland. I know that there are strong arguments for that—but I believe that at this juncture, now, that would be just as divisive. And it is the divisiveness which is the problem. Not some "perfect truth" to be encoded the article names. -- Evertype·✆ 00:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I will therefore propose the following:

1. Give us a rest. No new poll until Festivus shenanigans are well and truly over. Say, second week in January.
2. Use the time to come up with a limited number of new poll options. The first goal is to replace Republic of Ireland with something else for the article for the state, since this is the primary cause of the emotive and sociological problem which bedevils the WikiProject Ireland.
3. No other option should appear in the poll unless it can attract significant support (I'm completely open as to what that support threshold should be). This will allow us to kill off problematic/no-hoper proposals such as "Move 'Republic of Ireland' to 'Ireland (country)'".
4. When options, if any, have been chosen, and a method of counting the votes has been agreed (PR-STV, IRV, Concordet, first-past-the-post, whatever):
   1. Arbcom sanction is sought to hold it and make the result binding;
   2. Arbcom are requested to appoint administrator/overseers/moderators for it;
   3. Anyone that wishes to may contribute a statement, same as in 2009, and the index of statements will be linked prominently from the poll page.
5. The poll gets advertised as widely as possible (if I have to put up with hearing about a women-only wikimeet in Scunthorpe, or see a picture of Jimmy Wales seeking donations every time I check my watchlist, they can put up with hearing about the new poll).
6. The poll result is binding for a period of two years.

Thoughts? -- Evertype·✆ 00:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one going on about it currently. I'd be quite happy to have another poll in six months and I think if you hold one so soon it is practically bound to fail so I can't see why you do it. I see no need to drag Arbcom in yet as there is no problem in having the occasional poll if people don't go on and on about it afterwards. As far as I can see there's a couple of people saying there is a problem without being able to show any evidence of what they say. Dmcq (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I must reject option 2, as Republic of Ireland should be included in any poll. That it offends or causes friction is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Again Oppose : There is a clear 2.4:1 majority support for the status quo, which is the country staying at Republic of Ireland, the government themselves uses the term (see File:Envelope from Irish Revenue Commissioners.jpeg if you doubt it) so any poll that excludes Republic of Ireland smacks of is gerrymandering. I also agree with the points raised above, in that we are told that "people are offended" by the name of the article being called Republic of Ireland but so far not a single editor is willing to say that they are in that group. Mtking ^(edits) 06:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

See - it's comments like "the government themselves uses the term" that smacks of misunderstand the differnce (and necessity) between using it as a "name" and using it as a "disambiguating term" or description. And if you're using the example of "the government", why not actually follow their lead and stated guidelines. Or any other governments for that matter? --HighKing (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the comment is exactly what is needed, it goes to disprove the ridiculous claim that the name is offensive or in some way objectionable, it cant be if the government uses it in such a public way. Mtking ^(edits) 20:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? That it would be OK for us to use it simply as a name, but not as a disambiguating term as is currently the case? That seems a bit perverse, given that in Irish law it is stated to be the description of the state and not its name. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to HK, I believe he is saying the opposite. Postage is not free if posted in Belfast, which is in Ireland, so "Republic of Ireland" is used as a disambiguation. Likewise , we use ROI within articles for disambiguation, but he doesn't think we should use it as a name for the article. Scolaire (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Scolaire - that's exactly the point. --HighKing (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, though I would say that even in the article title it's there purely as a form of disambiguation: the article begins by saying " Ireland, described as..." which makes it pretty clear that as far as we're concerned, the name is Ireland. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words referring to the county as the Republic of Ireland as a way of distinguishing it from entities that share the name is used by the government of the county when they need to do just that. So why is it not acceptable to use that here when we have exactly the same issue ? Mtking ^(edits) 23:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Because using the dab term as the "Title" is misleading and wrong, especially given the history of usage between the UK and Ireland. That's really the main reason. --HighKing (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How is it misleading ? and how is it wrong ? is not the country a Republic, does not the country use the term when it needs to ? Mtking ^(edits) 01:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The simplest way of ensuring that only options with significant support are in the mix at the end would be to allow any option to be added to the list with just a proposer and seconder and then run the poll on a preference basis. Otherwise you end up with a minimum of 2 polls, one to choose the options and another to choose the result, which would give 2 opportunities for tactical voting. Just put 'em all on the list and let people choose their preferences. Fmph (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask a follow-on question from Dmcq's: hands up those who believe that this is causing an "emotive and sociological problem which bedevils the WikiProject Ireland"? Looking at the WikiProject talk page, it seems to me that it's trundling along just fine on its own emotive and sociological problems and that this isn't impacting on it at all! I also notice that the great majority of contributors there have not chosen to express any point of view here. Scolaire (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never fully understood why this WikiProject exists, when there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And true to form, somebody prefers to make a tangential observation than to answer my question! This project exists so that WP:IE isn't used for all the page move arguments, which would take it over otherwise. Scolaire (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

These page move discussions 'are not' hurting this WikiProject in anyway. GoodDay (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Scolaire (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been a poll above.. people voted for the status quo to remain. There is no justification for a new wikipedia wide poll, especially as the people who are demanding one will still not be satisfied if Republic of Ireland wins again. So why do we need to go to through a lot of work (to draw up options and acceptable wording, which will take a couple of months)... just to be back to square one with the same editors making the same objections a few months later? If we do have a wikiwide poll again, then the "Status Quo" needs to be a clear option.. no putting all options as A,B,C,D,E,F like they are all equal. The status quo must be clearly labelled... Republic of Ireland has been used for over 5 years and as of yet no clear case has been made as to why we must hold a new vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose any multi-option poll at any time under any circumstances. The 2009 poll was agreed on as a way around a specific problem: the difficulty in gauging community consensus in a straight poll because close to 50:50 is always "no consensus" and because it tends to be restricted to one option. It served a purpose and it produced a result. It also generated a huge amount of anger in the months leading up to it, an unbelievable amount of bile while it was running, and accusations of bad faith and mismanagement after it was closed. Any repeat exercise will serve no purpose (since community consensus will not have changed) and will only provide an opportunity for more histrionics of the most undesirable kind. If there is to be a poll at any time, it should be a straight RM to a title or titles that have some chance of success because there is some measure of agreement on this page. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you inherit the gift of foresight from your parents? Or was it something you developed yourself over the years? Fmph (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Scolaire (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The premise of this proposal is that excluding one option will somehow bring harmony to the WP project, and the option that should be excluded is "Republic of Ireland", because some people find it objectionable and/or it causes "divisiveness and brinksmanship." Essentially, it is saying that if a small number of editors make enough noise, then they get their way, overruling consensus, and/or options acceptable to a majority of 20:4 in the most recent poll, and an option acceptable to 75% of voters in the 2009 poll. That is not how Wikipedia works. Nor should it be. There are plenty of "consensuses" on Wikipedia I do not like - I can list some if you'd like - but would it be right if I was able to say on relevant talk pages "No, sorry lads, I know you always outnumber me but I'm sorry, it's a divisive issue, therefore you're just going to have to change"? Nope. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Add reply: Evertype, you say in the first line of this section "Bastun, I didn't previously comment on your proposal above, deliberately. So I don't know why you assumed that I agreed with you." I assumed it from your comment on my proposal in the Nettle section above, posted at 17:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC), where you say that you agree to a new poll, in January, that you also agree to it having reduced options, and go on to say: "I think that the island and the state and the disambiguation titles (all three) should be listed even if in some options all three are changed from the present configuration and in others only one or two are." (my emphasis added). No mention of excluding RoI from all options. Excuse my confusion. But maybe now you can see why I was shocked at your current proposal. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this still going on? Mabuska ^(talk) 12:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well it won't archive for another four days because of that query :) Assuming archiving can be made work again. Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just great to see the hardliners insist on Republic of Ireland even though it is clear that a two-year lockdown on that title has not resulted in a consensus that the name is suitable. Of course they want it on the poll because they want it to "win" again. But, again, that doesn't address the problem, which is a persistent and perennial adversarial relationship amongst people in WikiProject Ireland. My suggestion is that something else be used for two years, and my belief is that this will put the real problem to rest. -- Evertype·✆ 00:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The reverse is true, those who don't like Republic of Ireland want it excluded so that it does not win, you can't go and excluded one option that has considerable level of support just because some don't want it.

It is clear to me that there will never be anything approaching consensus on this. Those who think that there will probably need to step back from this debate. The best that can be achieved is probably what we have got now. Mtking ^(edits) 00:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be excluded so that it does not "win" because its "winning" does not make WikiProject Ireland a better place for everyone to work. It doesn't help "collaboration". A two-year moratorium on discussion didn't solve anything either. Soon as it was over, the arguments started again. Since that particular choice doesn't help make WikiProject Ireland a place where people can get along without bitching at each other about it, offering long arguments pro and con about it (that most people don't even read), the obvious choice is to go with something else and see if that improves things. I believe it will. -- Evertype·✆ 12:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There's too much concentration on the country article. The island article is the true focal point. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to have twice as much of a row, certainly. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A two-year lockdown on anything can not result in a consensus that the name is suitable, or on anything else, so that's hardly a big surprise. More significantly, however, a two-month discussion with no holds barred has not resulted in a consensus on anything. If there were only a couple of hardliners holding out against a mass of moderate editors, they could have and should have been swept aside and the change should have been effected to general applause. The fact that that hasn't happened perhaps means it's time for a re-think. Achieving a consensus necessarily involves convincing opponents of the desirability of change or of compromise. In particular, if you're going to argue that "the problem is not the truth-value of the article names; it is that the status quo of the article names causes bad feelings and ill-will among many if not most editors", then surely you must earnestly endeavour to reduce bad feelings and ill-will by appealing to people's better natures. You simply cannot do this by referring to ordinary Joe's who are happy with the way things are as "hardliners who insist on the title" or as people who "just want to 'win'". As it happens, I find myself agreeing with you more and more, but your aggressive and hectoring tone invariably cause me to get back in my trench. I think you should let it go until the New Year (as everybody else already seems to have done), and in the meantime think about how to phrase your proposals in such a way that people on the other side will want to listen to them. Scolaire (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Aggressive and hectoring"? I'm frustrated by the fact that the actual argument is ignored by the handful of "It must be Republic of Ireland" voices we see here on this page above. Most of those are not "ordinary Joes". You, thankfully, have returned to the argument, that the problem is not the truth-value of the article names; it is that the status quo of the article names causes bad feelings and ill-will among many if not most editors, and if you find yourself agreeing then please get off the fence and state boldly that you're willing to grasp the nettle and go with another name for two years and see how it goes. I don't believe that after two years of, for instance, Ireland (state) that we will have the same level of argument that we have now. I think that in the New Year we should have another community-wide poll, with fewer options, none of them Republic of Ireland, allowing for editors to make their pro and con arguments, and also allowing for members of the project to express their unhappiness with having a poll. Because digging in and insisting on Republic of Ireland is part of the problem. "Hectoring"? That's bullying, and quite frankly I and some others see the bullies to be those fighting for what they call the "status quo". Not having it, not any more. That solution has been tried and found wanting. It is time we grasp the nettle and try another solution. -- Evertype·✆ 12:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you please end this 'we' business claiming to speak on behalf of some silent majority. You are speaking on your own behalf just like everyone else here. And please stop harping on about the bad-feelings of others, if you have bad-feelings yourself about it yourself then just say so and why. Stop talking as if you're trying to save endless discussion here when you're the one stopping it all getting archived and laid to rest for a couple of months. Dmcq (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe Evertype is making sense. And I've stayed away from here precisely because of the "bad feelings". I get on with most editors here, yet this issue has proved divisive. --HighKing (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And I know a number of others who hold the same view. That is why I have, in frustration, proposed to actually do something about it. -- Evertype·✆ 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Evertype, I will get off the fence and state boldly that I'm willing to grasp the nettle and go with another name, when you begin to treat me and others of my view with respect. Your response has given me little, if any, hope that that is going to happen at any time. By hectoring I meant, not bullying but domineering, in the sense of overbearing, dictatorial, bossy, assertive, dominant, forceful, commanding, pushy, strong-willed etc. That approach has gained you a grand total of no ground at all over the last three years+, and it's not going to gain you another inch as long as you continue with it.

HighKing, Evertype does make sense when he says that the issue is divisive and that people stay away becasue of "bad feelings", but then he spoils it by making the bad feelings worse. I have tried on at least four occasions to move the discussion on and look for ways to work towards consensus in favour of change, but each time he has either ignored me or attacked me. I too am going to stay away from now on, because as long as Evertype continues to rage in this way there is no possibility whatever of anything positive being done, even if every other editor experienced a sudden outburst of peace, love and understanding. Scolaire (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Scolaire, you're one of the people I get on with. Even shared a pint with. I respect your views and I believe I now even understand the why of your views. I'd be happy to get involved again if we could find a way to work together. But some editors here simply participate in order to disrupt any discussions that look like changing consensus. It's a tactic we're all well used to in the British/Irish battleground. It's why many editors feel the only recourse is to withdraw participation. Trolls on both sides mind. And one "neutral" (...). And they keep getting fed. I don't believe Evertype intends to attack anybody personally, but would like participation to move beyond the black and white polarization that has manifest. --HighKing (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And the respect is mutual, but with due respect, I would like you to get off the fence and say now who are the editors who simply participate in order to disrupt any discussions that look like changing consensus, and what form this disruption takes. I have seen Bastun, Dmcq, Mtking, Britishwatcher and maybe others make statements of fact or opinion that seem to cause you considerable annoyance, but those statements are very much part of the flow of the discussion; they are the opposite of disruptive. You say below that there is "a small cadre of editors that make it their business to disrupt discussions rather than participate by engaging civilly" and that they are "a united group of editors who prefer the current title." Why can I not see that? Who are they and when did they post, and how did they demonstrate this "unity"? It's time to name names and show diffs. Scolaire (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you just looking for an excuse to hold your ground? Now I'm not asking you nicely enough? Am I not allowed to feel frustrated with this situation, where nothing but ill will and more ill will is generated day after day, month after month, holding WikiProject Ireland hostage to argument? Damn right I'm strong-willed. It's called being bold. And challenging everyone here, on both sides, to think laterally and choose to try something that might have a chance at being stable two years from January. So you just attack me, saying I don't "respect" your "view". I have said from the beginning that I recognize arguments both for and against Republic of Ireland. That means I respect holders of both views. But that doesn't matter, because the truth-value of either view is of no consequence, since neither side will ever convince the other side of the validity of its view. Accordingly, I challenge everyone to grasp the nettle of giving up a dysfunctional article name in favour of something else. And yes, I'm arguing this case forcefully, and if you just want to be offended and let that be an excuse to do nothing as opposed to joining in, then, well, I guess that'd be your choice, but it doesn't make anything better. -- Evertype·✆ 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not "attacked" you, Scoláire. Try to assume good faith. But every time you "have tried to move the discussion" you have, it seems to me, ended up proposing nothing at all. Concrete suggestions, please. Not blythe suggestions that we might talk about stuff. I'm not raging. I'm challenging everyone to do something about this stalemate. "Softly softly" isn't a good way to challenge people. I'm trying to shake things up. -- Evertype·✆ 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't challenge. Don't try to shake things up. You are raging. You are attacking me. You're not asking me - or anybody - nicely enough. You don't respect holders of both views. You don't respect anybody. I will not engage with you ever again. When you leave this discussion, I will come back with the concrete suggestions that I have made and you haven't seen because you were too busy being "frustrated". Until then, go ahead and do your thing and blame the rest of the world for not seeing how reasonable you are. Scolaire (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have challenged, because WikiProject Ireland is hamstrung by "the status quo". You know, just gainsaying me and saying that everything I say is a lie doesn't make it so, though maybe it makes it easier for you to pretend that I'm not part of this community and trying to work towards a solution. I do respect holders of both views on Republic of Ireland even if you say I do not, and my respect for them is irrelevant, because that title is just a focus for strife. What benefit holding on to it? None. But people like to hold on to it, for whatever reason. That needs to be challenged, even if it's uncomfortable, because what we see from those who favour Republic of Ireland is nothing but "the status quo is good, the status quo is good". But it isn't good. It gets us nowhere. (So does your damning me as utterly unreasonable and forswearing ever communicating with me.) It would be great if you wouldn't play games here. I'm not. And I'm serious about getting something done about this stupid, embarrassing situation which does nothing but prevent WikiProject Ireland from functioning otherwise than as a crucible for strife. I think we can do better. OK, you might not like my tone. Nor do I care much what reads as a holier-than-thou attitude from you (whether you intend it or not). But I love Ireland (and all the Irelands) and I want this to be a better place. Republic of Ireland has proved to prevent that, and so it's time to ditch it. I don't believe that whispering and cajoling is going to get people to agree to that. Challenge is designed to jog people out of their current abstractions. I am not abusing people. I am challenging them to take a bold step towards something that might bring peace. -- Evertype·✆ 01:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Evertype, ya need to have 2 polls. The first, to determine which name Republic of Ireland should be moved to & the second - have that proposed name put up against Republic of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Aggrieved

HighKing, do you personally feel aggrieved and put off participating here because the name of the article is Republic of Ireland? Or are you put off because there are people here who will not behave civilly and discuss things properly? Do you believe that Evertype's suggestion to hold a poll without the current title 'Republic of Ireland' as an option and invite the rest of Wikipedia in is sound and sensible? Do you think there is a cabal with an agenda who fixed the results of the last RfC to keep the current title? Dmcq (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq, I don't feel aggrieved in the slightest. Wrong word. I believe the title is incorrect for reasons I've set out before, and I would prefer a different title. The current title annoys me intensely. Not proper usage of "Republic of Ireland" to dab within articles mind you. I hold a view, same as anyone else. I understand many of the reasons put forward by both "sides". I don't participate here because there are a small cadre of editors that make it their business to disrupt discussions rather than participate by engaging civilly. I believe there is a united group of editors who prefer the current title. I believe the last RfC was unbalanced by the large British participation and their strong preference for "Republic of Ireland". I don't believe there's a secret cabal or agenda. I believe Evertype is making sense. Especially the point that after 2 years, nothing has changed - that has to be an indication that something fundamental is wrong with the title. I would also like to see if there is strong opposition to an alternative title. --HighKing (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. Annoyed by it being incorrect isn't quite enough grounds to strike out Republic of Ireland as a choice under the neutrality grounds of WP:TITLE you'd have to think that it really was non-neutral and emotive. I think you're tending that way a bit okay but I'm concerned you may be reading something into that last request to move and RfC Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Archive_28 that wasn't there. Did you actually look at the user pages of the various supports and opposes? None of the three supports declare themselves as Irish though they might be and there were a lot of opposes who declared themselves as Irish and I only saw one who declare themselves UK and a couple came from Northern Ireland. You didn't !vote there at all which I find peculiar, did I miss something? Personally I'm happy to count people from NI as Irish enough to satisfy any 'Irish only' qualification as suitable for making a decision here but it wouldn't have mattered anyway. So overall I see only evidence against your supposition that a large British participation swayed the decision. Dmcq (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the user pages of support and oppose. I understand the positions of most if not all. I'm struggling to find an appropriate term to describe my "feelings" towards "Republic of Ireland" as the article title. The title really "annoys me intensely" - because it is factually incorrect, etc, etc - and for all the other reasons I've outlined ad nauseum previously. You didn't ask me to make an argument based on policy, you asked specifically for my degree of feeling, so that's what I've given you. I've stayed away from the recent voting because I don't see the point of "one side" simply trying to out vote "the other" - that approach is a foregone conclusion in any case. I've analysed the poll from 2 years ago and shared it with editors who have asked here - mainly editors that try to use statistics to back up retaining the title at "Republic of Ireland". I've posted summaries of those findings a number of times. But all arguments based on statistics miss the main point and are secondary to the main issue. For me, this is a collaborative project. For that reason, I'm happy to go with consensus, regardless of what my personal position is. But consensus in this case (from the poll) turned into a majority vote and proved divisive. In point of fact, I voted to retain the consensus in the first vote after the 2 year lockdown was up. But in the intervening time, it's clear that the title is still problematic. Evertype is pointing out that perhaps another approach involving changing the title to something else might actually result in more acceptance among a majority of editors. I believe this suggestion has some merit and I'd support a trial of a new title - without conflating the issue of the title with using "Republic of Ireland" as a correct dab term within articles. --HighKing (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

We can all feel aggrieved. I feel aggrieved that people should be telling me that the name that people, including myself and pretty much everyone I knew except hardline republicans, regularly used without any problem whatsoever for the state I grew up in, a state I am quite fond of and even proud of despite all its faults, is ridiculous, outrageous, scandalous etc. I feel aggrieved that people are suggesting that the official usage of a foreign government should dictate (whether positively or negatively) what terms we can use for our state. Whose grievances are worth most? Who is more at fault for 'digging in and insisting' on their position, those who are happy with the very clear result of a lengthy decision-making process that showed the current position to be the most popular and the most widely acceptable, or those who find that result unpalatable and refuse to accept it, or say they are unwilling to contribute to related articles while it stands?

On the specific issue of the poll, several editors including myself have expressed willingness to accept a move from 'Republic of Ireland' to 'Ireland (state)' as a compromise, whether temporarily or otherwise. And I should say that I really don't like that idea, but if it results in less people being really really unhappy, I am willing to contemplate it - despite feeling to some extent emotionally blackmailed. But these editors only represent themselves, and they can commit themselves to supporting that option in a move request. I am not sure that they (we) have any right to agree on behalf of everyone else who supported what was clearly the most popular option last time, to entirely exclude that from any new discussion. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I'd like to know if there are people who are really really unhappy that the title of the article is Republic of Ireland. Not on the behalf of some vague others as Evertype keeps going on about but actual real people. Dmcq (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not happy with that title which was chosen in 2002. You expressed a desire to take a break from hearing why, so I will leave it at that. With regard to others, I will not speak for them but certainly Sarah777 (talk · contribs), and if I recall correctly recent objections from Lugnad (talk · contribs) and Tebibyte (talk · contribs) come to mind. These are a few, there are several who can be found to find the title unfortunate. The history of 2009 was fairly obvious, enough persons found trouble with the title at that time to force the creation of this forum, the posting of several position statements, and finally the heavily commented about polling. I won't get bogged down in defining "unhappy" for you. The situation itself is troubling. It should have been very easy from the outset to keep this from happening, simply use a different title. The adamant responses we find here against any change are really not normal, there is way to much pride and fear on display. Is it like a mural on a wall in a unionist or protestant or Roman Catholic or republican neighborhood, is the current title a "don't touch this" statement? Why is the resistance to do away with this poor title so fierce? In my view, many of the arguments against change seem to be arguments opposing the name of the state itself. If this website is bound by pillars such as no original research, reliable sources, verifiability, simple arguments against the true name of the state need to be discounted from the beginning. Those questions go to the core of the "happiness" of many. Sswonk (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It is like when I ask somebody "whether they are from the north or the south?" The conversation ceases and they go to engage in conversation with somebody else. It's funny that. 58.7.181.23 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the 'You expressed a desire to take a break from hearing why, so I will leave it at that' is about. I just don't imagine anybody who's grown up in Ireland feeling anything much about it and I can't see why anyone from outside should care that much either. I do see problems with putting in Ireland (state) when people start referring to it from other articles, they'll have to start sticking in Republic of Ireland or Ireland every single time and they're bound to start sticking in things like Southern Ireland. Most people think Republic of Ireland is just fine as a title for the article. So I am wondering if the push by you and Evertype falls under the 'neutrality in article titles' section of WP:Article titles. Both you and Evertype deny any great feelings about it yourselves, you make out you speak for other people and yet you go on and on. So since these people have not answered directly here I will go and ask them directly on their talk pages to come here and answer the question. Do they feel it is like saying 'Pro-life' to a 'Pro-choice' person? Or is it more like saying Bill Clinton should be titled William Jefferson Clinton. Or where in between does it go? Dmcq (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked me and others: I am not sure just what you mean by “about the degree of feeling you have whether the title Republic of Ireland being wrong,” It is not a matter of “feeling” It is factually wrong, it is incorrect – and that is fact – not an issue of “feeling”. As for “feeling”, you might mean does the term RoI cause offence. To me, not really, it just displays the ignorance of the speaker. Having said that there are instances where disambiguation is required and terms such as RoI, Irish Republic and others are appropriate. I do not know if I have understood your question or whether that is the answer you want. I hope that you found this helpful. Lugnad (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

+1 --HighKing (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnad with that being part of my reasons. Dmcq, here you asked me to give it a break for a while, so that is what I meant above where you write "I don't know what the 'You expressed a desire to take a break from hearing why, so I will leave it at that' is about." To avoid mucking this up, and I think you are taking a good approach here, I'll give an answer I think you'll find summarizes my view. RE: "is it more like saying Bill Clinton should be titled William Jefferson Clinton", no. If anything it is in fact a partial opposite of the William Jefferson or Bill titling debate. Bill Clinton should be titled Bill Clinton. Similarly, since it is by far the most commonly used, preferred and official name, the single word Ireland should be the focus for the article on the state, probably with a parenthetical dab such as Ireland (state) used in the title. Further clouding that analogy is the fact that RoI is not an official name and is in fact discouraged in protocol guides such as the EU publications style guide, while William Jefferson Clinton is an (the) official name of the ex President of the US, and he uses it with the middle name abbreviated for his current work. The Government of Ireland does not use the term in titles, nor does it use the "Government of the Republic of Ireland" at all. It's "Government of Ireland", full stop. So, the Clinton analogy is not where my objection lies. The much more common name, Ireland, should be used here, the site should not favor the incorrect use of a legislative "description" which raises the objections it has. It isn't "natural"; "the Republic" or "the south" are somewhat natural in conversation and body copy of prose, but can't be used as a title. RoI is wrong as a title, and can be easily replaced. All of the stringent opposition to change, and the convoluted logic used to try to make that title become the conclusion to a decision tree pathwork, that's what raises the alarms. Outside evidence of title usage indicates this website is an outlier on the title, yet byzantine inside politics has been able to maintain it against objections. Not good. Sswonk (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No "byzantine politics" needed. There are two articles that can lay claim to the title, one has a natural disambiguator (yes, you disagree it's a natural disambiguator, others disagree with you), one doesn't. Most people, given the 2009 poll, would seem not to have a problem with it. There may indeed be places where the use of RoI is discouraged, but this is not one of them. It lists the short names and official names of EU countries. In all cases, for Ireland, that's "Éire/Ireland". Not only is use of RoI not "discouraged" on that page - RoI isn't mentioned at all, since it doesn't need to be. Oh, sorry, just spotted the little footnote at the bottom. Interesting bit on the BI, too! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And on a proper read of the footnote, I think my original (struck out) point is still valid. It's saying - for Ireland, the UK, and the Netherlands - use the proper names of those countries, nothing more, nothing less. Don't use an incorrect name (Holland), a geographical term (British Isles), an outdated term (Irish Republic) or a disambiguator (Republic of Ireland). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You're taking on dry policy terms. Correct name is not an overriding criterion in WP:TITLE. The only way I can see of removing 'Republic of Ireland' from consideration is to show actual evidence of it being a point of view term evoking an emotional response. And I don't mean people just saying they think others are affected that way. Highking has come closest to providing anything along those lines with the belief that a whole lot of British people weighed in to the last request to move RfC to keep 'Republic of Ireland' as the title because they don't like Ireland being used as the name of the state. I see no evidence to back up that belief, quite the reverse, but we're talking about feelings here and belief when the evidence is against one is some evidence for an emotional response. Dmcq (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you take a look at the history of the term, you'll find one reason why it is regarded as an emotive term - "Republic of Ireland" is still the official name of the state under UK law. It is also (possibly) one of the reasons why media originating in the UK continue to use the term, and why it is used outside of the UK by people who consume this output. On the one hand, why shouldn't they use the term? It's *their* name for the state. But why should WP follow suit? --HighKing (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should we let the British government dictate to us what titles we use/don't use here, in an article about Ireland on an international encyclopedia? This is a term that's widely used in Ireland, why should the fact that the British government uses it as well prevent us from using it? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I know the history. Would you please read Names_of_the_Irish_state#Belfast_Agreement. The countries now use each other's proper names in their laws. You seem to be stuck fighting a war that ended thirteen years ago. Dmcq (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll engage briefly here, but as we know, most of this has been said. Articles don't lay claim to titles, the titles of articles here are chosen by editors, and sometimes are poorly crowdsourced as with this one. Governments of individuals may lay claim to lands, and that situation (Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland) caused this title to be pointedly used against Ireland's objection by the UK, until about 2000 when the Foreign & Commonwealth Office relented using it. Now that situation is changed. My objections are fundamentally that common name, common sense and consistency are being ignored by this title. 'Consistency' there refers to article titles and lists, such as the many I have shown: naturally, lists which talk about states go: France, Germany, Italy, Austria, United Kingdom, Norway, Ireland, Spain, Greece, United States, Japan, Vietnam, China, Brazil... you get the idea. If it has to be disambiguated, which for sake of argument I'll grant here, "Ireland (state)" is natural. RoI is a tertiary dab: "the Republic" is more common in modern local accounts. Foreign writing, outside of the UK, in my experience, assumes Ireland means the 26 county area.

Regarding the term British Isles, that is outside the scope here. I don't have any desire to change that title, it is as that EU page states a "geographic area", although I feel that within decades its use will decline. Personally, I do not use the term. It is interesting to you, but to mention it as you did only ties RoI to the BI debates, they are not the same so I'll ask that you ignore that here and discuss only the state article. Sswonk (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Lugnad and (by extension) HighKing, you say, "Having said that there are instances where disambiguation is required and terms such as RoI, Irish Republic and others are appropriate." That's exactly what I think. But surely the page title is the most obvious such instance of all? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:TLDR ... What there is no getting away from the fact, that no new arguments have been forthcoming for any change to the status quo, a status quo that has the support of an overwhelming majority of editors. With the level of acceptance for the article being called Republic of Ireland, I can not see ANY circumstances in which a poll or whatever can be had without it being an option and any editor who feels that have a right to veto any option is clearly not working in a collaborative fashion. BTW I am still awaiting that list of editors who feel offended by the current articles name. Mtking ^(edits) 20:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The point about the name being pushed by Britain would be a reason to avoid it if it were still true as it would show it was point of view. However they stopped doing that years ago as part of the Belfast agreement. Same as Ireland now refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

By the way I'd prefer less bolding please, and I don't think capitals help either. I believe they just raise the temperature without casting any extra light. Dmcq (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nine years could be described as "Too Long Bad Title", but I choose not to insult people with TLBT as my position. How about this, everyone: If it is too FUCKING long for your patience, if it tires you to read actual discourse of any significant detail on this, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. I have had it with these idiotic statements of boredom. It is rude, uncivil and pointless and editors who continue to use "TLDR" are nothing but an annoyance and trolls for leaving such dismissive, childish and useless bluelinks on this page. Enough, please refrain from commenting on the length of discussion. Sswonk (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Responding to a troll with shouting is counter-productive and if they are not trolls one shouldn't shout as it is uncivil. I answered the point of substance there which is they saw no way in which a common name could be excluded from the options. Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"No, you don't have any right to hide valid comments from other people, even if they begin with a dismissive remark." Thus, dismissive comments are valid, no? Same as yours, so they must be substantial, but mine are not so they stay hidden? Unhide it all if anything. Claiming TLDR is rude and childish nonsense, and I am not standing for it and if I see it again, the entire block gets removed as trolling. Entertainment here. Sswonk (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think dismissive comments are a good idea, and by substantive points I mean points relating to the argument and not points about TLDR, regarding which the header on your collapse bar clearly expressed your views. Though I think it would be helpful if contributions in general were succinct and in a calm tone. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I was the first to respond to Sswonk with TLDR here, but that was for an essay of nearly 1,000 words. I never dreamt that it would become a fashion and I regret starting that fashion. It's rude and it's unhelpful. Sswonk's contributions now are no longer than other people's, including my own, and they are more reasonable than some. It's time we all learned some manners. Scolaire (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Scolaire. I hope that will do some good. Bastun will appreciate that the use of tl;dr is also part of a conspiracy. You may not have recognized this in your initial usage. Jimbo has hinted that he generally supports sending people to tl;dr reformatory, see here where he uses it while cutely ignoring admin Beeblebrox's confession to having dragged banned users "behind a horsecart for at least a furlong." I tell you, that's how it starts. Gotta go, I hear a clip-clop, clip-clop, clip-clop and it's getting closer. Sswonk (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

My use of WP:TLDR was NOT directed at any one person, it was out of frustration at the same old reasons being trotted out all the time wasting huge number of bites without moving the debate forward. I have no axe to grind here with either side, if some one can come up with a naming scheme that works better than Ireland for the island and Republic of Ireland for the state then I will support it. But for me anything that would mean that either one would always need to be piped linked should be avoided if an alternative exists. If the project was to concentrate on that rather then talking about polls without this or that and accept the only way we can move this to a resolution is by ruling nothing in and nothing out the more likely we are to find a solution. Mtking ^(edits) 23:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So propose a solution. RashersTierney (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have one, not sure one exists but willing to help find one. Mtking ^(edits) 01:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I felt that you were using it in response to the entire thread, but I stand by my rant against using it. Regarding moving forward, assuming moving the article title only, [[Republic of Ireland]] would not need to be piped, it would redirect to [[Ireland (state)]]. [[Ireland]] stands as is. The piping would be changed on the IMOS directive, [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] would then be [[Ireland (state)|]], using the pipe trick. Sswonk (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

While it works as a "political" fix I am not as yet seeing the the advantages to WP of that proposal it takes a a likely search term Republic of Ireland and replaces is it with a unlikely one, making it harder for persons outside of that part of the world to get to the page. Mtking ^(edits) 01:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirects make the search results for either "Republic of Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" go to the same article. Go to http://www.wikipedia.org, type either, with or without quotes, and click the arrow. Each of those searches goes to the same place and that would not change. Searching just the word "Ireland" would also not change, it would reach the same result as currently. The advantage is in replacing the more contentious, less commonly used title term with one that uses the official, most common name of the state as its primary focus. Sswonk (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Lads, you are alone in this argument, in this little private space of wikipedia. Most Irish people, myself included, have moved on from Wikipedia, especially this argument about "Ireland versus Ireland". It is nonsense. It is common usage (in the real world) to use one Ireland and allow for a separate administration in Northern Ireland. When I see this argument of "Ireland versus Ireland" and the perennial one regarding a successful Irishman being British, or an Anglo-Irish or Irish Born: Anything but an Irishman. It makes me sick. It appears that more time goes into the arguments regarding Ireland and the nationality of Irishmen than improving wikipedia. Please forget your internal private polls and never-ending arguments. Just merge the two "Ireland" pages and see what happens. Just go with what is common usage in the real world. 124.169.49.130 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What you say is in fact part of the problem with disambiguating. The commoner usage is the whole island and people aren't so interested in the state. However we can't at all reasonably say Dublin is the capital when talking about the whole island, that's simply not on. Dmcq (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. We can use a soft approach and say in an article titled "Ireland." "It has two capitals; Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland, and Dublin." An accompanying map can easily show the two cities. 124.169.49.130 (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a social forum for the editors, it is an encyclopaedia for its readers. The articles are on different topics, a reader wouldn't expect it all to be mixed up into one huge article. As far as our readers are concerned what happens on this page does not matter at all. And of the editors here even I'd be very surprised if any of them loses sleep over it. So no, changing the articles to avoid disagreements amongst editors is not a priority. The disagreements may however show ways to improve the encyclopaedia and that's what important. Dmcq (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The name of the article is misleading, not withstanding all the ifs and and buts in the lead. From that point of view it is not encyclopaedic. However, the point has been made ad infinitum and blithely ignored as marginal, technically insoluble, irrelevant, unreasonable and any other number of dismissive and smug characterisations. That is why this page is seen by so many, who have tried over years to reach a new consensus, as irrelevant and irritating and generally avoided. RashersTierney (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of user:Sswonk

Editors here should note that I have had cause to give user:Sswonk a formal warning for coming very close to seriously inappropriate comments at Sarah777's talk page with regards to the discussion on this page that, among other things, violated the spirit of WP:CANVASS. permalink. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see anything "seriously inappropriate" in those comments, nor do I find any canvassing there. I believe Sswonk's characterization of Sarah777's view is accurate, and I see him simply asking her to confirm it, in response to a query by Dmcq. I think Thryduulf's "formal warning" is inappropriate, and I think he owes Sswonk an apology. -- Evertype·✆ 14:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see user talk:Sswonk for further discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate that a warning has been necessary. Sswonk is obviously emotionally involved with this dispute more than most, and comments such as the one on Sarah's talk page are born of frustration rather than malice. However, this must serve as due notice to all contributors here that emotion or frustration (which many if not all of us suffer from) cannot and will not be accepted as an excuse for incivility or disruptive behaviour. We all need to tone down the language. Scolaire (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's "disruptive" to defend against lies about my purpose, and lies about John's advice? Sarah's mentor John wrote "I don't see any problem if you have a strong view on the question, in describing your view here or at my talk." How could my asking her to simply confirm in a single sentence, on her page, that she disapproves the title, be construed as Thryduulf does? How is it "seriously inappropriate"..."violat(ing) the spirit of WP:CANVASS"... and most affronting "tempting Sarah to go against the advice of her mentor"? Those are utter lies, and this guy should have no business doing that to people. He is a liar, and is attacking me. I am not putting up with it. That is what is "disruptive", end of. Sswonk (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sswonk, when I said "I think it is unfortunate that a warning has been necessary" I meant that I sympathise with you. But if you go around calling people liars, then I find myself less sympathetic. At all events, your case at AN/I is not directly relevant to IECOLL. Let's keep it at AN/I and keep the focus on civility and respect on this page. Scolaire (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I understood that you sympathise. Getting true meaning across is difficult when typing in a monospaced font rather than having eye contact and hearing vocal tone. I asked you all those questions because I understood you sympathised. I wanted it made clear that frustration "will not be accepted as an excuse for incivility or disruptive behaviour" couldn't mean me, since it was the "warning" party throwing notices on my page, then planting his flag on this page and proposing "remedies" at other forums, who was truly being disruptive. I didn't feel your remark made that clear. As for not calling deliberate, obvious untruthfulness what it is, you've got the wrong person. A lie is a lie, none of the three things I quoted to you that were written by Thryduulf are true, they are lies. What I am supposed to do, praise him? These people do not deserve the power of threat that they possess, and they are definitely part of the problem with this entire situation. I know if she feels anything at all like me, Sarah is disgusted with this website in general precisely because it has "hired", and offers as examples, administrators like that. The system is rotten. I refuse to discuss this any further, Thryduulf is the one who should be held responsible for being "disruptive", and I don't want anyone reading what you wrote to believe otherwise. Sswonk (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

@Sswonk, because if you had asked her to express her view rather than confirm it, it might have been less like canvassing. But you would also need to have asked more than just Sarah to come and express their view.Fmph (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq asked her to confirm what I suggested. I was not canvassing, that is absurd. I was trying to get an answer for Dmcq, as you can see he has taken her response as not being a confirmation. I did not ask "Sarah to come and express (her) view", I asked that she confirm in one sentence what I wrote. Sarah has been a polarizing figure here, but she is a very obvious answer to the question "who is unhappy?" that Dmcq asked. She should not be compelled to come here, why would you think that is what I meant? An irresponsible false charge of "canvassing" was thrown at me, trust me rather than be disruptive or canvassing my intent was to have Dmcq get a confirmation, which would substantiate my statements that this forum has become problematic for several editors. The suggestion was that Sarah confirm on her page what I had just written on her page. Instead, Typhoon Thryduulf paid a visit, writing a pack of horseshit where Sarah's response could have gone. Not here, on her page. She writes that, Dmcq gets one answer, I get substantiation for what I have written. No hypothetical "if you had asked her to..." needed, I know what I was doing and it wasn't the garbage that has since been said about it. Sswonk (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What I think:

• Dmcq's approach to Sarah on her talk page was ill-advised. He had asked a reasonable question on this page. Some people had offered answers, but not as many as he had hoped, and often not in the terms that he wanted. He should have left it at that. It was clear that a number of people were unhappy with his persistance even on this page, so going to user talk pages, whether or not he knew that there were topic-ban issues, was the wrong move.
• RashersTierney's response was intemperate in the extreme. It turned a civil (if ill-advised) question into "baiting" and so guaranteed that it would end in a fight. Rashers has acknowledged this and struck out the word "bait".
• Sarah's response was a model of restraint. She cannot be commended strongly enough or often enough for it.
• John's response was thoughtful, sensible and helpful, as befits a mentor.
• Sswonk's intervention was entirely unnecessary in the circumstances, and his language was also intemperate in the extreme. Just when a fight might have been averted, he made sure that battle was joined.
• Thryduulf's "warning" was excessive. Where he should have tried to diffuse the problem he exacerbated it.

...and so on. It only remains for me to repeat what I said before: First, it's no use blaming the other guy; we all need to tone down the language. Second, this is IECOLL, not AN/I; this discussion on this page needs to end now. Scolaire (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think accepting things without evidence is a good idea then more fool you. I am also not happy with your 'and not in terms that he wanted'. I was looking for information to decide a problem that some people say is fundamental here. I was not looking for a particular outcome. People should not say they have a big cohort behind them and then expect people not to check up just because they think checking what they say is being 'persistent'. Dmcq (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And by the way |I think Wikipedia would be a better pace for editors if Admins were far stricter over civility problems. Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As to RashersTierney I would have preferred if they had just communicated to me their concerns instead of seeming assuming bad faith but I did not see anything particularly wrong in what they said in the circumstances. Dmcq (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "because you didn't get the outcome you wanted", I said "not in the terms you wanted" i.e. people said "I think it is wrong" instead of "I feel aggrieved". By the time of your posts on the user talk pages everybody had grasped what you were asking, and if they didn't give you what you asked for it was because they had exercised their human right not to respond to interrogation. It was a matter of personal regret to me too that you didn't get a clear-cut answer to your question, but I knew better than to push people who felt that certain editors were being too pushy already.

As regards civility, be careful what you ask for. I'm not going to go looking for diffs but I've seen a fair few comments from you that if I had been an admin I might have given you a warning. Scolaire (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Go and search for such diffs if you wish, I have nothing to hide. You can post on my talk page if you wish. Lets see what on earth you are complaining about instead of insinuating things. Dmcq (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thryduulf's first suggested possible process for moving forward

A possible way to put limited number of options forward to an RfC would be to run two rounds first to find the N options that will be presented (not too many, but enough to give a genuine choice; possibly three or four).

• The first round would be to find all the options that have at least minimal support (say three people minimum). Everybody would be free to propose any option they want, provided it is accompanied by at least one sentence giving it's pros (and optionally cons). These can be discussed and voted upon. Voting to the the form of "approve" votes only for as many options as you want, but you are not allowed to vote for your own proposal (but proposers can support others). All comments to be moved out of the voting section to the comments section. All votes that are not support votes to be removed. After a defined period, all options with the minimum level of support would be listed in a table format (see below) for the next round. We have an agreed time off for voting for discussion of the options that made it to round 2 only. No new proposals can be made after this point.
• The second round would run for a defined period of time with a set start and end point determined beforehand. Votes would again be just "support" for any option they do or could support (no limit). There would be no comments, no marking of preferences, and no oppose or neutral votes - anything that is not a support vote to be removed. Comments could continue to be made in a separate section, but any made in the wrong place would be removed not moved. Votes can be amended or withdrawn all the way up to the close of polling.
• After that round has ended, the support votes would be counted and the N most supported options would be listed in the RfC, to start at least 1-2 weeks later. Discussion would continue during this time, but only about the options that made it through to the RfC. An uninvolved user will be asked to provide a clear summary of the pros and cons of each option as expressed in the discussion. The RfC would be open for an agreed period of time from an agreed start date. A clear preference for one option would result in the pages being moved (if necessary), no clear consensus would result in the status quo remaining. The result will be binding for 2 years from the date of the RfC ending.

The table for round 2 would look something like this. The proposals are all deliberately nonsensical to avoid confusion with any existing ones and avoid any appearance of bias. Roman numerals are used for the same reason, numbers or letters would probably be used for the real thing. The order would be agreed beforehand, I suggest using either a random order, chronologically in order the order they were suggested in round 1, or alphabetically (by proposed name for the state article, then by proposed name for the island article, then by proposed name for the dab).

Option	State	Island	Disambiguation
i.	Ireland (fish)	Ireland (artichoke)	Ireland (earwig)
ii.	Ireland (lemur)	Ireland (pomegranate)	Ireland (iguana)
iii.	Ireland (kangaroo)	Ireland (greenfinch)	Ireland (onion)

This is not necessarily the best way forward, but it is one option for a way forward that should be discussed. Say what you like and/or dislike about it, and this should give some indication of what sort of process we want to use to go forward (or at least an indication of what sort of process we don't want, which will be nearly as valuable). Feel free to suggest tweaks, minor and major, but please don't edit it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This has me running for cover, the problem it has is it just lacks simplicity, the "Evertype" proposal (if it can be called that) has a big plus going for it in that it is a either or, no worrying about options, ranking in order or any of that. I won't be supporting any proposal that ends in a RfC that is a multiple choice so for that reason I have to Oppose this. Mtking ^(edits) 03:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's too cumbersome. We should wait & see the outcome of Evertype's poll. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

While this is probably more complicated than necessary, it is a better way forward than trying to reduce the issue to binary choices. This is a complicated subject, or at least deciding which presentation is best is complicated, and reducing choice to an arbitrary two options will probably not result in anything being gained. Alternatively, discussing the names of the various articles separately rather than as a package, might yield some interesting proposals. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no issue discussing lots of options within the Project, but we need to settle on one proposal before going wiki-wide with this. So a simple change by Thryduulf to only putting forward the option with the most support here as well as the status quo would have me supporting it. Mtking ^(edits) 06:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

An excellent proposal. Given that this argument on this project is generally about which options editors do not like, this will turn the argument about and provide meaningful options that people do like. So it becomes a positive choice, not a negative WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The idea that we here have some power or authority to present the wider community with a fait-accompli binary choice is ridiculous. The wider community should have te widest choice possible. The problem with this decision is that the activists here on both sides cannot leve their own POVs at home.

There is absolutely no way I can support Ireland (iguana) but most of the others are quite reasonable. Fmph (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fmph, you don't seem to realise that in an RM any member of the "wider community" is free to say "Oppose Ireland (state) but would support Ireland (fish)." If enough people agree with them then that move, and not the originally proposed move, is the move that will be made. There is no such thing as a fait-accompli in an RM. What responsible editors do is to determine in advance which move is most likely to be successful. Scolaire (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I think you're new here. Maybe you don't realise that we went through all that two years ago. We've seen all the possibilities, we know who likes each of the possibilities and who hates each of them. The idea that if you keep coming up with increasingly bizarre formulations somebody will some day think of one and we'll all say "But that's perfect! Why didn't we think of it before?" is just a pipe-dream. We're finally on the verge of agreeing one title that might be acceptable if we discuss it like adults and stop throwing out new proposals. Thanks for your suggestion and all, but really all it's doing is leading the discussion down another blind alley. And why "first" proposal? How many more are you planning to hit us with? Scolaire (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Scoláire. -- Evertype·✆ 11:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't see the discussion above producing any consensus at all, and so I'm surprised you think we're "on the verge" of agreeing one title. while you might have gone through options in 2009, it demonstrably didn't produce a result that satisfied everybody. Also, I'm unlikely to be the only one who didn't take part 2 years ago, and so results might be different. There is real and repeated dissatisfaction above with being given only two arbitrary choices, so this is designed to produce a manageable number of options that are the ones people actually want to choose from.

As for "first proposal", it is a possibility that after discussion here a revised version will be presented (by me or others) incorporating such suggestions. I'm not planning on "hitting you" with any more unless the discussion heads in that direction, and even then it might not be me, but saying "first" prevents ambiguity if that does happen without costing more than five extra letters to type. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

While we went through options in 2009, it demonstrably didn't produce a result that satisfied everybody. If we go through a similar process in 2012, it obviously won't produce a result that satisfies everybody. If you don't see the discussion above producing any consensus at all, then you're not reading it properly. We are very close to agreement on what is the least worst option for change. What that means - and this is what you're missing - is that we can save ourselves another nine months of trying to implement some half-baked four-stage process that will have everybody at each other's throats, accusations of chicanery and mismanagement, and the certainty that it will produce the "wrong" result, whichever result it produces. Scolaire (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Scoláire. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 11:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Complexity doesn't cause more satisfaction or make decisions easier. I see no problem with something like 'Request to move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state)'. The problem is that the people who want to do that haven't figured out how to phrase the paragraph after that so they have a halfway reasonable chance of success. Their best bet is probably to phrase it as a POV issue and that this would cause the least dissatisfaction and puts in the official name of the state. People might object in their own comments but the initial paragraph can have a big effect in these things. The main worry is about afterwards, you can see above we have people who say they don't have any particular feelings but this must be done despite having another recent RfC because of others who aren't here who feel strongly and that it is causing trouble. Seemingly also all of us need control from ArbCom, to which my feeling is oh yeah who exactly needs control from Arbcom. Dmcq (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW I'd have gone for Ireland (iguana) for the state but it was presented as an option for the disambiguation page. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Tempting, isn't it? -- Evertype·✆ 11:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

{ec}Obviously (to me, at any rate) the most fair/democratic way to do things would be some form of multiple choice preference voting system, similar to what you're suggesting. This is what was used in 2009, and unfortunately no sooner had the result come in (or was it even earlier), than there were suggestions that the "losing" side (i.e., those opposed to using "RoI" as the title) had had their vote split due to the multiple choices available, and that therefore the process was flawed. That is why I proposed a very limited poll, option-wise. Evertype has proposed an even more severe two-choice poll. Obviously I'm hoping for a result that favours the status quo, but it looks very much like the two options presented will be status quo and Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state), which is probably the least unpalatable of all the possible alternatives. So while I can certainly see where you're coming from, in the interests of this not dragging on for another six months or so, I'm happy to go with a two-choice option. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bastún, sort of. "Status quo" will not be presented as an option; it is not neutral. A request to move X to Y will attract Yes votes, No votes, and possibly votes proposing Z's. -- Evertype·✆ 11:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there may be a semantic problem there. If an RM succeeds, there is change; if it fails, the status quo remains. Therefore the status quo is automatically one of the two options. I don't think you and Bastun are in disagreement on that score. Scolaire (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. We may argue some about how the Rfc is eventually phrased in full, but I don't think I'd have any objection to one where the basic question being put is "Should we move RoI to Ireland (state)?" I obviously reserve the right to change my mind. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the several people above who prefer to stick to a two-way poll. Basically we know there are several alternatives. We also know, from 2009, that the current set-up is the first choice of the greatest number of editors and the one that the least number of editors object to. However, some of those who do object to it object very strongly indeed. So what we're doing here is looking at getting a consensus proposal consisting of a single proposed move which would satisfy the objectors to the status quo while at the same time being acceptable to many of the supporters of status quo. It's clear from the previous polls on this page since September that, except in the context of this particular attempt at peace and reconciliation, there's no general appetite for a move debate and I see no merit in holding another all-options-open debate.

On a side-issue, I should point out to Thrydulff that earwigs are exclusive to Dublin and cannot be used to describe the rest of Ireland.[1] ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"On a side-issue, I should point out to Thrydulff that earwigs are exclusive to Dublin" :P Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I oppose a new poll when previous polls on this page have returned a clear opposition to a page move. There should only be a new RFC/full RM if there was no clear majority view or there was majority support for some form of change. I see neither. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we know you do. You've said so already. You have also ignored the main point: that whether or not Republic of Ireland "won" a poll in 2009, it, as a title for the article about the State, needlessly contentious and damaging to WikiProject Ireland. We are adults here, or at least I assume that most of us are. We can understand that the truth-value of an article title is less important than a positive and constructive editing environment. Your belief that the article about the State should be called Republic of Ireland is well understood. If you prefer to dismiss the concerns of people who find that problematic, then you are clearly more interested in "being right" than in trying to find an article title that could make WikiProject Ireland a better place to work and contribute. Of course you may hold whatever view you want. You are even welcome to believe that the Irish State has no claim to the name "Ireland" if you want. I don't happen to find that view in the least bit attractive. or helpful, or conducive to amity. And as I have promised, the forthcoming community-wide poll will have an option for you to express your opposition to having a poll at all. Perhaps that will not satisfy you, but perhaps you will at least appreciate the gesture. -- Evertype·✆ 00:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that ROI is on the whole a better name than Ireland (state), I believe that the consensus of the community is probably that as well, I also think the community probably does not really want to be bothered with this subject any more. I do however also think that unless we test that community consensus those advocating a change will continue to propose changes, and frankly who can blame them. So it is incumbent on this project to arrive at a consensus for a proposal for a move, such a proposal has to be simple and easy to understand (less than 200 words), in the form of just one question that can have a simple Support or Oppose answer. Then that proposal needs to go to a community wide RfC to see if consensus exist for a move. In return for this, those on both sides IMO have to accept the result and except it will be binding for a period of time (2 years seems like a good number) and that once it ends, what ever the result, go off and do something else. Mtking ^(edits) 01:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't fathom why you "believe" that Republic of Ireland is "on the whole a better name" than Ireland (state). If as you say the community "does not really want to be bothered with this subject" then the only way forward is to choose a different title. Because until that's achieved, this problem just won't go away. Look at the record. It's nearly a decade this has been going on. The solution is not Republic of Ireland. That's just a recipe for more argument. -- Evertype·✆ 01:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy more frequent proposals if only they could leave a decent period between RfCs. But they haven't been able to do that simple thing. I suppose it shows some insight that the ones pushing for this are talking about asking ArbCom to impose a ban on them doing it again for a period like that. Dmcq (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you describe some opinion holders as "they" shows how deep the problem is. -- Evertype·✆ 01:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It could equally well be said that the reason this problem won't go away is that those who lost the argument last time round aren't prepared to accept the result. It's also a pretty dismal sign that after all the arguments on all sides have been exposed at length, someone is unable to 'fathom why you "believe" that Republic of Ireland is "on the whole a better name" than Ireland (state).' I would have thought it would be clear by now why some people (the greatest number, in fact) believe the current set-up to be the best, and that they believe it to be so in good faith.

I am prepared to accept and even support a proposal which I think is far inferior to the current set-up, if that will help calm spirits. But I would hope that those who are opposed to the current set-up on principle could reciprocate by committing themselves to accepting the result of the forthcoming move request and working normally with other editors on Irish articles whichever way that result goes. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that "Republic of Ireland" has been the consensus choice on at least the last two occasions asked, I'm going to have to ask you for citations for your claims that both it is not the solution, and that it is just a recipie for more argument. The latter part could be interpreted as "We're going to disrupt Wikipedia until we get our way", I'm going to assume good faith and presume you didn't mean it that way. Thryduulf (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

By they I mean people pushing this. I don't include myself or the person I was replying to as a person pushing to hold another RfC so soon after the last one. Dmcq (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe that ROI is on the whole a better name than Ireland (state) because, those looking for information on the country are more likely to type "Republic of Ireland" than "Ireland (state)" into a search box. Mtking ^(edits) 02:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you need to tell us this. All the arguments have been stated at length already. I find it unbelievably frustrating though, that we are being constantly told that, not just that these arguments count for nothing in the face of the outrage of those who disagree with them, but that we are being obtuse for not recognizing that. Really, a bit more respect for the freedom of people to hold different opinions in good faith would make this process a lot easier. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I should have made it clear that my response was to Evertype and his "I can't fathom why you "believe" that Republic of Ireland is "on the whole a better name" than Ireland (state). ". Mtking ^(edits) 05:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is far, far more likely that people type in Ireland, unless they are looking for the football team. -- Evertype·✆ 11:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is far, far more likely that people type in Ireland or Republic of Ireland than Ireland (state). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's likely that those who type "Ireland" will see "Ireland (state)" on the drop-down list, and that those who don't will see the hatnote on the Ireland article. It's just another one of those questions that you can argue around in circles when in fact it's a non-issue in practical terms. Scolaire (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"We've done it all before"

The idea that we've discussed this issue to death was totally refuted in the first poll after the expiry of the ArbCom deadline. I think it was Scolaire who proposed that we extend the moratorium for a further (un)specified? period. That poll was widely advertised across WP, in the same manner as the 2009 poll. Initially it looked like Scolaire's view would prevail, but when there was widespread input from a variety of sources across the pedia the poll turned around and ended up being (to my surprise) totally rejected. Editors did not want "No discussion". Editors did not want another moratorium. Editors wanted a solution. Fmph (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Mtkings Proposal

Since it is the season for Proposals, here is mine

It should be the projects aim to by the end of Q1 2011, to have consensus support for the following :

1. To hold a wiki-wide RfC on a proposed single or multiple set of page moves.
2. The text of the proposed RfC should be concise and to the point be no more than 250 words, and in the form that only requires a support or oppose !vote.
3. Obtaining Arbcom's consent to the RfC and their agreement that once the RfC is concluded, it shall be followed by a period of 2 years during which time no further page moves discussions related to Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation) (or what ever they might be moved to) shall be undertaken.
4. The RfC will run for 30 days and at the end of that time, consensus will be judged independently by three Crats nominated by Arbcom, the view of two or more of the three being the result.

Mtking ^(edits) 11:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Presumably you mean Q1 2012? Other than that, I'm not sure we need 3 bureaucrats, but I'm not going to oppose based on that as the rest seems good. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think mixing in the ArbCom stuff is a good idea. It is better to just judge afterwards and do that if it seems necessary. If the grumbling and moaning goes on after two RfCs with no rest period then there would be a case to involve them. Let people have a decent chance and then lets have peace for a decent period whatever the outcome is my feeling. Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I do not think the aim should be to hold a wiki wide RFC, i do not see the need to go through that process when there was no clear support for a change the last time. First of all, we need to decide if we believe there is a need to start a process to draw up a RM or RFC, including dealing with the details of the options/wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I just wish this whole thing would end. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If a new RFC or RM would put the matter to bed once and for all id be more supportive of the idea, but the recent surveys/RFC came back with opposition to a page move and still it was not accepted, i cant see another one being any different. The status quo has more validity than most things that happen on wikipedia considering the efforts that were went to in 2009 in the wikiwide poll advertised to dozens of various locations. There should really be no round 2 of that until a majority is clearly supporting change, otherwise it is just another pointless waste of everyones time. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (any) "period...during which time no further page moves discussions...shall be undertaken." Thoughtful discourse by adults should not be suppressed, and the likelihood that enforcement regimes will be wisely and prudently interpreted is too little. No gags. Sswonk (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can appreciate the problem caused by 'clownish liar admins' regulating the thoughtful discourse by the wise and prudent editors here. However I'm still in favour of not having ArbCom in and seeing what happens. Dmcq (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm? Anyway, Mtking is being a help, not a hindrance. My point is that any decisions that we arrive at should not require enforcements. If they did, that would indicate to me that they aren't nearly good enough. Suppression of discourse (currently forced into this one talk page) is a symptom of collective inability to find good titles. Sswonk (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We are "forced" onto this one talk page because prior to 2009, any proposed page move invariably involved discussion of a minimum of two pages being moved, sometimes three, and often there were simultaneous discussions ongoing in at least three places. It was a mess, no matter what one's position was. As to enforcement being required - there does come a time when you have to say enough is enough, the consensus/decision/vote will decide, and that's the way things will be for X amount of time, no matter how loud the squeaky wheels are. It isn't partisan - remember that the 2-year moratorium was agreed to by participants prior to the 2009 poll being run, so noone knew in advance which outcome would be in place for that 2-year minimum. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was sarcasm. Your contribution made me seriously reconsider my opposition to an ArbCom ban for 2 years and I'm nowhere near so opposed to it as I was before. Especially now reading that you'd like all this debate extended to more pages. Dmcq (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Economy of reply here: any decisions that we arrive at should not require enforcements. If they did, that would indicate to me that they aren't nearly good enough. Suppression of discourse is a symptom of collective inability to resolve the issues. My valuing the right to freedom of expression much higher than censorship cannot be dismissed as merely wanting to spread discordance. Of course, the right to freedom of speech "is commonly subject to limitations, such as on libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime, etc." (from the article). It's not a good idea to make false assumptions and misrepresentations about what others have written. That kind of thing spreads. Sswonk (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that is one way of looking at it, another would be, if both sides know that whatever is agreed upon will be kept for the next two years, they have a bigger incentive to try and find that elusive solution. Mtking ^(edits) 21:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to produce an encyclopaedia, not to support free speech. See WP:Free speech. "In short, editing Wikipedia is a privilege granted to you by the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and can be revoked at any time for whatever reason that organization sees fit to do so. Your only legal rights on Wikipedia are your right to fork (create another encyclopaedia independent of the Wikimedia Foundation) and your right to leave." Wikipedia is not a forum. Dmcq (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt true. But my contention is that having to suppress speech can be avoided when the proper care to get things right is taken in the first place. Sswonk (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments : I am one of those in the 2.5:1 majority that supported the status quo back in September, I still think that the status quo is the best option of all the alternatives. But IMO this is not going to go away unless those advocating a change feel that atleast the community has been asked. That is why I made this proposal, and in simple terms my thinking is, in return for getting a community RfC on the issue, those supporting a change need to accept that the result will be binding for two years and in return, those supporting the current names know that after the RfC, the issue will be but on ice for the next two years. It is my understanding that Arbcom are the only body on wp who have the authority to put such a ban in place. Mtking ^(edits) 19:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Scolaire's proposal

I have become convinced that a page move from Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) is both desirable, to put an end to this on-going conflict, and feasible, in the sense that in the longer term the new title will not meet with the same level of hostility. I nevertheless remain convinced that it will be almost impossible to implement, if there is not a radical and permanent change of approach by editors on all sides. Therefore, although most of my proposals will be familiar enough, others will be new and may require a deal of soul-searching. I begin with two premises:

• What has made this problem so intractable is that everybody has employed the rhetoric of conflict. Thus outcomes are always spoken of as "winning" or "losing", almost every post is designed to score points off the "other side", every opinion has to be met with a rejoinder, etc. The rhetoric of conflict must be abandoned if this debate is not to be spun out into the 22nd century.
• Any page move requires an RM, and an RM is bound to fail if there is not a large measure of harmony on this project. Even if there was total unanimity here in favour of a page move it would not guarantee a numerical majority (although it might persuade a closer/admin to move on the basis of NOTDEMOCRACY), but on the other hand, obvious disunity would guarantee that the requested move would fail.

Here then are my proposals:

1. Every contributor undertakes here and now to cease and desist from saying anything whatever of a negative character. Examples of negativity include "I don't know how you can still say that", "this situation cannot continue", "there is no consensus for that", "a cabal of editors...", "you are being disruptive" and any reference to ethnicity or political POV. The use of bold type or all caps is deemed to be shouting, which is considered to be negative. Every editor also undertakes not to rebut an argument of another editor, as rebuttal is by definition negative.
2. In the event (because of course none of this is enforceable) that an editor posts a comment that is deemed to be negative, contributors undertake not to respond to that comment in any way, shape or form. If the comment was intended to provoke, a failure to respond will rob it of its affect. If it was inadvertant, a failure to respond will send a quiet message that it was thought to be unhelpful.
3. Every contributor undertakes here and now to cease and desist from making any argument that includes any well-rehearsed fact. Such facts include but are not restricted to those involving the constitution of Ireland, the 1948 Act, the 1949 Act, "A Country by Any Other Name" by Mary E. Daly, the football team, websites of international organisations, article names on sister-wikis and envelopes from government departments. As before, where such an argument is made, contributors on all sides undertake to ignore it.
4. An RM will be opened if and when 50% of those who on 18 September this year supported the current ROI title agree to support a change. If the figure of 50% has not been reached within six weeks, an RM may be opened if a significant number of said editors (say five, including myself) agree to support a change. If that figure cannot be attained, contributors agree that an RM at this time would be futile.
5. Those !voting "support" in an RM should, of course, state their own reasons (preferably policy-based) for moving, but should also affirm that they are supporting a move for the sake of harmony and the ending of a long-running dispute. Again, any statements of a negative nature are to be avoided, and any questions or comments of a negative nature posted below a !vote are to be ignored.
6. In return for ROI supporters actively supporting a page move, opponents of ROI undertake to actively oppose any other suggestion or proposal for page moves, such as Ireland→Ireland (island) or Ireland (state)→Ireland, not only during the RM but at any time in the future. This is a real compromise. One side gives up its preferred title while the other side gives up for good any hope of its own preferred titles being enacted. Consensus can change, but a changing consensus can take care of itself without our intervention. The very fact that we can reach a compromise - against the odds - should give us an emotional investment in maintaining that compromise. This has been shown to be the case in the Derry/Londonderry compromise, where POV edits on both sides are frequently reverted by editors of the same POV.

I think you'll agree that there is a nettle there to be grasped. Who is willing to grasp it? Scolaire (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Scoláire, doesn't your point (4) offer a veto to those satisfied with Republic of Ireland as the name of the article? And where is this 18th September survey? -- Evertype·✆ 11:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There was no survey. 18 September is when the current round of discussions began, and therefore before anybody began saying that maybe they could live with a move to Ire(s). That obviously includes me. There is no scientific way of determining how many editors were for or against ROI on that date, and therefore no way of calculating a 50% figure. But if you can say to me, "x number of well-known ROI supporters have agreed to change; that's a good 50%" I will accept that. Common sense will tell us when we've passed that mark. You know all the names yourself and so does everyone else; we'll know whether we have half of them or not. On the other point, I am simply saying that if we can't convince a significant number of people to change their stance, we have no realistic hope in another RM giving a different result, so there's no point in going ahead with one at this time. Nobody needs to be "offered" a veto; those who only want to veto already know that they can continue to do so indefinitely. Let's ignore them and work at trying to persuade those who are open to logical and civilised argument. Scolaire (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, but I am still perplexed by "An RM will be opened if and when 50% of those who on 18 September this year supported the current ROI title agree to support a change": does this not suggest that there is a list of names of those people? "If and when" is very specific. Unless I'm getting bogged down in a non-issue. -- Evertype·✆ 20:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a non-issue, Evertype. It wasn't meant to be specific; it was a way of saying we should go for an RM when it seems to us we have critical mass and not before. As far as a "list of names" is concerned, we each have a list of names in our heads, but it would be a bad idea to name names at this stage. If I say "the people on my list are User1, User2...User15" it's tantamount to saying "these are the people we need to target", and that in turn will make them feel pressured and go defensive. But if we can say "we now have the support of User1, User2...User8" then there'll be a good reason to open an RM and hope for a positive result. Remember, my proposal is only a proposal, or as Thryduulf might say, a "first" proposal. It's not draft legislation. Scolaire (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable by the "oath of fealty" you suggest in your point 6. I believe the intent is to propose to change only one name, and not the other two, and that the three will be locked down for two years. I don't think more can be asked. Who knows where people's minds will be 800 days hence? Anyway a lockdown is enforceable by Arbcom. Promises of the kind you've suggested simply aren't. Maybe one day moving Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland will make sense to everyone. Maybe not. We're not talking about that one now, and we won't for two years, so it seems. -- Evertype·✆ 20:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I obviously can't speak for Scoláire, but as for the import of his point 6, a lock-down of all three articles for the period in question would certainly satisfy me. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

My proposal says nothing about enforcement, lockdown or ArbCom. I am proposing a compromise whereby one side agrees one page move for good and the other side agrees to leave the other articles alone for good. When that is done (if it can be done), the dispute is over, everybody accepts the new status quo and nobody proposes anything any more. Scolaire (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The nettle was grasped and did not sting. Ireland is the name of the country in Europe, known as Ireland, de facto finite. 58.7.190.194 (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The page known as "Republic of Ireland" should cease, as incorrect. All contributions should be at "Ireland" the name of the country. 58.7.190.194 (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we know that this is a view held by many. But as both Republic of Ireland and Ireland are proved to attract controversy, a third solution, Ireland (state) is being put forward. Imperfect from both points of view, perhaps, but evidently we cannot achieve perfection. -- Evertype·✆ 11:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how YOU can still say that this situation cannot continue, there is no CONSENSUS for that. A cabal of editors will see you are being DISRUPTIVE! Whew. Got that off my chest. ;--) Sounds good, I'll try harder. Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

lol :D Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Poor show Dmcq, you forgot to insinuate anything about the nationality of the cabal. ;) Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Any title for "Ireland", other than "Ireland", is not acceptable as lacking in verifiable accuracy This includes titles such as "Republic of Ireland", "Ireland (state)", "Ireland (fish)", "Ireland (pomegranate)" and "Ireland (XXX)". 58.7.190.194 (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As I say, everybody understands this viewpoint (and has for a decade). Nevertheless, it appears that there will be a poll which will propose moving the article from Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state), which, I have suggested, will cause less strife than Republic of Ireland does now. If the move succeeds, time will tell if the suggestion will bear out. -- Evertype·✆ 12:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

58.7. is a classic case for my proposal that anyone offering negative views should be consistently ignored. Scolaire (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If only your proposal had been adopted and in force, then that might make a difference. But it hasn't. Fmph (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Scoláire's proposal. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - any proposal that assumes a particular naming option is the chosen one when that obviously is not the case. About as un-wiki-like as is possible to get. Fmph (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Scoláire that Ireland (state) is the only feasible alternative offered so far. Ireland will surely fail. Ireland (country) is polyvalent (though it is not so for Georgia) and would not work. Again I agree with Scoláire: we even now see some people who prefer Republic of Ireland who say they could live with Ireland (state). We see some who prefer Ireland say they could live with Ireland (state) I don't see other viable suggestions from anyone. Do you? -- Evertype·✆ 20:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary. I see no reason that Ireland should fail. It is the preferred option of the largest minority. It's the only alternative to RoI that complies with policy. Fmph (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fmph above. XoX. 124.169.184.64 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ireland can't be implemented without moving the article about Ireland away from Ireland, and more people, I think, are opposed to that than are opposed to the current title of Republic of Ireland - to say nothing of the policy compliance issues involved with it. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand the issue raised above by ComhairleContaeThirnanOg. May I request clarification. XoX. 124.169.184.64 (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to some discussions on the subject where a majority of editors made the point that they would oppose a move of the island article to something else? I haven't seen one. At least not recently. There may have been some such discussions during the 2009 round. But not recently.

CAn you explain what you mean by policy compliance issues in this regard. Cos as far as I can see Option G is far more policy compliant than Ireland (iguana) or anything similar. And I explain why here. Go and have a read and tell me where I'm wrong. Fmph (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - this assumes that there is clear consensus that "Ireland (state)" is the preferred option of everybody who doesn't approve of "Republic of Ireland" but I see no evidence of that (there are people who don't like ROI but think "Ireland (state)" is worse). Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity. And Scoláire didn't say "everybody". -- Evertype·✆ 20:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Getting there This is getting close to something that could work (my support is not the real issue as there is no point in supporting something that is not going to work) we do need to agree the framework on how to move this forward, for example a RM normally last 7 days, I think that is too short for this type of move, we need to agree on the issue of result lock in, no point going through all of this if the supporters of the options not picked can just pick up and start the debate again. If the proposal only considers one page move, does any lock in extend to the page not the subject of the proposed move. In short lets put the issue of what proposed move should be on the back plate till we can first agree the process. Mtking ^(edits) 21:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • In case it's not clear, I fully support a lock-in, as long as its binding on all parties regardless of the outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
    • In case it's not clear, I regard any result that requires a lock-in as no result at all. We need to settle this in such a way that nobody feels they have to fight a rear-guard action for another two years. Scolaire (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Good luck with that, evidence would seem to point to that not being likely, and that being the case I would not see this proposal as meeting my test of stability so given that I would have to Oppose this. Mtking ^(edits) 23:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support getting this to the RM stage --HighKing (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. We are now looking at a proposal which appears to have been designed to maximise the chances of a move away from the current title, despite RoI being the favoured option in the STV poll last time round. Whatever the intentions of the proposer, the effect looks like a stitch-up.
  Many of the subsidiary proposals seem to me to be quite contrary to the wiki principles of consensus formation. For example: a) the lockdown proposal presupposes that the result will not represent a stable consensus; b) the request to not repeat "any argument that includes any well-rehearsed fact" seems bizarre, because it asks us to discuss the issue without the central facts being laid out, or at least without editors being free to mention which of those facts they consider most relevant; c) the "no rebuttal" proposal directly dismisses the crucial aspect of consensus-building, which is that any argument for against a proposal may be tested through discussion.
  So if somebody wants to propose an RM to Ireland (state) — a construct which manages the double whammy of being neither natural language nor unambiguous — then go ahead and do it ... but please do so without a raft of special conditions.
  So far as I can see, the central divide here is between those who support RoI as being the natural language term used by the state itself, and those who reject RoI because of its gratuitous abuse by the former colonial power. None of the facts are in serious dispute (except amongst a minority of extremists, who seem to be absent this time around); what matters is the relative weight attached to them by editors, and no amount of procedural devices will alter the fact that different editors make very different choices on weighing the balance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope I addressed most of your points in the section below, but I would like to qualify what I meant by "rebuttal". I succumbed to the temptation to use a strong word to make a point strongly, but what I meant by "rebuttal" was responses of the "You're conveniently ignoring the fact that..." variety. I think - and this is only a proposal and therefore only my thoughts - that where two people express two opposing views, it reduces the potential for conflict if one is not phrased as a "rebuttal" of the other. Thanks for your feedback BTW; it is thoughtful and to the point as always. Scolaire (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think that with regard to a central divide, there isn't one. You wrote "so far as I can see", so I'll try to illuminate what I mean in response, calling to mind over 60 days of discussion. The debate has been multi-partisan, there are among other things: (policy, evidentiary, gut-feelings, common-sensical, historical, protocol and instructional)-related forces in play, many of which defy categorization into camps. Several individuals here are seeing many sides to the issues, this making change a more difficult proposal to satisfy with limited, repressive "competition (RM) and enforcement (lock down)" regimes. That's why I've written about wide ranging discussion as being a key. Look further, the view that there is but one choice between two descriptions of salient discourse on this, either a "RoI is natural language" or "RoI is British POV" camp membership, oversimplifies the debate while it appears to sympathize with the "status quo" position as being less partisan. It may just be that the title is a prima facie bad one, hampers collaborative effort, etc., and that is good enough reason to want to move it. Sswonk (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sswonk, you are presuming that the title itself creates these problems, and I strongly disagree with that. The problem is not created by some inherent property of the words in the title itself, but the inability of editors to agree on a title which is sufficiently acceptable for all concerned. You appear to presume that because you strongly dislike the current title, that a move to another title will get us to a situation where collaboration is not hampered by the strong aversion of editors to the new title. I have yet to see any proposed new title which avoids strong opposition, so any move will merely shift the disgruntlement from one set of editors to another. Any such relocation of discontent will not assist collaboration ... and the dialogue you say you seek will not be advanced by characterising the widely-supported status quo option as a prima facie bad one. The fact is in many discussions over many years, RoI has been preferred by a majority of editors as the least-worst option, and it would be nice if those who want to prolong the discussions on this could start from the assumption that supporters of the status quo are not wilfully choosing a bad title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I say what I do backed up by the fact that this particular crowd-sourced titling and article arangement is an outlier among reference works. The article structure apart—that is, having one article which contains a great deal of content about before one event, the treaty, and "island-wide" treatments, and another with both current information plus much that overlaps,—at a minimum I think elimination of this particular title will be beneficial. I have always been struck by how many of the pro-"status quo" statements I read include the words "I don't see", "In my view", or the like. Well, it is prima facie a poor title to me, but it is also my task to explain why it has struck me as "not right" on the face of it to those who can't see it. Bad is perhaps harsh, less than ideal better. But then I get the type of argument you give, where any other title could be called "less than ideal". I simply feel "Ireland (state)" is going to be much less likely to be found "less than ideal". The arguments against "Ireland" or "Ireland (somedab)" which are most extreme are those that argue against the official name of the state itself, and those have to be discounted. That ship has sailed, Ireland is the name, and also the most common name. To deny that is not an option, especially when talking about verifiability and no synthetic constructs. There are over 300 million English speakers living on this western side of the Atlantic, and "Republic of Ireland" is simply not what is said here. It is Ireland, without any baggage. We are fully aware that there are close to two million living on the island under the jurisdiction of the U.K., but the nation in the UN and so on is easily just the one word Ireland. No big deal, nor should it be. Only on Wikipedia is this sort of thing happening, and to me that makes it, like it or not, a "bad" choice. It violates common sense, common usage and site policy, but that gets trumped by simply being preferred by a majority of editors? Maybe not intentionally, willfully bad, but simply put that's why I keep on prolonging this if you will. Regret you seem to feel put upon, but it can't go unsaid. Sswonk (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• But when those 300 million you talk about use Ireland, they, like the 20+ million down here are mostly referring to island and not the state. Probably in relation to a trip to Europe to see the sights the island has to offer which are not constrained by boundaries set by nation states. The pages on the state and the island are not there for the benefit of the residence of the the same, but are there for the rest of the world. Both cant share the same name on WP it is just not possible so one has to use an alternative and absent any better options I think the current choices are fine. Mtking ^(edits) 03:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry Mtking, I must disagree. The 20+ million down here when they talk about Ireland are mostly referring to Ireland the country in Europe, not to the Island. Read the everyday day papers herein Australia, talk to the Australians. They envisage that Ireland is the country in Europe. That is common usage down here. XoX. 203.59.126.135 (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sswonk, your comment of 02:52 illustrates perfectly why this discussion goes on for so long, and generates so much heat. The reasons for using RoI have been rehearsed endlessly, so I won't repeat them, but anyone who has made any genuine attempt to follow the discussion will be aware that there is coherent set of referenced reasons for using RoI. Saying that it "violates common sense, common usage and site policy" is effectively accusing the editors who support that usage of lacking common sense, ignoring common usage, and subverting site policy; you might as well accuse us of being "thick bastards trying to undermine wikipedia policy", because that crude formulation is what your words amount to. You says that RoI "hampers collaborative effort", and Everytype repeatedly makes that point ... but your insistence that those who disagree with you "violate common sense" is as effective a blow to collaboration as anything I have seen in several years of these discussions. It reinforces my concern that the "hinders collaboration" argument refers not to any property of RoI as a title, but to the conduct of some of the editors who dislike it.
  If you genuinely want to build support for some sort of alternative to the long-standing status quo, please start showing some respect to those who support it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• @Mtking, @BHG, these are the nutshell arguments I face. So like BHG, reasons being "rehearsed endlessly", I just use a couple sentences to say why I don't disrespect but disagree. First, leaps of commitment to the title assume what Mtking has said, that these poor searching 300 million and the 20 million in Oz are "mostly" looking for the island, not the republic. Impossible, and beside the point. The inadequacy of the title is that either search is for "Ireland" one word, which with a (dab) is how it should be presented.
  The complaint from BHG basically assumes bad faith about how Evertype thinks, and how I think. Why is it when the preponderance of sources and common usage are given, then all of the sudden I have to start battling accusations of bad faith? Since 2002, the project has had the wrong title and no one who can give an effective argument about that can avoid iconoclasm and bruising egos of long time supporters, I should have to meet some standard of avoiding hurt feelings? We do "genuinely want to build support for some sort of alternative", but the minute we get close it is disrespectful? I respect you, Bastun, others as much as anybody. Just like real life, I can respect and totally disagree. All discussion and debate involves destruction of the argument of points one disagrees with on the other side. The respect question has been answered, stop continuing to paint those against the "status quo" as disruptive partisans and you'll get that much more. To me, there is "soft incivility" as well, and this type of "you are talking down and being disrespectful" response is part of it. If Scolaire's call for more responsibility doesn't cover it, it should. Sswonk (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• @Sswonk, it's very simple: don't claim that one side of the argument has a monopoly on common sense, and then you won't be criticised for doing so.
  Dozens of experienced editors, including plenty of experienced Irish editors, support using RoI. They have heard the arguments for alternatives, but reach a different conclusion to the one you have reached, and have been in the majority on this issue on every occasion when it has been considered. You seem to be convinced that the majority of editors discussing this issue for nearly a decade are lacking common sense. Try applying Occam's razor here, and ask which is more likely: that the majority lack common sense, or that there is more than one common sense answer to the question? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yer occam's razor talks about choosing the argument "that makes the fewest new assumptions." Right off the bat, you assume for me some claim I'm not making, BHG (smiley if needed, I mostly don't use emoticons though). I would lose every debate I went to if my stance were "you others have no common sense". Come on, you're spinning things, making it seem what my statements at worst could be but aren't ("(claiming) that one side of the argument has a monopoly", of course not). I guess some misunderstanding here might be a product of a constant state of political campaigning in the U.S., we are bombarded with men with too much hair on the tops of their heads and women in smart suits wearing lipstick all claiming they possess "common sense" solutions for difficult issues. I scoff at that, so maybe I should avoid sounding like them. I'll try to avoid the phrase, it seems to be a hindrance. Common Sense was something that is credited in some measure for the success of the American Revolution; it has been influential as it used common, vernacular speaking to argue the case. I mean that "common sense" sometimes trumps well-intentioned but unnecessarily synthetic reasons for things. Not meaning that you lack "common sense", again, regret you seem put off. Sswonk (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sswonk, if you don't mean that those who disagree with you lack common sense, then drop the term. You kinda do that at the end, but only after another long paragraph justifying your use of it, digressing into tangents, and making no attempt to engage with the reasons why the majority support RoI. Accusing others of advancing "unnecessarily synthetic reasons" is just another form of words which abuses the arguments for RoI rather than taking them seriously, and leaves me unconvinced that this discussion will be any more fruitful than any of the previous rounds in the last 9 years.
  You will notice that my reply to you avoids any of those substantive reasons for preferring RoI; that's because I am not interested in wasting time rehearsing them when confronted with rhetorical flourishes rather than genuine engagement. If you want to drop the rhetoric and the confrontational approach, and try to seriously understand why many rational editors support RoI, then we can have a potentially fruitful discussion ... but right now you are just adding to the hot air. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Query to BrownHairedGirl. Why do you constantly refer to RoI? I rarely hear that term used in real life. XoX 203.59.126.135 (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• No, I won't. I will not have my language, or the length of my writing, dictated by you or anyone else. I explained for your personal benefit what I meant, and here is what you wrote: "if you don't mean that those who disagree with you lack common sense, then drop the term". In other words, you ignored my explanation, because your mind is made up that you are right. Given many different reasons to end your support, including the most serious which is the undeniable truth that en.wikipedia.org is an outlier on this title, you like others choose to do things such as question editors respect for you, call them inherently confrontational, deride them as boring rhetoricians. You support an inadequate title, your only argument is that you prefer it and a majority of others prefer it. Yet, the website you are supposed to support and "administer" explicitly states in its core content policies: 1) All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias. This title fails that. It represents a bias towards the preferences of long term wiki-centric rationale and personal preference support versus the lack of use as a title by reliable sources. 2) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. This title fails that. It is not used as a title by the state, by the state's neighbor the United Kingdom, by international organizations including the UN, the EU, and not by many, many others. As a title it is a synthetic creation of a small group led by User:Camembert and User:Renata, and "sanctioned" by Larry Sanger in 2002. That is verifiable, its use outside by any reliable or official source as a name of the state in article titling is not. The third core content policy takes care of that situation as well, stating 3) Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. The synthesis here is the willful transition into a title of a term used sparingly and occasionally by the Government of Ireland in texts to differentiate its sovereign territory from the entire island of Ireland. Texts, not titles. "Articles" is the first word of that third core content policy, and articles include, and in fact are briefly summarized by, their titles. So you read all about Ireland this, Ireland that, have thousands of pipe links for places such as Mullingar, a town in Ireland, scores of lists and charts showing "Ireland" in context with other nations, all indicating that "Ireland" is the name of the state, but for whatever reason a synthetic title, chosen by Larry Sanger and two UK based editors, is what the reader finds when the link is clicked. I would be thrilled if you, or anyone here, could explain to me how your grousing about the tedium you experience when you read what I write is more germane to the titling of the article. I would be happy if you or anyone else could tell how, if I want to convince you to change your mind, I can not be confrontational. How is it anyone contending against entrenchment doesn't fit that description? Change requires confronting what is static, challenging what fails to move. Talk about "rhetorical flourishes rather than genuine engagement", look in the mirror, it's you and others who can't be bothered with responding other than to give advice that can be summarized as "shut up." What is genuine engagement to you? To me it is definitely not being told in edit summaries, "zzzzzzz". Sswonk (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sswonk, I think we might be in agreement. Wikipedia:Article titles: The most common name for a subject is often used as a title because it is recognisable and natural: Analysis - I have constantly searched for the usage of Ireland in news articles over the last few days - over 80% of them are referring to Ireland the country in Europe.The most common name for Ireland a country in Europe is "Ireland" therefore it should be used as the title to the article. XoX. 203.59.126.135 (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sswonk, you want to change the title of the article, and that will not be achieved unless you can persuade at least some of those who support the current title to change their minds. I have indeed made up my mind, but my mind is not closed; I am open to arguments which genuinely address the reasons why I and others support the use of RoI. Telling me that RoI is a "synthetic title, chosen by Larry Sanger and two UK based editors" does not address the stated reasons why I and other Irish editors support its use, and insults us as some sort of poodles of the UK. I have heard all that sort of abuse before, just as I have heard all the "common sense" and "wiki-centric rationale and personal preference support" rhetoric before. (Did you notice the irony in your condemnation of what you claim is a "wiki-centric rationale" when you are busy bolding selective quotes from policies?). After so many years of this tactic of denunciation as substitute for dialogue, I find it tedious, which is why my edit summary was "zzzzz".
  You can write whatever you like, but if you insist on finding new ways of maligning those of us who disagree with you, don't expect us to bother engaging. If you try to address the actual reasons why we support using RoI (which may involve you trying to ask a few questions if you don't want to read back through the archives), rather than trying to construct a straw man case so that you can confront it, then there will be something to discuss. This section is a discussion of a procedural proposal, so if you want to start discussing the substance rather than denouncing those who support what you consider a "wiki-centric" "personal preference" "synthetic title" imposed by "two UK based editors", I suggest that you start a new section rather than burying it in the middle of this thread. I doubt I will reply again in this thread. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The argument that "Republic of Ireland" cannot be used as a title for the article about the state because it isn't used as a title by the state is evidently not a valid one, given that WP:COMMONNAME makes it clear that official titles are not the first choice for the titles of Wikipedia articles. That being the case, there is no reason why for purposes of disambiguation, we shouldn't choose the most common alternative name - even if it is on the whole less common than the official title.

The fact that the Irish state uses the term "Republic of Ireland" when it's necessary to disambiguate is all the more evidence in favour of it. On Wikipedia, the main point where we need to disambiguate is precisely in article titles. Saying that the article title is the one place where we mustn't use the obvious disambiguating term is simply perverse. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. (1) Some countries in Europe: Belgium, France, Germany, Republic of Ireland, Portugal, Spain. Just does not seem right. (2) Some countries in Europe: Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland (state), Portugal, Spain. That does not seem right either. (3) Some countries in Europe: Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Spain. That seems right. XoX. 203.206.64.112 (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, change of approach. Though on #6, not pre-agreeing to promote a point of view against an unknown. Sswonk (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, mostly per BHG. I appreciate it's a good-faith attempt, Scolaire, but as Fmph points out, an RFC (it couldn't just be an RM) it wouldn't be a runner in the wider community even if it were acceptable here. Even that is doubtful - see Sswonk's comment immediately above, for example. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can not support something that would so seriously restrict freedom of speech during an actual debate on a subject matter. I found point 4 interesting, although im not sure why it should be restricted to editors who voted in a certain poll changing their minds. I believe we should only press ahead and start work on wording/options for a RFC or RM if there is majority support for some form of change. That is simply not the case based on the last survey conducted when keeping the status quo had majority support. .The idea that despite it having clear majority support we still need to go to a RFC does not make sense. That should only be the next step if opinion was clearly divided or a majority called for a change. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Kind of support. The proposal is a bold attempt to cut the Gordian knot by appealing to editors to be reasonable and seek compromise. I am not convinced that this is going to work. As we have already seen among the immediate reactions, there are people who are more interested in Wikipedia talk space as a place where they can let off steam by battling with the 'other side'. I am afraid that constant pressure of this type will automatically erode any compromise that is not sufficiently explicit and clearly defined. However, I am one of the supporters of the RoI name who have "Ireland (state)" as second choice. The reason has to do with cross-article consistency and terminological weirdness in the UK w.r.t. "country" and "state". I do not personally feel strongly about this, and this may also be true for many others who also supported RoI in the previous binding RfC. I think it's absolutely worth trying "Ireland (state)" for two years, and in that sense I support the move request and will support the move, provided that I am otherwise convinced that any possible related disruption is also taken care of. (I.e. it should not just be a move request, but an RfC that also fixes the Ireland article in its present position.) Hans Adler 11:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• Just to note that, as BHG points out above (much more eloquently than I could), many of the strictures proposed above are not how we do things on WP. And if this moves to a wider audience they will be immediately rejected by that wider audience. Fmph (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unabashed, Yankee, good faith attempt at shining a light on the reason that orthodoxy fails this titling issue: no other culture is subjected to the unique situation at hand in real life, either. Ireland's not India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, to give an example. It even defies giving good examples. A wonderful place with a patchwork history, two common languages, political and religious division that is neither at the same time, and a sad recent history of extremist violence that all but a very tiny minority abhors in unison. Why would a Lebanese-American politician from a rural state be able to assist in discovery of the most lasting peace in such a region? Wiki's limited methodology breaks under the question. Standard methods and orthodoxy with regard to negotiated settlements don't fly; my point of view from upon my seat in Massachusetts only, of course. Sswonk (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Reply to both Bastun and Fmph. None of what I propose deals with the "wider community"; it's a suggestion (and no more than a suggestion) of how we might develop some sort of a consensus or modus vivendi among the small group of people here, so that we might have something that we might bring before the "wider community". I could say that shouting at each other endlessly is "how we do things on WP" (and anybody reading the last four pages of archives would find it hard to deny that), but that doesn't mean that it's good or that it's effective. Scolaire (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What Scolaire is not proposing

As is to be expected with any proposal, there have been some things I said that I should have made clearer, and some people have read things into it that weren't there. So I'd like to clarify a few things:

1. I am not proposing that we take an article move as read, and then sit back and wait for ROI supporters to "see sense". The proponents of change are still in the minority; we still have all the work to do in terms of convincing others of the benefits to themselves and to everybody of moving the article, but without the negativity and hostility and without the arguments that have failed to convince them in the past. It is insulting to editors to have the "Good Friday Agreement" argument, for instance, thrown at them again as though they were just too thick to see it last time. If it goes to an RM, people may !vote using any argument they see fit.
2. I am not proposing any experimental change for a period of time to see how it works. We're in this to win it. Either we can convince people to change or we can't. If a majority still don't want to change at the end of the process, they won't be fooled into accepting a "temporary" change and a promise by people who aren't authorised to make promises that they can change back later.
3. I am not proposing any renewed ban on discussion of article names, for the same reason as (2): if we have the courage of our convictions, then we will be working towards a solution that will settle this dispute one way or another. Working towards an imposed solution followed by a discussion ban is working towards failure. If we don't think we can finish it then let's not bother starting.
4. I am not proposing looking for ArbCom sanction, ArbCom approval or ArbCom intervention. The arbtration case ended in September 2009. Arbitrators have made it clear on several occasions that they consider us to be adults and expect us to sort this out by ourselves. Let's just do that.
5. Most importantly, and I must stress this, I am emphatically not proposing that we deal with the ROI article now and shelve the Ireland article for later. I am proposing that, if a deal can be done on the ROI article, it will be in full and final settlement of all article naming issues. Those who say that the ROI article title is the sole issue cannot come back later and say there are other issues as well. If I believe that if I support a move to Ireland (state) my erstwhile opponents will guarantee to leave Ireland alone, I will gladly do so. If I believe that if I support a move to Ireland (state) a campaign to move Ireland will inevitably follow, I will do everything in my power to make sure that no article moves of any sort will take place in my lifetime.

Scolaire (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph actually clarifies to me what I wasn't feeling comfortable about with the proposal. You appear to be thinking that there is a team of people ("we", "we're in it to win it") that you are the leader of/spokesman for that is campaigning to make everybody see that your preferred version ("Ireland (state)" for the state and "Ireland" for the island) is right, because it appears to seem to you that it's just blindingly obvious that it is right and why anybody doesn't see this is a mystery. It reminds me of a religious evangelist, it is just so obvious to them that their belief is right that they have a difficult time grasping that it doesn't seem that way to others; thinking that it's just a matter of time before they come to realise what a mistake they've been making by denying to themselves what they surely must know is true and convert to see the true glory of <insert deity of choice here>.

The last sentence of Scolaire's is particularly telling, "If I believe that if I support a move to Ireland (state) a campaign to move Ireland will inevitably follow, I will do everything in my power to make sure that no article moves of any sort will take place in my lifetime.". It sounds to me like an "over my dead body" refusal to negotiate, while expecting to "win" the battle by making others compromise or abandon their belief in favour of yours.

Instead of making me see the light however, you've just explained to me why I can never support your proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I echo those above that commend your effort, but I just do not see how this can work; lets say for example the page ROI is moved to, "Ireland (state)", do you really think those who advocate ROI will go "Oh well never mind" and not want it changed back or those who would like it moved to just "Ireland" are going to say "OK lads that will do, lets go and do something else all is right with the world" again I doubt it. How does this sit with WP:NBD (which is after all policy) I just don't see how you can hold editors who may not even be here now to this. It is just not being honest to either side to say we can ever reach a full and final settlement. Mtking ^(edits) 10:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It does look like 'we' should be added to the list of things we should to avoid saying! Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)None of us has a crystal ball. We do not know what people will think after two years of Ireland (state). I have suggested that I believe we will not have an upswelling of people wanting to change it back. (That is, I believe Ireland (state) will be stable.) But that doesn't mean that there would not be a good reason to change Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland and Ireland to Ireland (island). I'm not saying that I plan such a request. I don't. But how could anyone know whether users will feel that Ireland should be the disambiguation page or not, when one of the articles has a parenthetical? Maybe people will think it makes sense. Maybe not. In any case, your last sentence here, Scoláire, is a threat of veto and opposition, against having a uncounted number of current editors swear to do what you want. And what if they do? A hundred new editors could turn up on the first of June, and they might all decide to wish to discuss a move. Your point (6), while made in good faith, asks too much, and isn't genuinely future-proof. -- Evertype·✆ 10:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That last sentence was simply to illustrate how strongly I feel. And if I, who am proposing change, feel that strongly, is there any reason to believe that those who are sticking with the status quo feel less strongly? I still don't know whether anybody can be persuaded to change sides, but I have no doubt whatever that they cannot be persuaded to change (any more than I can) if they believe it is going to be the "thin end of the wedge". What I am proposing, if you read point 6 again, is a compromise. One side agrees to give up "Republic of Ireland" in perpetuity, and the other side agrees to give up "Ireland (island)" in perpetuity. Bear in mind that as long as the status quo has a majority, it doesn't need to compromise. If the minority wants to persuade the majority, it will need to compromise. There is no element of coercion or veto here, only a statement of what I believe is the minimum concession required to win the good will of the other side; a proposal that evrybody think about voluntarily giving up something in exchange for something. If a hundred new editors were to turn up on the first of June and wish to discuss a move, that would be a case of "consensus can change", and that's not covered in my proposal at all. All I am asking you to do is to say to the lone editor (probably an IP) who pops up in a few weeks time and wants to discuss a move, "No, we reached a compromise that ended a long-running dispute and we don't want to change that at this time." Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth, I don't view this as a mechanism to negotiate other 'concessions'. The article title under discussion 'Republic of Ireland', is a stand alone issue for me. It is separate from its use as a dab elsewhere, which seems to work. Neither do I see Ireland (island) as an issue worth arguing over. I'm not in favour of complicated package proposals, the simpler the better. RashersTierney (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If we were going to simply go by standard Wikipedia procedures, all the pages would almost certainly be staying where they are, because it doesn't seem like much has changed in terms of relevant policy considerations or in terms of people's views since that was decided in 2009. What we're trying to do here is reach an alternative agreement to satisfy the minority who are extremely unhappy with the title 'Republic of Ireland'. If we're going to do that, it requires give and take on both sides. Hence these proposals. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that definitely doesn't sound like a convincing proposal to me. I'm here to improve the articles in Wikipedia, not to turn this into a feel good convention or pamper evening or whatever. Dmcq (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We should not change the best method for dealing with the article titles to a less desirable method simply because a small number of editors continue to ignore or refuse to accept the will of the very clear majority demonstrated on many occasions backed up by solid arguments in line with wikipedia policies, including in a binding wikiwide poll that gave people many choices and was done on a system designed to weaken the chances of the status quo winning. If a majority believe there should be a page move, then we should start the process of the potential options and deal with wording/voting method etc or the framework of a RFC. Until then.. we sadly will just be going over the same old ground. Again if this continues into the new year, surely the time will have come for a new vote on if we should go back to arbcom and ask for an extension of the 2 year ban on page moves? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Scoláire, with respect, you're not setting out compromise, you're setting pre-conditions. I know you feel passionately. So does everybody. Now we've made a lot of progress dealing with just one of the article titles, one that is problematic for a good many editors. Lots of editors like Republic of Ireland for the article on the State. And lots of editors dislike it. Lots of editors like Ireland for the article on the State. And lots of editors dislike it. Somewhere in the middle of those two there is a compromise, called Ireland (state), which, I believe, mature editors on both sides and the wider community can say that they can live with. The forthcoming RM should focus on that. Not swear everyone (present and absent) to promise what they will think about and within WikiProject Ireland 800 days hence. -- Evertype·✆ 23:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

PS, I will be offline for two days, as I have to travel to Ballymoney to meet with the Ullans Speakers Association. -- Evertype·✆ 23:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I will be offline permanently. I've made my proposals, I've clarified what needed clarifying. Good luck to you all. Scolaire (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)