Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Ireland (republic of) and similar configurations

Why does only the "no change" option allow us to continue using Republic of Ireland rather than Ireland (state)? john k (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

'Cause, that's the current name of the country article. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is, there's no option for, for instance, having Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland as our two articles, which I would prefer to most of the current options. john k (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That was an option that didn't make the cut, during the process. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

...and there'll almost certainly be redirects covering the missing options, so your preference may well come to pass indirectly. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland (Republic of), which dabs and also makes clear that RoI isn't the name of the country was dropped by the closing Admin because he "couldn't see any difference". This is part of the problem with overcoming systematic bias on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If "Republic of Ireland" doesn't remain the "Ireland" holding space, I have a cunning plan to create an article there, about the descriptive term. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Why wait?! Sarah777 (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Because there's currently a different article at Republic of Ireland. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Be careful not to get knocked over in the rush. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If there's content ready to go, great. Article or redirect, I would imagine john k will be happy so long as "Republic of Ireland" exists in one form or another, and points readers in roughly the right direction. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

My assumption was that there was no possibility that Republic of Ireland wouldn't at least be a redirect. john k (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering the number of votes for the article to remain at ROI, if that option does lose i find it very hard to believe it would not be a direct. This is something that would have to be confirmed and agreed to following the vote before any move takes place though. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Ireland (Republic of) ... was dropped by the closing Admin because he 'couldn't see any difference'." - !? It got dropped because it didn't win |the vote. It didn't win the vote because you (like most people) didn't vote for it. The "closing admin" or "systematic bias" doesn't come into it. You didn't vote for it so it's not on the ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How inaccurate can you be? I did vote for it; third preference. The closing Admin went with only two preferences because he reckoned Ireland (the Republic) was the same as RoI! That is the problem. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Fourth preference in a vote where there we had decided in advance that, at the most, only three options would be going forward. As it was, "Ireland (state)" was the run-away winner so it would logically follow that "Ireland (state)" would finish ahead of any alternative that put forward to this vote. "How inaccurate can you be?" I could say it was dropped because the closing admin "couldn't see any difference" and blame it on "systematic bias" rather than admit that the reason it didn't go forward was because I didn't vote for it? Just thought. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Third; where we had agreed 3 would go forward. Option G; Ireland (republic). Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed in advance: "Results of the vote will yield two (or possibly three if the numbers clearly warrant it)..."
• Choice on ballot: "C: Ireland (Republic of)"
• Your vote: "A F G C B D E" (Fourth preference highlighted.)
• Your claim above: "Ireland (Republic of) ... was dropped by the closing Admin because...he 'couldn't see any difference'."

"Ireland (Republic of)"" is not an option here because you (like most people) didn't vote for it in the preliminary ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland (republic) = Ireland (Republic of) = Ireland (The Republic) = Ireland (Republic) = Ireland (the Republic) but none of them = Republic of Ireland. Period. Cut the nonsense; the unacceptable status quo has a huge advantage when set against numerous acceptable alternatives. Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Final Poll is barely a few hours old, let's not make assumptions about the outcome. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. You didn't vote for it = it's not on the ballot. ("Ireland (Republic of)" was my first choice in the preliminary vote by the way.)

"...the [...] status quo has a huge advantage when set against numerous [...] alternatives..." That's why we are using preferential voting. It doesn't explain why you didn't vote for an option then blame the closing admin for not choosing it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I did. There are a dozen permutations of "Ireland (republic of)" - one is enough to represent the whole. Stop being silly. Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Two such permutations were on the preliminary ballot. They were your 3rd and 4th preference. The best placed one ("Ireland (republic)") came 3rd in the result. Your vote did not count towards it because your 1st preference ("Ireland (country)") came second and your 2nd preference ("Ireland (state)") came first by a landslide. What are you complaining about? One of your higher ranked preferences topped the poll and is therefore in this ballot. You got what you voted for. If you preferred a permutation of "Ireland (Republic of)" over "Ireland (state)" or "Ireland (country)" then you should have ranked it higher. No-one is a mind reader around here.

I did vote for "Ireland (Republic of)", by the way, and "Ireland (republic)" was included on the ballot at my request. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer "Ireland (country)"; "Ireland (state)" and "Ireland (republic)" were what I regarded as reasonable compromises - I had to select one of them as #2 and one as #3. I thought both would get through. But I don't claim to be a clairvoyant. Sarah777 (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

IF "Republic of Ireland" doesn't remain the "Ireland" holding space, I have a cunning plan to create an article there"" Ummm you will not!!!! this vote makes very very clear that Republic of Ireland is to be a redirect if option F is not chosen. That is binding for 2 years.. so ur cunning plan will have to wait till then :) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn it, ive been looking at the move -> things thinking they meant redirect also. I guess it was never agreed the future of that article if there was a change. someone did try creating text for that article some time ago. Anyway that would fall within the scope of the stuff that needs sorting out before any of the changes happen. To think that is going to be anything other than a redirect is alarming though and if the articles are to be moved, i can imagine months of disputes about the ROI being a redirect. But the poll info does make clear for sure that those remaining things will be sorted BEFORE a move. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd kind of assumed that whatever was decided, all the usual suspects for redirects would be done - so, if "F" (say) wins, "Ireland (island)" will redirect to "Ireland", etc. You're right, though - any discussion about anything other than the current poll is probably best left until later. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How come nobody mentioned that the "cunning" edit has already been done? Scolaire (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

But Ireland is the state and island, and that's what the 'Ireland article' is about, reads the same! Tfz 20:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid alluded to it, above (kind of: Domer moved, as I understand it, the "cunning" from article space to a sandbox). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah! So he did. Not like me to not click on a link. Scolaire (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on My Little Spreadsheet

Im sure you will BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Count on it. Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In your next update please remove Irish editors as well just out of interest. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hardly! The article in question is about Ireland. D'oh! Sarah777 (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. :) wooops.. Northern Ireland i mean, see what happens when u just say Ireland instead of Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And nobody is trying to call NI by a "description"; despite "The Failed Entity" being a pretty good one. Sarah777 (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Howabout waiting until Sept 13, folks? GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on those who support Options G-Z (as they'll be slightly confused). GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way: - I assume there is a rule that nobody who wasn't registered before today is prevented from voting? We wouldn't want a plethora of "Irish" citizens new to Wiki finding their way here. (Or any other sort). Sarah777 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Aye, it says above Users who registered after 1 June 2009 may not vote (per Project consensus) but may contribute comments on the Talk page. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The excitements getting too much for me. I'm away to lie down for 42 days. Jack forbes (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Like watching paint dry. Like we know what colour it was when we bought the can. All it has to do is set. Lent only had 40 days. Tfz 23:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not do it on a weighted scale? People's votes could have more value depending on their "Irishness" rating e.g.

Born in Ireland, can trace ancestry back to 3 May 1241 or earlier = 10pts

Other born in Ireland = 9 pts

Gave money to Noraid in 1987 = 8 pts

Irish granny = 7 pts

Picked mushrooms in Kilkenny for a year to fund flatbuy in Krakow = 6 pts

Goes to Irish bar once a month = 5 pts

Downloaded Enya album within last 3 months = 4 pts (+possible sympathy bonus point for those who admit it)

etc? Valenciano (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Sarah777 (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

But all I'm looking at is: Irish Citizen/Not Irish Citizen. As an indicator. That too complicated for you? Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And don't worry V, I've included as one of the Irish voting for the British solution. One of the three so far. Sarah777 (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Whew! That's mostly what I *was worried* about. Thanks. :) It might all be academic anyway, F is ahead but only about 50-55% in the final analysis, still 41 days left. Valenciano (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when you talk of people "in favour of" F, are you just referring to those with it as their first choice, or what exactly? Just making sure I'm not being counted as someone in favour of it given that it's my 5th choice! ~ mazca ^talk 23:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

First choice only; I also exclude 2nd choice as well as 5th - so it should still give a reasonable indication. Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are counting people as "against F" even if that is their second choice? lol BritishWatcher (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah keep this up and you'll have half the voters uploading passports scans out of panic! Valenciano (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Only one has chosen F as their second choice, so far. Oh, and I could apply for my Irish passport. Could I get one within 42 days? Jack forbes (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

V, it's not rocket science. I'm going by what folk say on their User pages. BritishW; I'm counting "not F #1" as...well...."not F". Sue me. Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack like Sarah I'm also keeping my own little tally and there are two second prefs for F but tonnes for D an option which so far is completely bombing. Valenciano (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

D could be the dark horse in the race. Nobody likes it much be it might be the alternative to "F" least disliked. As the various permutations of "Ireland (Republic of)" have been eliminated before the vote. Sarah777 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact. if "F" doesn't get over 50% I might suggest some variant of "Ireland (Republic of)" be given as a compromise. Sarah777 (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would of thought D would be doing better than it is at the moment, last time i looked not a single first vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But....37 out of 47 have C, D or E as 1st or second preference (or both), that's nearly 80%. What they all have in common is that "RoI" would be replaced by "Ireland (state)"! Sarah777 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I could live with that. A and B are the only ones I actively opposed and they're getting nowhere. D is the least hated option but no one's voting for it! Valenciano (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

@V; tbh I wouldn't put myself out too much for A or B! Sarah777 (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be fair that's probably at least partially because for some reason the RoI equivalents of C and E are not included in the poll. The only direct comparison of RoI vs. (state) is D vs. F. I still don't quite understand why that is the case. Guest9999 (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is because of the misconception that "Ireland (variant of RoI)" is the same as "RoI" when in fact it is very different. Sarah777 (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am keeping in mind as I look at the votes that there will likely be some vote changing over the next 6 weeks as people choose a strategic #1 or #2 just to ensure a specific last choice does not become the winner. Nothing here is cast in stone or even written on archival paper. // BL \\ (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am neither British nor Irish. I voted the way I did based entirly on the strength of the arguments presented. Bonewah (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's surprising that you didn't take in to account that a lot of people who live in the state really find "Republic of Ireland" to be problematic if not offensive. It's that which is why we keep coming back to this dispute, which has gone on for seven years. Vote as you like, of course. But it's surprising to me to see "non-partisan" votes for the status quo. -- Evertype·✆ 07:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tnk Bonewah - I have taken your vote out of the unknown category and added it to the "not British or Irish" category. And updated my little spreadsheet. Sarah777 (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Evertype, the Irish Taoiseach, government, institutions, media, and general public must really be going out of their way to offend people with their continued use of an "offensive" term. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, i originally agreed that the title should be changed from ROI and thought what is now D was a reasonable alternative. That was only becauase i was misled by certain editors that the term ROI is deeply offensive and pushing British POV. Considering 1000s of examples from the Irish parliament including government ministers and the fact the countrys football team plays under Republic of Ireland, i really do not see how that claim can be true which is why i voted F. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware that the Taoiseach etc use the term, Bastun. That doesn't mean that there aren't still a lot of people who find it problematic for whatever reason. The status quo just gives them two fingers doesn't it? I mean, seven years of discussion? I don't think they're all cranks, either. So even though a lot of people have no problem with it, some people really do, and really the status quo votes don't seem to me to be a step forward, not at all. -- Evertype·✆ 08:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, if you are including Valenciano as an "Irish" editor voting for F, then I count five at the time of your first post, not three. For myself, my first preference will be eliminated early on so my vote will go to F - and that is just what I intended - so that makes six. 7-3 is maybe just a certain amount of wishful thinking?

Evertype, there have been plenty of "reliable sources" quoted over the last year, but I have yet to see one that says that in the real world the person on the street in Ireland finds "Republic of Ireland" problematic. I have literally never heard that view expressed outside of Wikipedia. And people expressing their choice after careful consideration of the arguments is not "two fingers" to anybody or anything. It's what we decided to ask them to do. Scolaire (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bastun, Guliolopez and RA. Now that I check I have V down as British and you down as voting for "A". Sarah777 (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And Djegan? That makes six-six by my count. Scolaire (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Sarah counts anyone that doesnt have F as their first choice as against F even if its their second choice, slight flaw in her little spreadsheet there lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bastun, Guliolopez and RA. Now that I check I have V down as British and you down as voting for "A". (Sorry about that V, I mislead you in error, but your page states you have never lived in the South, only the North). This article is about the name of sovereign Ireland. And yes Scolaire, as explained I am counting 1st preferences. I'll check on DJ, I thopught he was from NI? Sarah777 (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No it says I lived in Ulster (the Province) and I'm an Irish passport holder by birth so if you don't include me, I'll sue you for emotional distress ;) Valenciano (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's six-six, Sarah. Creating your own pigeon-holes for people doesn't alter the fact. There is no united mass of Irish struggling under the weight of British oppression. End of. Scolaire (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No Sarah this is not just "about the name of sovereign Ireland". It is about the Island as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The island is at "Ireland" - I have no serious problem with that, though per WP:COMMONNAME it probably should be at Ireland (island). It is the name of my country I'm concerned about. Y'know - that place the "RoI" article is about? As per the Good Friday Agreement, NI folk who self-identify as nationalists are obviously Irish (of the non-British sort). Otherwise we must assume they are British for the purpose of detecting bias. After all, NI Unionists are amongst the most pro-British in these islands. Fact. If you don't like it find a PC shoulder to cry on. Sarah777 (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

@Scolaire; citizens of the "RoI"; 7 - 3 against F. End of. Sarah777 (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

V - I'm reviewing your case. Sarah777 (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your "little spreadsheet" appeared to make a point. Now the opposite is seen to be true. It's meaningless. It's not even fun to argue about any more. Scolaire (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My spreadsheet seeks

• (1) to see how citizens of (and living in) what you call the "RoI" are voting
• (2) attempts to see people who are British are voting
• in order to put a bit of perspective on the vote. It is doing this rather well.

Why should you wish to avoid knowing how people living in and citizens of "RoI" think of this description you'd foist on us? Why would you be concerned at identifying how British editors are voting? Censorship has always been the first weapon of folk who dislike Irish nationalism, I guess. Leopards, spots maybe? ? Sarah777 (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Description I'd foist on you? I'm a citizen like anybody else. Dislike Irish Nationalism? I'm an Irish nationalist. Knowing how people living in and citizens of "RoI" think of this description? see above. Scolaire (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually people in the street normally refer to their country as "Ireland". Full stop. For "dab" purposes they will use "The North" or "the South". Or some variant thereof. And these street people will often "dab" by saying Northern Ireland and Ireland. In the same sentence. And everyone knows what they mean by Ireland. The sovereign state, of course. And these street people, if they want to emphasise all-Ireland, will often say "the whole island" or "the island of Ireland". Sarah777 (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

None of which I would dispute for a moment! Well, apart from the suggestion that when people say Ireland they are never referring to north of the border, which is ludicrous! But you've stopped short of saying that people on the street find "Republic of Ireland" problematic. They don't. There is no problem in the real world. Scolaire (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think sometimes that people munge a load of different issues together. Specifically, I object to the name of the article being at "Republic of Ireland". But I've must less of a problem when RoI is used as a dab in the right context. So if someone says to me that he visited Dublin in the Republic of Ireland, my alarm bells go off, because it's not used as a dab. But if someone says they're touring Ireland and staying 2 days in Northern Ireland and 3 days in the Republic of Ireland, I think that's fine. Mooretwin had some useful distinctions some time ago most of which I though made good common sense. So when you say there is no problem in real life, I'd say that there is, when it's used completely inappropriately.... If you read my position statement, I'm only asking that the article title is put at the right place. I'd hate to think that some editors here are arguing on a wider scope.... --HighKing (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Love that word "munge" ;-) Scolaire (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, though, in real life do you hear someone say that he visited Dublin in the Republic of Ireland? I've had the experience of people on the phone in England talking about "here on the mainland", but I've never encountered that use of "Republic". If they did do it it would be an issue in the RW, but if they don't it's not. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The only people I've encountered who have used that exact phrase were British. --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't live there like you guys (never have), but I do visit family on a regular basis. When talking about their country they always refer to it as Ireland. They don't I'm sure think on it too much, but if I constantly referred to their country as "the republic" or republic of Ireland" they would ask me why the hell I wasn't just saying Ireland. Jack forbes (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not saying it is slightly different to being deeeply offended by its use as some claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

@Jack, they would ask why the hell you weren't just saying Ireland? Or why the hell you were using such an offensive term? There's an important difference. I always refer to the state as Ireland. I don't bristle when somebody calls it "the Republic", nor does anybody else I know. Scolaire (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Next time I see them I'll ask. Jack forbes (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As for "perspective", saying that I am opposed to F is a blatant falsehood; saying that Djegan is British is a blatant falsehood. If that's how you get your perspective we don't need it. Scolaire (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. 40 out of 59 prefer 'F' to some degree or other, so far. That's what PRSTV is for - recording preferences, most preferred to least. But even the least preferred is still a preference. If an option is omitted from one's vote, you're saying its something you wouldn't prefer. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked the wording of my little spreadsheet to meet some of the objections a quarter way. Sarah777 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also interesting to see the only votes with only one option....and all the conclusions that can be drawn... --HighKing (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes the conclusion that Option F will make it to the final round there for people voting for that option will not have their 2nd, 3rd, 4th prefences counted anyway.. so why bother? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that I'm doomed myself to being added to the spreadsheet as being a Brit boting the Brit way, I should like to make it clear that I would be quite happy to have the three articles called Ireland (32 counties), Ireland (26 counties) and Ireland (6 counties) with the latter beign a redirect from Ulster (6 counties). ;-)--Peter cohen (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Pete from the Occupied Territories - but that ain't what you voted for. Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor

Some of the comments on this talk page have (evidently) resulted in some editors removing their submissions. This is - frankly - bogus. And, if this "racial profiling" continues, then I'll be moving for censure of offending editors under WP:NPA. (Which - COI issues aside - covers "using someone's affiliations as means of dismissing or discrediting their views"). Guliolopez (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree - in fact considering how naked the profiling is then whole thing should come to an abrupt stop and a prohibition on polls for an extended period. Profiling people in this manner is offensive and intended to bias the result. Irish people don't have a monopoly on wisdom (or any other nationality for that manner). Djegan (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't see any big problem based on the above. If an editor truly believes in his/her vote, then they will stand by that. We don't need fickleness on this issue. Tfz 17:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the issue is. I'm sure those that voted and removed are willing to stand by their vote. But that's all this is supposed to be is a vote. What Sarah is doing is taking that vote, and then scrutinizing the person's editing history to determine if there's bias. First, well, duh, of course there's going to be bias, but that's inherent as part of this vote. But the offending action is that people that are outside of anything dealing with this project, asked to come to vote, are suddenly being profiled. That is absolutely against again assumption of good faith. It should never have been done in the first place, and it must stop now. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

This user was on the edge of their seat for 42 days in the Summer of 2009.

Just for fun, I made a userbox: {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Userbox1}} --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely you mean "on the edge of his or her seat"? -- Evertype·✆ 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"...on the edge his or her seat." - So, assuming a strict understanding of "or", that means that a male subject may be on the edge of her seat? Who is she? :-) (Singular they.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer "its", so as to imply anyone participating in this debate is not in fact human. Seems about right... ;) ~ mazca ^talk 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing votes

Is there guidance for changing one's vote? If this is done should the previous vote be removed and a revised vote placed at the bottom of the list, or should the previous vote be stricken and new one provided at the end, or previous vote changed with only the signature with date stricken to be amended with a second signature at the end of that line? Sswonk (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been a source of debate but the consensus is it's OK. The problem was the worry that the outcome could be manipulated by "strategically" switching votes, not with people changing their vote "innocently".

I think it's best to just delete your old vote but cast your new vote in the same place on the list. That way it will not disrupt the flow of votes but will stand out in diffs and the date will be out of sequence with other dates in the list indicating that it was changed. I'm doing a running tally and that's the way I'd like it to be done anyway.

However you do it, I think it's best to avoid strike-throughs etc. Don't make a fuss about it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That is logical. I think it might be worth placing that guidance on the voting page, so any vote changing is not done using strike through tags. Sswonk (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I somehow messed up my numbering in my vote, so I just fixed it in place.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A tally

Current tally on 58 votes: the status quo has it on the fifth count with 31 votes. Option C comes in second with 20.

Having voted for the status quo, I'm guessing/hoping that it doesn't mean that we can't change the Ireland to the all-Ireland article it suggests, as it's just a content rather than a naming question. I certainly can't see much point in having both an all-Ireland article and an "Ireland (island)" article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Same in my tally. But let's not give running tallies. They can only serve to crank the tension up higher. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My tally has the same except it doesn't have the unnecessary count that yours does. A and D can be eliminated together since even if all D's voters choose A, A is still eliminated due to having less first prefs. Valenciano (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. But I'm not counting by hand. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If current trends continue this will be a shoot-out between C and F. So anyone opposed to F should really make sure to put C before it in their list; putting A,B, D or E before F but not C before F carries a high chance the vote won't count in the shake out. Sarah777 (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank God we have 42 days to get the anti-F consensus fully expressed:) Sarah777 (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting reality. 40 out of 59 (as it was earlier) expressing a preference for 'F', first or otherwise, is hardly an "anti-F consensus". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd think putting F 4th to 6th is opposition to F. If it weren't for the British Editors I note "Option F" would be DOOMED on this showing. DOOMED I tell ya. Sarah777 (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of tallying during the voting process? Why don't people wait until Sept 13th, before having a heart attack. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact if you take all preferences (after 60 votes) then D (46) is clear leader. Unfortunately it also has the least first preferences (2). Sarah777 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. If all "C" voters who are also anti-F switched their first preference to "D" it could easily go from first to be eliminated to winning! That's STV for ya! Sarah777 (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody ever listens to me. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, we kinda do G'Day:) Sarah777 (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I reckon that's better then 'sorta do'. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend avoiding any publicly-discussed mid-course tallies. The votes are there, people can add them up for themselves if they want, but I don't believe that having any assessment of the tally pre-calculated is going to be useful, and if anything will rile up those who may find their preferred option losing or their most-detested option winning. The less said about how the vote is going, the better. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, let's wait until September 13, 2009. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

September 13? What purpose is possibly served by having this poll drawn out over six weeks? john k (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering that, actually - I'm sure there's a reason for it, but it does seem an astonishingly long time for it. ~ mazca ^talk 13:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people in the northern hemisphere are away in August and need time to get up to speed in September. I don't know the rationale that was actually used to set the timespan for the poll, but this one seems logical to me. What's the hurry, after all? This has been bubbling for 7 years. // BL \\ (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Counting the Votes: Evaluation

Would someone please point me to the discussion/decision about how the votes are to be counted? Are all first-chosen to be given a number of points etc.? // BL \\ (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I assumed it would be the same method as the previous poll, except with only one eventual "winner". Some details on counting are here, particularly here. It seems to involve salt and hops, which sounds like really bad beer. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I assumed this would be counted in a reverse weighted fashion, i.e. a vote for first preference gets 6 points, second 5, third 4, fourth 3, fifth 2 and sixth 1. Thus my vote, BAC, would add 6 points to B, 5 to A and four to C, with no points going to the others. Sswonk (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It's using the Proportional Representation - Single Transferrable Vote system (which is well worth a read). The actual count will be done using a software program, as outlined on the [[talk page of a previous poll used to determine some of the options appearing in this final poll. That PRSTV article explains things better than I can, but in essence, you have one unweighted vote, which transfers to your second- (or third-, or fourth-, etc.) choice if an earlier preference of yours gets eliminated. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, if I had paid attention I would have noticed that earlier. Similar to the election of city councils in Cambridge, Massachusetts - [1]. Sswonk (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes - except they seem to have a rule that anyone getting less than a certain number gets eliminated at a set stage, which doesn't apply here. And the extra wrinkle here is that as we're only selecting one winner, the first to reach the quota wins. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a little confusing. I can't tell from what you've written or the links what "the first to reach the quota" means. What determines the quota, and how is it determined what choice is the first to reach it? The assumption is if there are more first choice votes for a given choice, that one wins, and the STV kicks in if there is a tie - otherwise why would proportional representation be needed at all, since there is only one possible winner? Sswonk (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, we should've been restricted to supporting only 1 option. Oh well, it'll all get straightened out by September. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

From what i understand although i find this system very confusing, its the first option to 50%+1 that wins. So if the leading option fails to get over 50%, options with the lowest votes are eliminated and those who voted for it have their second preferences added and that process continues till one reaches over 50%. (from what i understand, i may be wrong). BritishWatcher (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea is that people can go with minority preferences and still have their votes count. The quota - as I understand it - means that no choice wins until it is the first remaining preference of 50%+1 voters.

So, for example, if it came down to a choice between C and F, those voters who preferred C over F would be counted as votes for C, and those who preferred F over C would be counted as votes for F. It wouldn't matter whether the voter chose C and F as first and second preferences or fifth and sixth preferences, the preference would still be registered. Pfainuk talk 18:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried counting with votes frozen at 64, and now understand. This set the quota at (64/2)+1 = 33. At that point, disregarding any changes since for test purposes only, the elimination process removed D, then A, then E, then B. When B was removed, 7 voters were eliminated because they listed neither C nor F at all, and this reduced the quota to (57/2)+1 = 29.5 and thus F won with 32 to 25 votes. Please correct me if this is not right, not the total but the method overall. Sswonk (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC

Almost. You're right except for the quota. That doesn't change. It's quite possible that an option will win without reaching the quota due to votes not transferring. Valenciano (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes - that looks right to me. My only correction would be that the winning threshold at the end (from 57 votes with preferences remaining) would be 29, not 29.5. The rule is the winner has to have more votes (excluding eliminated votes) than all other options combined - not a strict 50%+1. Sorry, that's probably my fault! Pfainuk talk 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Apparently I misused the word "quota" - oops - corrected. Pfainuk talk 20:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There's only one "seat" so there is no "quota" or "threshold". If any item reaches 50%+1 they are guaranteed to win, but that is different to a "quota" or "threshold". The winner is the options with the greatest stack of votes after transferring all preferences. 50%+1 is merely the mark after which any option is guaranteed for that to be the case.

It was discussed about adding an extra proviso that a winner must reach a certain threshold before being declared binding, but consensus was not to attach any such proviso. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds different from my example and the two responses. This has to be a semantics problem I am having, but to me there has to be a threshold, otherwise no preference would be eliminated in the process. In other words, the "threshold" is, don't finish last during the count. To simplify this, is the method I outlined in an example above, where lowest total first preference votes are thrown out one step at a time until only two possible outcomes are left, with the higher of the two chosen, correct? Forget what I wrote about quotas, just that there is a process that eliminates lowest total as a valid first preference vote, recalculate, then eliminates lowest of five remaining, etc. Sswonk (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. "lowest total first preference votes are thrown out one step at a time until only two possible outcomes are left". Correct! Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yip. The least popular options are removed one-at-a-time (and the votes for them are transferred) until only two options remain. The most popular of those two options is the winner. See it worked out here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. That is why anti-F folk changing their order later in the month will be so important. Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite people being allowed to change their vote at any point. I hope trying to encourage people to change their votes by leaving messages on their talk page is going to be banned and anyone attempting to instantly has their vote removed and are not allowed to continue in this process. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on precise method used to calculate result

I'd like to vote but there's debate on this page and the poll page about what method will be used to calculate the results, although perhaps I'm misunderstanding things and it's really a debate about the name of the method rather than the method itself. My vote(s) have the potential to produce different outcomes depending on how the results are calculated so I'd like some definitive and authoritative knowledge on how the result will be calculated before I vote. Could someone provide a link or diff to the "official" place where it's been stated (by whatever authoritative body devised this poll) what method will be used to calculate the results? Monads (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's being run under PRSTV. I don't have a link to hand (I'll try to dig one out later) but the actual result will be calculated using a public domain software program. An example of the output can be found here, and the same method was used successfully in a preliminary poll to decide on one of the options for inclusion in this final poll. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The weakness of STV

As noted above, and before that as well, the clear favourite in terms of total votes is likely to be the first to be eliminated. It is popular with both pro- and anti-status quo, but only as a second or lower preference. This is a weakness of STV that I think none of us anticipated when we were setting this up - that the best "compromise" option would be the biggest loser. But what can you do? Scolaire (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We could all move D higher in our votes ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 18:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If people prefer D, they should vote for D. It's that simple. Rank your preferences. It's that simple. If D doesn't end up tops, it's because people prefer other options before it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Don't panic! 41 days to see which way the wind blows. Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Get the user box :-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool! I've got it :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

btw; V - the committee have reviewed your case and have decided to accept your (unlikely) tale of being an Irish passport holder. Sarah777 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to celebrate as we speak Sarah. Thanks. Valenciano (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking, do we have a help line set up for those editors who are going to feel depressed over the final result? Aftercare can be crucial in these situations. :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

An interesting experiment comes from running these results through the Borda count - i.e. giving 6 points to a first preference, 5 to a second etc...

(A caveat. Obviously this isn't scientific, particularly as votes were cast on a different basis. For instance under STV you can number just five preferences and it has the same effect as if you'd numbered the last, but under Borda there is a difference between numbering the last and giving it 1 point and not numbering it to give it 0 points. Whilst it's clear that Sarah777 would not wish to give any points to option F, it's rather less clear if others who've only used five preferences would have used all six under Borda. But anyway...)

Using Valenciano's tally which is as follows:

PREFERENCES

Preferences:	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	No
Option A	5	9	3	6	8	9	30
Option B	9	6	7	11	8	5	24
Option C	15	4	15	11	2	0	23
Option D	4	25	14	10	1	0	16
Option E	9	14	16	2	8	2	19
Option F	28	5	5	5	3	1	23

up to and including the vote of ClemMcGann

Now convert these into points and we get:

Points:	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	Total
Option A	30	45	12	18	16	9	130
Option B	36	30	28	33	16	5	148
Option C	90	20	60	33	4	0	207
Option D	24	125	56	30	2	0	237
Option E	36	70	64	6	16	2	194
Option F	168	25	20	15	6	1	235

An interesting little experiment. With the exception of option D we get the same order as under STV - F, C, E, B, A - but D leaps forward from being the first to be eliminated to narrowly getting the most points overall (subject to the caveat that had the vote actually been done this way people would probably have cast their ballots differently). Timrollpickering (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I originally somehow read the instructions and still thought the vote tabulation was a Borda scheme. That gives me zero points for attentiveness. Anyway, the Borda numbering would have dramatically changed the way people cast their ballots. Most would probably only cast one or two votes. Borda is most common in my experience for ranking sports teams of colleges in the U.S. (see AP Poll). There you have 25 spots to be filled from among over 200 teams. I think if this question had 60 options instead of just 6, then the Borda scheme would have been more favorably indicated, but I am comfortable with using STV here. Sswonk (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If "D" got some additional first preferences it is a serious contender, even under the current system. Sarah777 (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My little spreadsheet

This is a tally of #1 votes only.

This spreadsheet has been removed to avoid any assumptions of bad faith and voter profiling. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Questionable vote?

Special:Contributions/Kavathes - 7 edits in total prior to today. All made on 1st May, all an addition (in Cyrillic) to user talk pages. Technically, yes, the account was created prior to the deadline of 1st June, but seems to be a WP:SPA. User:Masem, could you rule on this one? (All other votes look legitimate up to that one). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely he gets some credit for omitting the British POV solution (currently supported by a massive 4 Free State editors)? Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem, can you also do something about the above editor and the constant baiting? I'm well used to Sarah at this stage, but it amounts to voter intimidation. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As you have already voted how can I "intimidate" you? Of course I realise you'd rather the graphic reality of RoI=British POV could remain concealed. I am providing evidence for those who may be confused by folk (such as your good self) who dismiss my forensic analysis of what is maintaining the status quo. Surely you are not advocating censorship? Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't try putting words in my mouth, either. Your "forensic analysis" is flawed, as pointed out above. Your argument is false - if "RoI=British POV" then someone really needs to inform our Taoiseach, politicians, institutions, media outlets, and those Irish-speaking Brits who seem to have managed to get away with naming the Irish-language WP articles in question as Poblacht na h-Éireann (RoI, for the state) and Éire (for the island), as pointed out here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And this - accusing me of canvassing (which would see my vote removed and me subject to "# Non-trivial sanctions will be imposed for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry or otherwise manipulating the ballot (or attempting to do so); # Votes by sock puppets or meat puppets (and their masters) or similar will be removed from the balloting area" certainly seems like intimidation to me... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

His edits are in Greek, not Cyrillic, and they are about Macedonia. I see nothing wrong with his choosing to vote here. I suggest it is possible that he saw the announcement of the poll on the Europe project or similar where we did advertise the poll. No reason not to Assume Good Faith here. -- Evertype·✆ 00:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we advertise this poll on various European projects. Especially to those who don't contribute much to En:Wiki. It might moderate the British POV problem which is starkly illustrated by my spreadsheet. (Sorry Bastun, but of the editors who can be clearly identified as citizens of the "Republic of" Ireland they stand 9 - 4 "not F". No flaws. Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we stick to the agreed consensus, arrived at after much discussion on the project page. It might also be time to remind you of this. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I advertised this poll on all of the venues that we agreed to advertise it on. (Or at least I tried to.) I do not agree that it should now be extended to still other forums. I was only making the point that this Greek voter's vote does not seem to me to be sock-puppetry. -- Evertype·✆ 08:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

e/c You trot that out every time I question you. Myself, I pay it no heed. Maybe report me? Sarah777 (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem agreed that it should be advertised in each EU country project, can't see why this was not done. Does it now make the poll 'null and void'? And please assume good faith to Kavathes. Tfz 04:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there was consensus to advertise the poll to every EU country project. -- Evertype·✆ 08:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I. There is an agreed list of places/individuals on the project talk page, and I'm not seeing "each EU country project" there. Re the top post - it just seems unusual to me that an editor with zero mainspace edits is somehow voting here. Which is why I raised the issue here. I'd do the same if the editor in question had voted just for 'F'. I've already tried helping one editor in getting his vote to format properly, despite him not being a supporter of 'F' - so WP:AGF applies to you, too, Tfz. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem agreed with the current list we double checked this ages ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem did say it somewhere, though it may not be on the final list, trying to dig that out now would be a major task, but will have a look later. Tfz 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I'm pretty sure I did say, for where the poll should be advertized, "no" to specific EU country projects outside UK and Ireland, but "yes" to general European projects. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussing the merits?

Is there a place to discuss these issues on the merits, rather than strategizing about voting and lots of obnoxious whining about how British people are skewing the vote?

In case anyone is reading this page who hasn't yet voted, or might change their vote, I just thought that I, as an American of Irish Catholic descent, would explain why I think the status quo is the way to go here. It is true, of course, that the state which comprises 26 counties of Ireland is properly named Ireland rather than the Republic of Ireland. There is a significant problem, however, with locating the article at Ireland. "Ireland" is ambiguous, referring both to the island and to the state which occupies most of the island. In cases of ambiguity, our first duty is to determine if there is a primary meaning. If the state is the primary meaning, then it should be at Ireland and the island should be at Ireland (island. It seems clear, though, that the state is not the primary meaning. The island is. Not only do all references to "Ireland" prior to 1937 mean the island; in addition, the island still remains the primary meaning. If the state were the primary meaning, then the sentence "Belfast is not in Ireland," would make sense and not seem absurd. But, in my view at least, such a statement would be ridiculous - Belfast is in Ireland, if not in the Republic of Ireland. This is the same situation we have with China, but I think the case for the state not going at "Ireland" is actually stronger than the case for the article on the modern state not going at China, given the extent to which Taiwan is de facto its own country, and its connection with the mainland has always been somewhat tenuous.

So, now, we've resolved that the article on the state can't go at Ireland. (I'll get to where the island should go later). Where should it go? Well, we should look at WP:D, our guidelines for disambiguation. It provides the following guideline: When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used. Is not Republic of Ireland another term which is equally clear and unambiguous? We should only go to parenthetical disambiguation (i.e., to Ireland (state) or Ireland (republic) in the absence of such a term. But there is such a term - it is Republic of Ireland. It is clear and unambiguous, and in fairly common usage, and means the same thing as Ireland (state). True, it is only the "description" rather than the "official long-form name" of the state, but I don't see how that matters. It seems fairly clear that if the article on the state cannot go to Ireland (and I think it cannot), it should be at Republic of Ireland rather than Ireland (state).

This leaves the question of where the article on the island should go. Here I am less certain. The island is probably in some contexts the primary topic - certainly historically it would be. But probably in other ways it is not. I think it would be fine to turn Ireland into a disambiguation page and move the article on the island to Ireland (island). But Republic of Ireland should stay where it is. Anyway, that's my opinion. john k (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said, certainly agreee on the ROI bit the fact that the Irish government and parliament often use the term proves the claim made by some here that ROI is a British POV term imposed on Ireland as false. Although i would say i consider the island the primary topic and think it deserves the right to be at Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Belfast is unambiguously in Northern Ireland, as currently recognised by both political entities on the British Isles. It happens to be located on an island which is called Ireland, but geo-politics is more significant than simple geography (which is of secondary importance). Culturally, politicially, internationally (in terms of recognition), nationally the state with its capital located at Dublin has supremacy over the term Ireland unqalified, including in popular (common use) discourse in the English language. People who live there are just Irish, not "Republic of Irish".

There is an Irish Embassy in London, but no Republic of Irish Embassy in London, it tells us;[2]

• "A warm welcome to the Irish website, where you can obtain information about the Irish Embassy in London, other Irish embassies worldwide, Irish visa requirements, visa application forms for Ireland, tourist information, weather, maps of Ireland, public holidays in Ireland, telephone area codes and much more travel information about Ireland can be found here. The Irish Embassy in London is the official representative body of the Irish Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Irish Embassy in London and other Irish consulates in United Kingdom are listed below."

Evertype, you might as well link to the actual website!! Irish embassies don't normally have ads from Google!! — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also a British Embassy in Ireland, but no British Embassy in the Republic of Ireland, it tells us;[3]

• "Welcome to the website of the British Embassy in Ireland. On our site you will find news about Britain, information about the UK's relations with Ireland, details of the services offered by the British Embassy for Britons in Ireland and services for UK companies seeking opportunities in Ireland and for Irish companies looking to do business with the UK." - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, John. I'm originally American, now an immigrant to Ireland (living here 20 years this coming September) I'd suggest that you think about it again. You are right about the ambiguity. We all know about it. But where you've got it wrong (in my view) is in not taking consideration of feelings (rational or irrational). No matter how many counter-arguments, references to Taoisigh, examples of Irish pre-paid tax envelopes, etc, etc, are produced, there are always going to be some people who find Republic of Ireland to be "demeaning" or "offensive" or "politically-motivated". Rightly or wrongly, rationally or irrationally—that's just a fact. This is why Option F is a poor choice: it's no compromise. It offers those who are unhappy about the status quo nothing, really. On the other hand, Ireland (state) is not problematic in that way. It's similar to other Wikipedia solutions like Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state). (I know, the word "state" is polyvalent but then so is "country"). I believe that if voters in the poll can manage to look past the status quo and see that Ireland (state) is an actual compromise, since it has no "offensive" connotations. It is better than the status quo because it has the best chance of surviving past two years. -- Evertype·✆ 08:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wise words Evertype, we need a way to neutralise the poison of edit wars. --Snowded ^TALK 08:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You and I have had a few vociferous differences of opinion—it is gratifying to see that we (at least) see the forest for the trees. -- Evertype·✆ 10:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is my main thinking here. I really don't buy the argument that RoI is "offensive" to anything but a small minority of Irish people, and equally I can see some pretty decent arguments for it being a reasonable disambiguation. But the fact remains that the term is controversial to some: when we have options like "Ireland (state)" that perform the same disambiguation without inducing wrath, then we should really use them. This is different to the even-more-acrimonious Macedonia dispute (if you call the country Macedonia you piss off some Greeks, if you call the country "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" you piss off the other side) - in this case, if you call it "Republic of Ireland", you annoy some proportion of Irish people; if you call it "Ireland (state)" you don't actually annoy anyone on a nationalistic level. I don't see why we can't just go for the equally-clear and less-contentious option. ~ mazca ^talk 09:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so. You (or others) may not think that some people's objections to Republic of Ireland have merit, but nevertheless they have objections and feel strongly about it. One way to deal with that is to give them two fingers and say "Let's stick with the status quo no matter how uncomfortable it makes you". Another, better, way to deal with that is to say (as you have) "Let's switch to something which avoids that contention and yet has the merit of being accurate". Thus we have Ireland (state). -- Evertype·✆ 10:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(E.C)Nonsense, its wrong to give into vandalism. Some of the hardcore group who hate the term Republic of Ireland refuse to even accept that Republic of Ireland should be a redirect if the article is moved and have attempted to bypass this whole process by inserting some silly article on the Republic of Ireland Act at Republic of Ireland at one stage. It would be wrong to presume giving into this small hardcore group would end all edit wars.

When i first got involved in this debate i supported a compromise along the lines of option D but six months on far from seeing evidence that the article title should change, ive seen more reasons for it to stay the same and i think i was misled at first into this term being so "offensive", if it really is as offensive as people here claim there would be no way the Irish football team would play under the name Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

British Watcher, you are making things up, I cannot recall any editor saying that the term RoI is "offensive". The bottom line is that this is an encyclopedia and we do not call thing by the wrong name, we never ever do that, but it's happening here. Please don't politicise what should be an intellectual discourse. Calling something by its proper name is in highest order of thinking, anything else is just basement class application. Tfz 13:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh so i am making things up? lol.. Sorry but the fact its "soooo offensive" is meant to be the reason we are here now and people want it changed. You yourself have said you find the current setup offensive, others continue to claim this British POV being pushed on Ireland like its some form of oppression. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your saying "nonsense" is posturing, BritishWatcher. There is no especial merit in having the article titled Republic of Ireland if it causes (as it does) persistent strife. It keeps us all from actually improving the articles with content. Year after year after year. You can even be entirely right and correct that the objections to Republic of Ireland are universally valid. But whence your especial attachment to the title? Can't you live with Ireland (state), which is accurate and (at least) free from controversy? All you're saying is that "Even though some people say it's offensive, in reality it isn't offensive". Well, they're not lying to you. They may be deluded, or wrong, or narrow-minded, or mistaken, or anything. Or they may simply be staunch patriots who feel strongly about it despite what you think is valid or logical. It doesn't matter. If you can live with Ireland (state), then in the spirit of collaboration, you should opt for that, and omit to support something which has been, is, and will be controversial whether you like it or not. -- Evertype·✆ 10:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I can live with most of the options on the ballot, there are just two i strongly oppose.. the state at Ireland (B) and a single article on the island / State (A). Apart from that after F i would of supported D probably followed by C which looks likely to be the winner if F loses.

But after so many years with the articles in the current position i do not see the justification for change, especially considering some of the crowd are the ones who have been undermining the British Isles article as well, with one editor in particular seeking it be moved from its article title for very misleading reasons. There appears to be a pattern and i honestly do not see what good compromise is going to do. This vote is going to keep the articles in place for 2 years, its a solid ruling and there will be no edit wars except by people who end up getting blocked.

Its this claim that ROI is British POV, and being imposed on Ireland by the nasty British that really does bother me considering it was the Irish government that first introduced the term, i also really do question how offensive this term is there in Ireland when we have seen countless evidence of its use by the Irish government. I dont know for sure how people feel but i have not seen strong evidence most are deeply offended or even slightly offended as claimed here. Yet these two things have been the main arguments for change. Also the fact that many different methods are used to deal with countries means there is no right or wrong answer. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(I am with you on the issue of the British Isles; arguments against that term have no basis in sense, as far as I can see. That is a different fight, however, from this one—even if some of the same people are involved.) The justification for change is that it will put this problem to bed. Otherwise, as you must surely know, if F is chosen then in 2 years we will be back here enjoying each other's company with the same complaints. Don't you think that is a waste of time and energy? If you can live with Ireland (state), why not embrace it for the sake of Getting On With It? There may be no right or wrong answer, but it does seem to me that Ireland (state) is the answer which will give us more peace on this issue. —I've edited my vote once. Now I'm even considering editing it again so that I'm not giving any weight to the choices that are controversial for either side. Near as I can tell, the poisonous options in the long term are F, B, and A. And I like B and A (because I think there's a primary topic even though I know others have another view). Maybe that's the best kind of "tactical" voting. -- Evertype·✆ 14:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with compromise is where does it all end. If a few editors can raise such a fuss by moaning at every stage for years and it results in change then what is next. If we agree the country article is moved to Ireland (state) then how long will it be before a group starts complaining about ROI being a redirect to that article and request it be turned into a disam page as a compromise as some have said they wanted.

Its too early to tell whats going to happen with the vote yet, because of the voting system certain options are not that far behind ROI so a change may happen anyway. If F loses then those who voted for F will have to accept it for the two years just like others would if the status quo wins. If other supporters of F want a compromise then i would go along with it on the clear assurance Republic of Ireland remains a redirect and is part of the 2 year freeze, but its a big IF when all sorts of accusations and being thrown around by some editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that what we have here is not evidence from reliable sources that the term is considered offensive. At least, I haven't seen any such evidence (perhaps someone could point me to it?). What we have is some wikipedia editors' who claim the term is offensive, and other wikipedia editors who think it would be easier/fairer to accommodate them than to keep fighting them. But Sarah777 is not a reliable source, and the fact that she is very exercised over this seems utterly irrelevant. As to the question of whether it is "correct," this seems off-target. "Republic of Ireland" was a term basically created for the purpose of disambiguation - created, in fact, by the government of Ireland itself. It is not the official name, but it is the "official description," and it is used in exactly the context we have in Republic of Ireland - when we need to clarify that the state, and not the island, is meant. As such, it is the natural disambiguator, and it ought to be preferred over parenthetical disambiguation, which we shouldn't use unless we have to. As to continuing fights, let me say that after a giant vote like this, there usually develops a consensus that people who continue to argue about it should be ignored. Certainly if we have a massive vote and it comes out in favor of the status quo, that seems likely. The only option which I see creating serious problems beyond this vote is A, which would require the creation of a new article which covers both the whole island and the state that covers most of the island. The example of Tasmania is a particularly terrible one, since the state of Tasmania covers the whole island of Tasmania. Envision ridiculous amounts of fighting should option A manage to win. john k (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeating ad nauseum that editors find the term RoI offensive is a straw-man position, and unworthy of a response. That is not the objection. And indeed claiming to have Roman Catholic and Irish connections is a very poor device for claiming some sort of natural authority, and that 'is' offensive. Tfz 15:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not claiming any authority, which is obviously ridiculous. I was simply trying to indicate that I have no particular bias in favor of a "British" position. As far as strawmen, okay, you don't find it offensive. Claiming that it is incorrect to use "Republic of Ireland" to disambiguate is even more ridiculous than claiming the term is offensive. It is a term which was created as a term for disambiguation. That it is not the name is totally irrelevant to anything. So once again: 1) we can't have the article on the state at Ireland because it is ambiguous and not the primary topic; 2) as such we need to find an unambiguous name to call our article on the state; 3) wikipedia prefers "natural" disambiguators in actual common use over parenthetical disambiguators; 4) Republic of Ireland is such a natural disambiguator; ergo 5) the article should be at Republic of Ireland. "Correctness" doesn't come into it at all. john k (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

85% of the time the name Ireland is used it refers to the state of the same name. How more primary can a name be than that? States are the primary topics, we seldom hear much written about Hispaniola. Actually this discussion amuses me, as it demonstrates how successful Ireland the country has been since it went its own way back in 1922, that how half the world appears to be fighting over the name, as the state is the primary topic. Tfz 16:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hispaniola has very little common history, among other things. The contention that "85% of the time the name Ireland is used it refers to the state of the same name" seems like an unproven assertion. Of course, any reference to a place in the Republic is a reference to both the island and the state, so it's hard to get into the details. But once you start getting towards situations where it becomes confusing, it becomes clear that the state is not the primary topic. "Only three counties of Ulster are part of Ireland." Such a statement would be bizarre and awkward, because of the ambiguity. But if your whole objection is on the basis that the state is the primary topic, why on earth do you prefer "D" to "B"? Your own vote suggests that you do not, in fact, think that the state is clearly the primary topic. And I see that you don't even engage with an argument for why it's wrong to use "Republic of Ireland" as the disambiguator. You obviously prefer Ireland (state) to Republic of Ireland, but your argument that "Ireland" is the primary topic doesn't address that preference at all. john k (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"America and Russia are the two great super-powers", on hell, that's so ambiguous by your reasoning, can't allow that. Ireland covers 85% of the land of the island, and Northern Ireland is nearly always referred to as plain old Northern Ireland. Context, context, context. I don't agree with you and never will, becausec RoI is not the name of the state, and I guess you'll never agree with me. It's your prerogative to believe in anything you want. Tfz 16:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

America is a disambiguation page. Of course Northern Ireland is commonly used. But it would be bizarre to say "Galway is one of the counties of Ireland, but Antrim is not." "The Irish Football Association organizes football outside of Ireland." "The FAI Premier Division includes one team in Northern Ireland and nine teams in Ireland." And so forth - in any instance like this, it is natural to use "Republic of Ireland" so as to be clear what one is talking about. That Republic of Ireland is not the official name of the country is totally irrelevant - almost no articles on countries are at the official long form name, when there is one, and we have other articles that are at neither long form nor short form name. Most notably South Korea and North Korea. And in those cases, we do have official names which work to disambiguate, which we don't have in the case of the Republic of Ireland. . Wikipedia article titles have never been about official names. And you did not explain why you prefer option D to option B if you believe the republic if the primary topic for Ireland. john k (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"America is a disambiguation page." unquote, you are missing the point. The point is, the sentence I wrote is not ambiguous to most people, therefore the it is not ambiguous. Some will argue that it is, and let them. Antrim is a county in Northern Ireland as far as I'm concerned, as it is under the administrative regime of Stormont, Belfast, NI, and is not under the control of the Irish government. Football Associations are connected with states, not geographical regions. The country name is totally relevant, and I totally refute your insistence that it is not. At Wikipedia we go by wp:common, and Ireland fits that policy for the state that owns 85% of the island. South Korea and North Korea are wp:common and agree with Wikipedia guidelines. I have said before, if you are following this issue, that I am prepared to compromise, and quite frankly other editors are not willing to do that at all. Both sides can play that game, and that's why I vehemently opposed this poll in the first place. Tfz 00:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. You can dispute individual examples all you want, but surely you must agree that there are some cases when using "Ireland" can be ambiguous? I totally agree with you that if there was no ambiguity, the article now at Republic of Ireland should be at Ireland. It appears, though, that most people agree with me that this cannot be done - B is doing very poorly in the voting. That means that, no matter what, the article can't be at Ireland. If the article can't be at Ireland, what is wrong with Republic of Ireland? I am aware that "Republic of Ireland" is not the state's name. Neither is "Ireland (state)". Which means we are choosing between two options, neither of which is the state's name. But in contexts where "Ireland" cannot be used, because it is too ambiguous, "Republic of Ireland" is a perfectly acceptable alternative. It is an alternative which was created by the Irish government itself for that very purpose. Ireland (state) is an awkward disambiguator which is never used anywhere. You point to WP:COMMON as the basis for using South Korea. But Republic of Ireland is the common name which is used in contexts where people are trying to avoid ambiguity. The article on the state should be at either Ireland or Republic of Ireland. john k (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusions as Evertype a while ago. If truth be told, there is a modicum of validity to each choice. Rather than try to rehash over the same points (and I could), and point you to many examples where the term is offensive/disliked/not used/avoided (and I could), I think anyone who is still arguing over "right" and "wrong" at this point is missing the point and the reasons of 7 years of edit wars. So, I believe a compromise that most, if not everybody, can live with, and that rids us all (forever!) of this edit warring, should be given the strongest consideration as per this position paper. --HighKing (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, "the trouble with compromise is where does it end" is a red herring! We're talking about a persistent problem. One persistent problem. "X believes that the article should be named Ireland for a host of undeniable reasons. Y believes that the article should be named Republic of Ireland for a host of undeniable reasons. And this battle has gone on for seven years. I can only imagine that if sense were to prevail, people would realize that giving ANY weight to either Option F or to Options A and B is a dangerous way to get a situation without any compromise—and that's just going to make winners and losers. The more I think about this the more I am convinced of it. Only the configurations which include Ireland (state) offer this Project and this encyclopaedia a way out of a perennial see-saw. You can't win by Being Right, BritishWatcher, any more than Domer48 or Sarah777 or Mooretwin can "win" by Being Right. None of you are right, and all of you are right. I am going to change my vote again—to ensure that I give No Weight At All to Options F, A, or B—because none of these options is a genuine compromise, and our community needs a compromise. John K., think on this. It's not about whether someone prefers Ireland (state). Most people either prefer Ireland or Republic of Ireland. Where this WikiProject has succeeded is in devising a poll which offers Ireland (state) in a few configurations that could help us make the Wikipedia a better place. Avoid Option F. Avoid Option A. Avoid Option B. Choose one of the options that offers a genuine compromise, in good faith, to let us all breathe easily for at least two years. -- Evertype·✆ 19:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this "persistent problem" is a problem in the sense that "some people complain about it on talk pages." If, as I believe, Republic of Ireland is the best place to put the article, then it shouldn't matter whether people on talk pages are going to complain about it. At any rate, I understand why people prefer Ireland. I understand why people might believe the article should be at Ireland rather than Republic of Ireland. I understand why someone might want to move the article on the island to Ireland (island) so that we have disambiguation pages all around. What I cannot understand is the objections to using Republic of Ireland to disambiguate. The term is one which was created by the Irish government, and it is the term which is typically used to distinguish "Ireland the state" from "Ireland the island." Our disambiguation policies state that when such a term exists, we should use it as the article title. The arguments for using Ireland (state) instead are completely incoherent. On your part, they seem to boil down to "if we do that, people might stop complaining on talk pages about why they don't like 'Republic of Ireland'." This is not a substantive reason. All the other substantive reasons are just transparently specious. So the state's official name is "Ireland". So what? "Republic of Ireland" is a term which was invented for precisely the situation we find ourselves in. It is used by people in Ireland for that purpose. The fact that the British government used to insist on only using Republic of Ireland is really totally irrelevant. When people start aggressively pushing positions that make no sense, my inclination is not to conciliate them. And our purpose here isn't to make Wikipedia a more friendly place for Wikipedians to hang out. It's to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. This isn't accomplished by appeasing nonsensical nationalist grievances. [ETA: That's "nationalist" with a lower-case "n."] john k (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As an Irish person it never ceases to amaze me how my fellow country men have such a moral panic over this whole thing. When people say what country I am from I say Ireland, when people ask what part of Ireland, I say Republic of Ireland. Solutions like Ireland (state), Ireland (island) are a shambles by fundementalists and purists. Djegan (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Djegan, the only panic is you, I never hear the republic of Ireland been mentioned in my circles. You are either IRA or staunch Unionist, what are you? Tfz 00:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

lmao @ IRA.. sheeesh BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither and none - what a pity that it has come to this slandering. Djegan (talk) 06:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You were pretty good at that yourself DJ, if I recall. But I note that your "fellow countrymen" "never cease to amaze you". You never cease to amaze us either. Sarah777 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing the elephant in the room again....

We've heard all that before from pro-RoI folk (mostly British as we can see); so as you seem to have dumped a re-hash of the "RoI" arguments into this page let me provide a more informed perspective; which is in keeping with WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME - I will ignore your (john k) characterisation of my analysis of the systematic British bias, which has my country saddled (on Wiki) with a "description" masquerading as a name. (Tkx for the additional info Yorkshireman).

Ireland is the legal, official and most commonly used name of the sovereign country which has its capital in Dublin. Unarguably it would be the only name allowed for the article about the State per WP:COMMONNAME, were it not for the fact that the geographically entity, the island of Ireland, is also frequently referred to as simply "Ireland". In order to disambiguate the country Ireland from the island of Ireland (of which the sovereign country occupies 83%), Wiki currently employs the name that was the legal British name until the Good Friday Agreement in 1997.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a further spirit of compromise some those who found "RoI" demeaning to the State suggested names such as Ireland (Republic); Ireland (State); Ireland (the State) etc as disambiguations that would (a) remove the WP:NPOV issue by not adopting a British name (which, btw, Britain no longer uses since 1997) and (b) would make clear in the article title that "RoI" was not the name of the country - rather than propagating a politically biased name that is not longer used in most circumstances. And thus restoring the principles of WP:COMMONNAME.

All attempts at compromise have been rejected. Until we agree on some alternative (of the many suitable options) to the toxic title "Republic of Ireland" this issue will never be laid to rest.

While by no means my favourite solution I recommend you vote for (1) Ireland (State) and continue on down the list omitting only the "Republic of Ireland". THAT is the problem; that is the cause of seven years of war on Wiki. Time to end it.

Sarah777 (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So to sum up your arguments:

• "British" editors in your view are too stupid to know what they're doing.
• The votes of "British" editors in your view really shouldn't count? Valenciano (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumably (unless they vote her way, in which case they get thanked...) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

V and Bastun; breaches of WP:CIVIL includes stating that other editors say things they never said. For the record: I have absolutely no concern that British editors are "stupid" in any sense whatsoever. But I do think there is a good argument to be made in this case that editors resident in the country should decide what it will be called. That's my opinion, OK? And I can see why editors such as you two above would oppose that, being in the tiny minority of Irish editors supporting the option favoured by most British editors. Sarah777 (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The above looks like canvassing to me. Editors had the opportunity to provide "statements" and surely that was the right place to put such a statement. If the above contribution by Sarah is allowed to stay, do we then expect to have several other statements arguing the opposite, and canvassing others to vote in a particular way? Mooretwin (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that it was a response to a pro-F statement inserted in last night. Mine is the same as the "position" statement. Either nobody can canvas or everybody can. Ditto with posting statements here. Sarah777 (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And a list of all the position statements received before the cutoff point is here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin, making some arguments here isn't canvassing. Canvassing is going around to people's Talk Pages and drumming up a position-based vote. -- Evertype·✆ 10:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I said it looked like canvassing. Sarah's contribution is as much about canvassing people how to vote (tactically), as it is setting out arguments for and against the various options. Mooretwin (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Have any of the above editors who are whinning at Sara said anything to John k? If not is it because they agree with what that editor said yet as usaul anyone puts up a view that differs from theirs and the clan gather and start throwing mud. BigDunc 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

John k doesn't seem to be offering tactical advice on how to vote. Mooretwin (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like that to me in fact he is telling editors exactly what to vote. BigDunc 13:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

He's giving his opinion, not advising on voting tactics. I don't think either is appropriate here, but the latter is a step further over the line, in my view. Mooretwin (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And you said above to Sarah Editors had the opportunity to provide "statements" why have you not said that to John? You are badgering an editor you disagree with and it is a tactic used by you and your fellow travellers against anyone who speaks against the status quo. BigDunc 13:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Because John wasn't canvassing, trying to advise tactics and therefore it didn't prompt me to go to the bother of responding. Sarah did. Perhaps you could provide some evidence of me "badgering" editors I disagree with. I - like many editors of many different opinions - have previously engaged in long debates with many editors - but then they too have engaged in debates with me (were they "badgering"?). I haven't taken part in such a debate for quite a while. Mooretwin (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We are allowed to discuss all aspects of the relevant issue on this page, and I have no probs with Kenny's 'cloud cuckoo rant' or with Evertype's more reasoned argument. It's symptomatic of a certain clique to try stifle ongoing discussion here. Tfz 14:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's Kenny? Mooretwin (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between discussing the merits of the various options and canvassing voting tactics, as my interventions have made clear. Mooretwin (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have been happy to put a "statement" on another page, if there was any indication of where we could do such things. I wasn't aware of this discussion until I saw a vote notice on a talk page I was reading, so I had not opportunity to participate in earlier discussions, and could not figure out where they had taken place, anyway. If this was the wrong place to do it, I apologize, and can redirect discussion elsewhere. john k (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the "statementing" process is over. Mooretwin (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we not allowed to discuss the merits of the issue anywhere, then? This whole process seems awkward - six weeks of voting, but nowhere to actually discuss what we're voting on? john k (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We are meant to be discussing it here but u can also make a statement, that process never closed. U just need to go to one of the current statements, just copy the link and replace that persons name with ur name then create the page and copy / paste the contents of someone elses page just replacing the text with your statement so u get the right format. Then just link it on the statement page. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

RTG

User:RTG - can you move your vote up to above the "No comments..." comment. Also, going by your position statement - are you sure you voted the way you intended to? You statement says 'Vote D, not C' but you've voted 'F D E C A B' in that order. Maybe it's tactical, but I'm missing the tactic :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Voter intimidation

Copied from Masem's talk.

Masem,

At least two voters have removed their votes to avoid being "ethnically profiled" or being "added to some POV warriors statistics": Nanonic and Andrwsc.

It was agreed that, "Non-trivial sanctions will be imposed for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry or otherwise manipulating the ballot (or attempting to do so)." At one time a straight 12-month block was aired. Voter intimidation is surely a serious matter. Can you please do something to stop it.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Beat me to it by 3 minutes. Definitely agreed. This issue definitely needs to be sorted. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As noted on my talk, I'm aware of this, have warned Sarah about it, and checking at AN/I if this is a serious matter before taking any significant action. (I believe it is, I just need assurance). --MASEM (t) 19:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah! The calls for censorship and blocks...again. Did you congratulate Vk on his FA? You know, the guy you tried to have banned while he was writing it? Sarah777 (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Intimidation on Wikipedia? it's impossible. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like I DON'T LIKE IT - you are obviously oblivious (by choice) to this intimidation as the outcome suites you. The end justifies the means? Two people withdrew there vote due to intimidation, how many are not voting because of it. This whole "process" is looking bogus now. Djegan (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I've no concerns about how the Poll will end. I'm more happy about the name disputing drawing to a close (whether my preference is chosen or not). GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If a British editor profiled Irish people in this manner we would call it what it is - intimidation of the lowest order. This whole process needs to stop and an appropriate cooling off period started. Djegan (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that it's turning people off, perhaps it's best Sarah keep her 'Tally' on her userpage. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not just turning people off - it is a shambles. Profiling people and saying "Irish people voted this way", "British people voted that way". Organisations collect statistics for a reason; these were been collected for naked nationalism. This makes wikipedia look like a joke. Djegan (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted the second "spreadsheet" section. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. I've just posted on Masem's page that if she moved it to her user space and not mentioned it until September 14th it would be fine (with me anyway). Can we also blank the first section, reference to it in the text of other sections and archive this section when done. It's important that voters are free to vote without the shadow of this sort of thing hanging over the ballot page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not Good a discussion is taking place at ANI so do we just disregard what the views of the moderator are? BigDunc 21:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean like Sarah did when she added her little spreadsheet back to this talk page after Masem removed it? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe she wanted to talk about it first. Jeez, this has gone way over the top, all this talk on ANI of a possible blocking. If it is decided it should go, then go it does, but don't dramatize it out of all proportion. Jack forbes (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah does not need any help from me on that front Jack. Masem removed her spreadsheet and placed a box explaining why it had been removed.. If she wanted to talk about it she should of just talked about it, that ISNT what she did, she reposted it ignoring Masems request. Considering we were 2 voters down at that stage, she could of atleast thought twice about readding it until agreement was reached. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc, do not edit other people's comments, or section headings, to change their meaning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The section heading is ambiguous as intimidation has not been proved. You had no qualms about removing the comment by Sarah while it was under discussion on ANI. BigDunc 11:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Vote withdrawls

By jumpers, we're just 2-days into this Poll & already we've had 3 vote withdrawls. At this rate, my vote will be the only one left (come Sept 13). Surely to goodness, ya'll aren't considering leaving this Irish naming stuff 'entirely' in my hands? GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand there is also one user who doesnt want to vote (or didnt earlier) because of this profiling. Can you imagine if this was being done based on skin colour (if there was a way to tell) in a dispute over a racial matter? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I here-bye confess, I'm the Cookie Monster (a little profile humour). GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Are people still checking for Socks?

Im concerned about one recent vote. The user has been inactive for a year but suddenly decided to come and vote today. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Join the club! I'm concerned about 20 votes! What odds the vote you are concerned about was not for "F"?! Sarah777 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2) Checkuser is not for fishing if you have evidence of sockpuppetry go here and present your evidence. Don't know which editor you are caling a sock but nice way to AGF. And also a little curious did the editor vote against the status quo? If you have no evidence then this type of intimidation of voters has got to stop lets hope Masem is on the ball and is quick to defend any editor who wants to vote with accusations of sockpuppetry. BigDunc 21:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And concerned about the naked censorship that ra et al are miserably failing to justify. Sarah777 (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It could also be canvassing or someone who regularly reads but doesn't edit or simply that the vote had become widely known outside of wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a bunch of them. Maybe votes like this draw them out? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I know a number of regular defenders of the status quo who are retired but were resurrected for this vote. Maybe we check them? Sarah777 (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I named noone, i asked a simple question.. I want EVERYONE checked. You have to confess that anyone thats been inactive for a year and suddenly decides to vote needs looking into. It has nothing to do with the way they vote. Asking if there are ongoing Sock checks for a vote that is binding for TWO years is not an unreasonable question, its not like i named names accusing someone. BigDunc you are making accusations about my actions, please dont it is quite obvious my comment was not intimidation, the claim is pathetic. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Who did you not name? Sarah777 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice try. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2) You don't have to say the name of the editor if I say it is an editor who made an edit on a template earlier today that is under suspicion for something or other, not hard to find out who I am talking about is it? BigDunc 21:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol, and in such a case any innocent party would have no problem submitting to a check. I know i havnt when people have made direct accusations about me. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As has been stated, this isn't possible per policy. We don't even do this for arbcom elections AFAIK Nil Einne (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not going to check every voter for socks, that's a massive assumption of bad faith. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry. Every users history needs checking for obvious reasons (there may be one thats registered too late to be able to join in the vote). So i hope that is being checked and more checks made in certain cases where further investigation is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Fat Lady has sung (on this issue). Don't contradict her or you'll end up at ANI, then Arbcom, y'know, that place where you are currently arguing I should be banned. Sarah777 (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We make threats on the ballot paper warning people against cheating, its rather concerning if we aint actually checking for cheats :\. Also i never said you should be banned, i said if you continue to try and put ur little spreadsheet here you should not be allowed to contribute on this talk page.. never said i wanted u to be banned. My life would be dull with out you Sarah :( BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

Ok BW; I realise I'd be sorely missed around here......Sarah777 (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I've got pairs of socks in my dresser & I'm keeping them. Anyways (seriously), I suppose if enough editors are concerned about socking, they'll have to go through the proper procedures. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)