Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRashersTierney

Strange bedfellows

I find it rather puzzling to see several Republican editors arguing that the position of the British government should be decisive in determining the name of the Irish state. I sincerely hope that they will not be applying the same logic to other Ireland-related issues, such as the British tendency to use the term "British Isles". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to name the Republican editors? RashersTierney (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly, because the inclusion or exclusion of any name will only spark a dispute. I'm just bemused to see support from some surprising quarters for the proposition that the view of the British government should be given so much weight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what there is to be bemused about. If you find this issue trivial why the apparent interest in the naming dispute? Or are you just being patronising? RashersTierney (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I find the issue trivial; on the contrary, I find it very important.

That's why I think it is strange that editors who usually reject British-imposed names are arguing here that wikipedia shoukd follow the current policy of the British govt support. The inconsistency is odd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think editors are urging Wikipedia to follow a point because it is British Gov. policy, then I don't think you have a very clear understanding of this debate. RashersTierney (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rashers, I understand this debate very well. Your statement here says that because the British govt has chnaged its terminology, it would be non-neutral for wikipedia to do anything different to what the British govt does.

That logically implies that if the British govt changed its policy back again, then you would argue that wikipedia should follow London's read. If, like me, you think that would be an absurdity, then this statement is absurd too ... but you can't have one without the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology as used by BG has changed. Such changes are not made lightly. It is sufficient in my view to bring that change to the attention of other editors who can choose to give it whatever weight they think fit. The naming controversy was highly political and its perpetuation in Wikipedia is no less so just because it is Wikipedia. I was not anticipating these side-discussions to form part of the resolution process and do not see how they move things on. You have already expressed your disagreement with the statement. Are you considering changing your position or what exactly is the purpose of your comments? RashersTierney (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]