Revision as of 21:37, 6 February 2009 editSebastianHelm (talk | contribs)Administrators21,371 edits →Options for decisionmaking: resolved?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:42, 3 December 2023 edit undoScolaire (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,739 edits →ARCA: links | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WPBS| | |||
{{IECOLL|notes= Everybody is invited to participate in discussions here. The discussion is moderated by a panel appointed by ArbCom, which currently consists of ] and ]. Moderators can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted. <!-- (please uncomment when the word "Moderators" gets changed back to "Members":) Please consider using {{TL|OT}} for clarity. --> If you have a complaint about a user, please try to resolve it on their talk page first. For any complaints, please always be specific and provide links. | |||
{{WikiProject Ireland}} | |||
{{WikiProject Northern Ireland}} | |||
Please, for the moment, refrain from discussing the individual Ireland naming options until we agree on a procedure. | |||
{{WikiProject Unionism in Ireland}} | |||
{{WikiProject Irish Republicanism}} | |||
(<small>See ]</small>) | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
{| class="infobox" width="150" | |||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
|- align="center" | |||
|maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| ] | |||
|counter = 34 | |||
''']''' | |||
|minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
---- | |||
|algo = old(15d) | |||
|- align="center" | |||
| |
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | |||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
{{Shortcut|WT:IECOLL}} | |||
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |||
}} | |||
{{archive box |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=15 |units=days |auto=yes |search=yes |index=/Archive index }} | |||
=General and housekeeping = | |||
{{Shortcut|WT:IECOLL}} | |||
== Moderation box == | |||
I copied the core of the moderation box from ] to the top of this page. If there are any objections, please discuss here. — ] 23:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Further change: Since I believe that it is important to take a rest of the individual options of the Ireland naming question until we agree on a procedure, I will add a note to that effect there. — ] 23:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Can we highlight the moderators in the members list some how ] (]) | |||
: Sure! For things like this, which are unrelated to any controversy, I'd encourage every project member to be ] (or more specifically, follow ]) and just do it. You might also want to add it to the box on top of this page. — ] 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: I think I'll just go ahead and do that myself. I will also change the wording from "Members can moderate the discussion ..." to "Moderators can moderate the discussion ...". Once we resolved the Ireland naming question, this needs to be changed back, unless members decide to elect moderators from among them. I also put the note "Please consider using {{TL|OT}} for clarity." in a comment, because moderators know this already, and it's not necessary in the box, which addresses everyone. — ] 17:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Moderators == | |||
{{resolved}} | |||
ArbCom now officially announced moderators at ]: | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
If I may make a suggestion: Would the members of this project agree with having the third moderator from this project? I would like to propose Gnevin. While Gnevin is not an admin, I don't see why that should be a problem. What we need to consider is if the community can trust a moderator to be moderate. This seems to be the case with Gnevin; {{genderneutral|eir}} contributions here so far all show a sincere desire to resolve this issue fairly, and I haven't noticed any controversial edits by this editor. Are there any objections? — ] 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I think everyone is expecting three uninvolved administrators. From Remedies, at ]: "If the discussion convened under the terms of Remedy #1 does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure." Two so far. ] (]) 20:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: Oh, I think I've seen that one before. ;-) | |||
:: That's not a problem. If the community agrees, then why should ArbCom be against it? (I mentioned it in a half sentence in a mail before, and they didn't object.) I haven't asked Gnevin himself yet, so this may be moot. I, for one, would like to have him as a moderator; it's not easy to find good moderators for this case, and I rather work with someone who's dedicated than with someone who had to be talked into this. Since we'll be three moderators, we'll watch over each other, so I'm not afraid of much going wrong. But if you're concerned about anything he did before, then I will respect that. (You can also send confidential e-mail to Edokter and me.) — ] 08:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::To be honest while I would love to help out here. I have already voted on this issue at least twice and while I'm not saying I wouldn't be able to be neutral. This issue has gone on for so very long I want to be sure of a closure everyone can agree on without one section or the other claiming a systemic bias in the resolution by my involvement ] (]) 12:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Thank you. Your involvement is welcomed. ] ] 12:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::: That of course settles my suggestion. But just for the record, it is certainly possible to have an opinion in conflicts and still work as moderator. (An example for that is ], who just received the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Award from all sides of the conflict.) — ] 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
= Ireland naming question = | |||
== Status == | |||
ArbCom now officially announced moderators at ]. — ] 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
We're still waiting for a third moderator. — ] 08:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Goals and expectations == | |||
: ''Clarification of the title: "expectations" refers to ''where'' we want to be, not ''how'' to get there. For the latter, pls refer to the specific sections, such as ] above or ] below. — ] 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
I realize I rushed this initially, before finding out what everybody's expectations are. All we know for sure is that ArbCom wants this settled somehow. But what are the priorities for people here? Is it more important to be fast, to avoid discussions, or to include everyone and every viewpoint - or some other important criteria, which I forgot? Are there any goals that we should set ourselves? Please let us know; you're the experts on this issue! — ] 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
: A final solution that as many people as possible are prepared to defend should be the goal. Trying to resolve the problem quickly will end up leaving out some people and will make the final choice harder to defend. All views should be taken into account and all options, but the aim should be to find the least controversial / offensive / unacceptable option. When trying to decide which is the best option, the amount of strong opposition to a certain choice should be taken very seriously otherwise theres going to be many people who will find it hard to respect the result. ] (]) 10:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: Agree with BritishWatcher, <small>].]</small> --] <small>]</small> 11:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Options for decisionmaking == | |||
Let's collect what options we have. So far, I'm aware of the following: | |||
# Voting (e.g. with 50% majority.) Concern: ] | |||
# Consensus of Collaboration Project members. This actually works surprisingly well at ]. I think the main reason why it works is that we do not accept mere ] objections. All objections have to be reasons, based on logic and existing consensus decisions (which includes WP polices, and the decisions of our project members). | |||
Any others? — ] 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:], in general and more so in relation to the Irish issues. That is why I stopped watching the ]. Voting in the manner in which it has been carried out in the past has only served to highlight the differences and contrasts between the 2 sets of editors. I think this Collaboration would be wise refrain from any voting , straw polls or what ever name you want to call it and instead discuss issues . | |||
#Polls should be used if needed only after a agreed time limit. | |||
#All users would agree to the abide by the poll | |||
#All users would agree to not repoll for a set period again . | |||
#Also that users who where not involved in the discussion ''votes'' be ignored] (]) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
: That would work well with my proposal #2 above. I could agree with most of your points, but I want us to think about if we need that level of detail. I prefer ] over ]. Remember that the vote is only the ''fallback'', and we may never need it. We might even say "let's cross that bridge when we get to it". In my experience, we always could solve our problems without votes. But admittedly, it sometimes took longer than two months. Remarks to your individual points: | |||
:# The time limit is a neat idea! It might be a good way to address the situation here, where there seems to exist some impatience with the process so far. Only question is: How do you agree on the time limit? | |||
:# This may not be necessary, as we are backed up by ArbCom. | |||
:# Not sure what you mean by this. | |||
:# I'm afraid this would backfire: It serves as an incentive to increase the discussion by people who may not have anything new to contribute. I can very well see myself under such a pressure. Imagine, you already expressed my opinion perfectly in a certain discussion. I now would have to chime in, to avoid - in case it comes to a vote - me not having suffrage. — ] 23:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Was a typo meant All users would agree to ''not'' repoll for a set period again . Basically what often happens is that we have poll , a result is declared , then a other poll is opened right after either asking the same question or demanding a revert back to the status quo. I agree with you re 4 . ] (]) 23:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
If this message is improper, please delete it. I was the editor who proposed one of the detailed procedures for arriving at a decision, and it is from my proposals that the evidence tables were drawn up. I made use of a variety of techniques I had had experience of using in an academic context to decide between different possibilities in somewhat similar circumstances. I did not spell out the detailed decision-making process, as I thought it was important to provide a well-defined structure within which to obtained evidence for the different issues thrown up by analyzing the nature of the dispute in the ways I suggested in my proposal on ]. In the prior uses of this technique, the detailed examination of the evidence in the structured and teased-out manner I describe often led to an obvious solution, so that little if no formal decision making between parties who had differing opinions at that time was required. In the other cases, the situations had been sufficiently well-analyzed that a consensus view was reasonably quickly obtained, and all was well. Of course, if the full procedure, or a modification of it, were adopted here, then we cannot guarantee that this dispute will be so tractable, but it could well be that asking for consensus, and, if that is not forthcoming, some outside considered opinion may be the way forward (I think voting would see people merely falling back into entrenched positions if they knew that voting was "on the cards" at some point, so to speak.) Sorry for this intrusion, as I said, if it is improper, please delete it and carry on as if I hadn't posted this message. ] ] 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
: Oh, by any means, this is not improper at all. I am very happy with the “Solution table for problem(s) Mk II”, and I appreciate your role in creating them. It was my plan to, as soon as we agree ''how'' to make decisions, to move this toward being agreed. (If decisionmaking consist of having ArbCom make the decisions, I planned to propose it to them. If it is up to the panel, then Edokter, myself, and the expected third person would discuss this among ourselves. If decisions are to be made by the community, I would post Mk II on the project page (]) as a motion, and go from there.) | |||
: It is a new idea to me that the table itself may already reduce the need for formalized decision making. That may be worth a try. This will be one of the first things we will discuss among the panel. — ] 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I may have been a little unclear in what I wrote: the evidence table is important, but my view was (and still is) that it must be embedded in a set of procedures that systematically organize and search out, and then critically evaluate, evidence for the various claims of arguments that underpin each possible solution. What I suggested is that this could be done within the framework I outlined in ]. It could be taken on it own, or combined with a related set of proposals by MickMacNee. It would minimize the amount of uncoordinated presentation of solutions with support of differing and uncertain power in which all kinds of spurious claims and counter-claims could easily go by and be accepted uncritically, thereby resulting in a sub-optimal solution to the overall problem or problems. So, the context in which the various tables were placed and proposed to be used should be taken into account: they only appeared at that stage in the discussion to give an idea of what would be required and that the stages seemed feasible, though we did not progress too far in "roughing out" the technique. ] ] 09:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::: The MKII proposal table from the other article is a good one to use and covers all of the options available. I still think asking people to vote on the option they most strongly oppose or ranking each of the options in order of preference is the only solution. A simple support vote for one of the options will be a waste of time as it will be completly divided like on many occasions before. <small>paragraph deleted</small> ] (]) 10:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::: I deleted off-topic discussion, as this is the section for "Options for decisionmaking", and not about who prefers what name. Please wait till we get to that, and then repost in the correct context. — ] 17:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::An option has been overlooked so far. Some confusion is encountered in relation to statistical info on the republic. People are presenting statistics that are specific to the Republic of Ireland as specific to Ireland. This appears like so:- ]. "Ireland" superimposed over the link to the ROI title. As set out in ], describing the republic is best done without ambiguity. Discussion on preference does little to address this so far. ~ ].].] 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::For what it's worth i found the evidence tables very helpful and it something i would like to see more of ] (]) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
I am unclear as to what has been resolved. Please summarise. ] (]) 12:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
: I'm taking the "resolved" tag away for now. I think this section is resolved because we boiled down the gist of this discussion into two proposals, which are up for discussion at ]. Do you feel there is anything we forgot? — ] 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Form of discussion== | |||
Another option I have been contemplating is the form of a closed debate; see ]. '''Please reply here''' with your thought. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Agreements == | |||
Upon rereading the above, I see a common thread among all messages posted here so far. Is my impression correct that all agree on the following: | |||
* '''A1''' We want to avoid voting. | |||
* '''A2''' We want to make decisions in consensus. | |||
To make this workable, we need to say when consensus is reached, and what happens when consensus is not reached. When I mediate, I am fortunate enough that people usually trust my judgment on this. However, since we are a panel now, we may need to write some rules for that, too. I will propose it on ]. | |||
Since there was no objection to the Mk II procedure when it was proposed at ], it seems that there is agreement, too. I therefore propose the following: | |||
* '''A3''' We will first follow the Mk II procedure. | |||
*:: <small>DDStretch, or any other member who is up to the task, can you please copy the procedure from ] to our project page ], with the preliminary note "proposed procedure", so people see what they're agreeing with?</small> | |||
Also, the following is a combination of Gnevin's and DDStretch's ideas, with some addition by me: | |||
* '''A4''' Upon request, (when someone fears that consensus may not be reached within a reasonable time), the moderator panel will set an appropriate time limit, after which some outside considered opinion will decide the question. | |||
Finally, I would like to see if there is an objection to the following agreement: | |||
* '''A5''' A unanimous decision by moderator panel counts as outside opinion. | |||
— ] 08:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
=== Pessimism === | |||
: I disagree with A1 and A2. There is opposition to voting because of the way votes have been conducted in the past on this issue which have not produced any results as its always been divided. The MKII proposal table lays out all the options and gives us a way of ranking all the options in order of preference as was proposed by someone on the Ireland talk page some weeks ago. If we ranked the options then it would make progress, unlike a simple support vote for which one has the most support that is never going to work as so many feel strongly against two of the options. | |||
: It is going to be impossible to reach a consensus through discussion on this matter, its been gone over so many times in the past people have nightmares on this issue. If theres not going to be some form of voting or ranking then we may aswell just skip to A4 and A5 to let the moderator panel decide. ] (]) 10:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: Actually, it is not the same. You're overlooking one important difference. We will not accept opinions or simple contradictions. I am planning to propose (pending the other moderator's approval) to evaluate the arguments based on their value in the pyramid <s>to the right</s> at ]. Seeing how often people accused each other of ] arguments, that will make a substantial difference. If you need more evidence that it is possible, consider that we have employed a simple version of this for two years with about 80% success rate at ]. We shall see what the other moderators say, but I think I refuted your objection. It will ''not'' be impossible. — ] 10:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::: Well i hope you are right, There are strong arguments on both sides for two of the options. Holding the discussion is going to help inform the moderators panel on which option is the best solution so i agree it needs to be done, <s>but i still think consensus will not be reached and we will have to wait for a ruling by the panel unless we can eliminate the two highly controversial options.</s> ] (]) 11:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::: I struck out part of the statement that is a pure personal opinion, which is not backed up. — ] 11:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::: Sorry, time will tell i guess. My comment was based on the past debates and attempts to resolve this problem which have always shown strong support and strong opposition to two of the options. Anyway im not against the method you suggested i think its just going to end up having to go to A4/A5 but perhaps im too pessimistic. ] (]) 11:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::: I'm the person who drafted the MkII proposal, and I did so in the basis that it could be used as a tool for focusing consensus based agreement, or as a framework on which to host a poll. I actually favored a poll of justified preference, where one would express an order of preference and justify why (to avoid IDONTLIKEITs). The closing admin (or panel) would then balance the justified preferences to find that which is most acceptable to everyone. I favored this because I agree with BritishWatcher that A1 and A2, while ideal, is unlikely to succeed based on empirical evidence. That said, perhaps with a more formal moderating framework things will be different this time. Time will indeed tell. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: I'm sorry, I am really getting annoyed by people who say "It won't work" without showing any evidence - in the face of overwhelming evidence of dozens of cases we resolved in the Sri Lanka conflict. Just look at ] and its archives; you will find that the majority of issues got resolved quickly; at least as long as there was there a moderator around. While Ireland is not Sri Lanka, this is the only evidence we have of a similar situation that actually worked. And even if we had a mix of good and bad evidence, wouldn't it still be worth a try? | |||
:::::::: I certainly don't want to discourage you from voicing constructive criticism, and you have already been very constructive so far. The reason why I felt I needed to put it so bluntly is this: The other day, I heard a radio feature about a psychological experiment, in which they gave three or four people a task to solve together. One of them was an actor, who played three different roles: (a) A slacker (b) an aggressive egocentric, and (c) a whiner who kept saying things like "We won't make it". They found that all three had overproportional effects on the performance of the group, but the whiner was worst. | |||
:::::::: Anyway: I'm actually grateful for all you've done: I like the Mk II proposal and I'm happy that you put your proposal on the project page. | |||
:::::::: I also think that your proposal of a poll of justified preference has merits; but there are two reasons why I'm currently not all for it: (1) I haven't seen any evidence for it to work in a situation like this, and more importantly, (2) most project members seem to agree that they don't want voting and polls. If you can sell it to them, I won't object; I will be very interested to learn a methodology that's new to me. — ] 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::::: I think the reason for our pessimism its rather self evident. That there was nothing near consensus the previous n times this was tried; if it had we wouldn't be here! Furthermore, this particular disagreement is just the latest in what is very likely the most persistent, bitter, entrenched and wide-ranging ethocentric dispute on wp:en. I'm sure I can speak on behalf of the few of admins have been attempting to deal with this for, literally, years when I say its very difficult to imagine those entrenched editors moving from their entrenched positions. That said, I take your point about dominant negative effects on problem solving. I don't mean to whine: I hope this strategy does pay off, and am certainly willing to get fully and enthusiastically involved. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 03:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
(unindent) No, it's not a reason. It's a ''cause''. I empathize with that; pessimism is a completely normal human reaction in such cases. But we got here because people's normal reactions have failed us so far. We're caught in a ]: One bad situation ''causes'' another, which eventually reinforces the first. The only way to break out of this is by fighting the ''causes'' with ''reason''. | |||
That's why I'm so stubbornly demanding ''reasons'' from people, instead of opinions. This will apply to the Ireland naming question when we get to it, but it also applies to people's pessimism. — ] 04:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
: Fair enough. A major reason it may not work is because a proportion of those people involved have no interest in achieving that. There is plenty of evidence of this on the talk page (for example, the refusal to even discuss any option than their preference). Ultimately everyone is not going to get what they want. Until people accept that and be willing to compromise, then all the moderation in the world will not help. There are ways around this obstacle (by marginalizing those people from the decision making process), but this entire process rather requires participants have a willingness to work towards consensus rather than simply expressing a preference for it as a mechanism. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 07:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: Very good points! I agree with your observation that there are relatively few cases of embracing at least a grain of good in options other than one's preference. I also agree that that can be a sign that people are not willing to achieve a working solution. But it can also just be because people honestly can't believe that there ''is'' a working solution. It's hard to distinguish. From your talk with me so far, I am confident that you're an example for the second group. You are also right that marginalization by success can do the trick - but it requires that those who are willing to cooperate are the majority, and that they don't get discouraged by the coalition of the uncooperative and the pessimistic. Your last sentence makes me aware of a distinction we need to make. Of course, we can not achieve consensus just by writing "consensus" on our banners. That's what I meant by "reasonable consensus": ] (as assessed using Graham's pyramid) is our tool, and consensus is the goal that we will reach with its help. — ] 08:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::I am still worried about a permature leap to getting people to express an opinion about the overall solution when not enough time has been spent specifying the problem clearly, and then gathering evidence and critically examining and assessing that evidence. <small>Part of reply by ] ] 08:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC). Rest of text moved to section ]</small> | |||
:::: Did you even read what I wrote two paragraphs above? What part of "''reasons'', not ''opinions''" don't you understand? — ] 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::Yes, Of course I did. I was emphasizing the matter and making the point that a relatively well-worked out method had been proposed before (which I had already mentioned a while ago on here), but which had been seemingly buried in the general mass of edits. Sorry if you felt peeved (I got that from the phrasing you used in your second sentence), but I do not consider that the necessary steps that I think need to be carried out had been thought through enough here yet, even though there was talk of reasons and evidence. I was merely supplying the link to a process that had been the subject of much discussion on the original talk page, and with which I have had experience of real life use, and which, as I said, had been mentioned on here, but seemingly forgotten about. Sorry if that irritated you, and I will withdraw completely from this process if you feel it is not helpful for me to make these points in this discussion. ] ] 00:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Another proposal == | |||
I still return to the original procedure that I suggested which resulted in the tables (including the evidence tables) being produced, and which I know is grounded in techniques that have been used in the past with success. It is given in ] and its 10 steps I include now as a summary: | |||
# Step One: Specify what the problem is. (This is something to do with the content of the article named ], with related issues to do with the names of articles that deal with the state of Ireland and the island of Ireland if certain decisions about the content of Ireland are decided upon. | |||
#Step Two: List all the possible solutions that have been proposed to solve the problem. | |||
#Step Three: Muster all arguments and claims in support of each argument that have a bearing on the solution to the problem. So, if one claim is that Ireland as the state has primacy, then list that claim. | |||
#Step Four: In a table, indicate whether each argument and/or claim identified in Step Three would '''support''', would '''undermine''', or would be '''neutral''' about each of the solutions identified in Step Two. Do not try to identify, until the next stage, the kind of evidence that would allow us to see whether the claims and arguments are valid or not. | |||
#Step Five: Identify what kind of '''evidence''' would count as "good evidence" or "strong evidence" in favour of each of the claims identified and classified in Steps Three and Four. List them. | |||
#Step Six: Try to find the specific evidence identified in Step Five and provide it in the table by means of suitable footnotes or other means. | |||
#Step Seven: Do a final round of discussion (not voting) about the ''quality'' of the evidence found in Step Six. This represents an overall "quality control" of the evidence. | |||
#Step Eight: Under the more direct guidance of the independant administrators assigned to this task by ArbCom, consider the possible '''ways''' in which the different verified claims could be combined together as objectively as possible to arrive at an overall decision about which of the possible solutions identified in Step Two has the greatest support in the literature and in the argument. Identify these '''aggregation strategies''' and list them so all can see them. (There are a number of standard strategies within the expert literature about this sometimes classified under the scheme "Multiattribute decision making".) | |||
#Step Nine: Discuss which of the aggregation strategies identified in Step Eight seems to be the best one to use in the light of wikipedia's policies of undue weight, not being run by votes, and so on. If necessary, list the relevant wikipedia policies and evaluate each strategy on the relevant policies to come to an overall idea of this. This might require an opinion poll. The output of this stage is the aggregation method to be used. | |||
#Step Ten: Implement the aggregation strategy. The output of this is the solution to the problem. | |||
We roughed out a way up to step 2 as a means of seeing how feasible it was, but people thought we were "jumping the gun" a bit, and so it petered out. You will note that it lays great store by the gathering and mustering of evidence and reasoned critical examination of it, which I think has been done in a somehat uncontrolled way so far. In effect, it lays out a plan of action to achieve a well-specified goal, and it reduces the otherwise dominating role of assessing people's opinions in an uncontrolled manner, which is a situation where entrenched positions and unreasonable reasons can prosper. I still think we need to explicitly return to a procedure very like it. ] ] 08:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not pessimistic, and I've stayed away a week or so being busy. I've read all this page. Um. When is something going to happen? -- ]·] 09:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Cascading levels of agreement=== | |||
I’d like to suggest a simple description of a “cascading” process for decision making that might be helpful. The cascade is straightforward. If you can’t achieve the highest and most desirable outcome, you go on to the next one, ''et seq.'' until a decision is reached. From top down the sequence is; | |||
*a) Unanimity. The most desirable outcome. Highly unlikely in the present circumstances, but included for completion. | |||
*b) Consensus of Collaboration Project members. Now, the trouble here is that ] seems to carefully avoid being specific about what this means (as opposed to what it doesn't mean). In my experience it tends to involve anything over a 60/40 majority being so described. For the purposes of this collaboration, something more specific may be helpful. | |||
**b i) I have seen a definition along the lines of – “consensus is reached when everyone either agrees that the proposal is the best outcome, or, although not being so minded, agrees to go along with it”. Let’s call this “full consensus” for the lack of an obvious shorthand. | |||
**b ii) A definition more in line with the spirit of ] but more rigorously defined might be “consensus is reached when 75% of those taking part can support the proposal.” Note that this does not necessarily mean the 75% all think it is the best idea, and that more than one proposal could, in theory, reach this threshold. We might call this “consensus”. The 75% figure is in some sense arbitrary, but it would mean that any minority view would have to be outnumbered 3:1 (rather than by 1%) for any proposal to pass. | |||
*c) A majority voting. I include this for completeness too. | |||
*d) Arbitration i.e. determined by the moderator panel. Clearly unanimity here would be ideal and command the greatest respect, but in principle the same cascade above could apply. | |||
The above is a broad description. To summarise my own view, the process could be: | |||
*1) Unanimity, failing that | |||
*2) Full consensus, failing that | |||
*3) A consensus of 75% level of support, failing that, | |||
*4) Arbitration. | |||
Sebastian above suggests that the mediation panel decide when consensus is reached. I think that’s fine when it comes to deciding what does and does not count as a valid input, because there may be all kinds of nonsense such as sock-puppetry and name-calling going on, and I’d be more than happy to accept this. However, I’d like to know a bit more about the basis on which this consensus might be defined. I accept that 75% could be some other preferred number, and that ideally this should not be a numbers game, at all. However, I think clarity is helpful, otherwise there is a lot of room for confusion and contributors experiencing what was being described as consensus as just arbitration by another name. ] ]] 17:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
: I see two related problems with this list: | |||
:# It does not take into account the discussion above, which yielded in proposal to consider outside opinion. | |||
:# Most of its options are votes, which does not address the overall unease with votes here. | |||
: I agree that I was not clear about how to use Graham's pyramid to assess "consensus", and I understand that that caused you some pain, trying to get a hold of what "consensus" means. It just occurs to me that, given the confusion about the term "consensus", it would be better if we gave a distinctive name to consensus achieved by assessing reasons. Let me call it "reasonable consensus". I will initiate a discussion about this in a separate section ] later today. (Past midnight UTC, I'm afraid.) — ] 18:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::#Unless I have misunderstood something, arbitration = consider outside opinion. | |||
::#It is not in any way an attempt to be a comprehensive description of the process, but rather of how decisions are reached when that is required. | |||
::# To be clear, I am not (currently) experiencing pain - rather I am trying to avoid any for all concerned in future by attempting to find a greater degree of clarity than may currently exist. I look forward to reading the "reasonable consensus" material in due course. ] ]] 19:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::: I hope you're not disappointed, as there isn't much to write about. It’s basically just that people trust me when I say "this is not a reason, it's just an opinion. Please provide a reliable source for it." That is only possible due to the mutual trust we enjoy at ]. That grew organically over the course of at least a month before we even started the project, and then it took two years until the last person came aboard. Of course, since we don't want to wait months or years, that is not an option here. I was hoping that I'd enjoy similar trust here due to ArbCom's recommendation, but that may not be the case. (See ] above.) I'm still thinking about how to formalize this; maybe the best would be to use Graham's pyramid; what do you think? — ] 08:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::I think the pyramid is a potentially very valuable tool. If it has a disadvantage it may be that what is my well-sourced refutation might be your poorly researched and largely irrelevant comment. As I am sure you can imagine, it is possible that this is the sort of territory it may be necessary to negotiate. To me, the advantage of being more objective about what we mean by "consensus" is that it may then be harder for those who don't subscribe to it to cry "foul". Perhaps not. I am not attached to any of the above, which I offer purely in a spirit of attempting to be helpful. If it isn't so, feel free to ignore it. ] ]] 12:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::: You are right, this is a potential problem, and it deserves further consideration. Please remember, though, that we won't have the old "he-says-she-says" anymore. We're here as moderators. I think I can say for both of us that we're honestly trying to be fair. My hunch is that it is hard for any group to agree on specific criteria for terms such as "well-sourced", "refutation", and "relevant". We have a better chance for success if we make best use of moderators: Use moderators' judgment as a first approximation, and ensure that moderators remain accountable. I am, as an admin, already open for recall, and I am just as open to take back any individual decisions I make here. I promise to examine every criticism, and I ultimately submit all my actions to the scrutiny of the other moderator(s) and ArbCom. — ] 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Publicity / notice== | |||
Could I ask the appointed mediators to widely advertise the existence of this project and more importantly the tasks at hand of deciding on a mechanism for Ireland-related-article-naming and following through on that mechanism till a decision is arrived at? ]<sup>]</sup> 10:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
: I think we should wait with that until the moderator panel is complete and agrees on its task, because we're not really operational yet. I am sorry, it was my mistake to already announce this at ]; I just thought I could take advantage of the momentum there and get this project going. I also don't see a need to advertize this much further than at ]. My reason for that is that I believe that people who are really interested in Ireland have either the article or the project on their watchlist. If you disagree, please provide a reason that refutes this point. — ] 11:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::While probably most people will see it at ], the issue has previously been debated extensively in other places, including, off the top of my head, ] and especially ]. If we're to have "closure" on the issue arising from whatever is decided, I believe we should have as many participants as possible. No problem holding off for the moment until the panel is complete. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::: Sounds reasonable. Unless there are any objections, let's go with that. — ] 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::'''Yes, can we please have more formal and clear announcements?''' One of the problems with the last "polls" was that one of them was conducted in ]. To the closing admin, it looked like it was a proper location and widely contributed to project but to the community it was a contested space. | |||
:::This project was unknown of before the announcement that the Ireland/Republic of Ireland dispute would move on to this theatre (see: and ). It didn't even have any members! | |||
:::I am also worried about word above that discussion will only take place between the "members" of a project. As an IP-based contributor, by "membership" of a project would be a tenuous concept since I have no username to sign them membership list. --] (]) 13:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::: Maybe we should start publicizing this already despite the panel not being complete. Are there any objections? Maybe we could have wording along these lines: "While the main process has not begun yet, as our panel is not complete yet, we would like to invite people to help in preparing and selecting the process." {{interrupted|SebastianHelm}} | |||
=== Of voting, IP addresses, and fire === | |||
''The following discussion spun off from a reply to 89.101.216.172's message of 13:14, 1 February 2009'' | |||
However, please note that the past problems with votes won't repeat, since we won't be voting on this question this time.<br> | |||
About your name: You can also contribute with an IP address. But if you want to be a member, why don't you not sign up with a user name? Contributing with your IP address is actually even less anonymous. There are so many nice user names still available! How about ]? I bet you'd become a very eloquent contributor with that name! — ] 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I'd hold fire until everything is in place. (re: ] ... thanks but no thanks. I'd prefer not to.) --] (]) 22:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: Well, that's up to you. We're all volunteers here. But if you choose to not participate putting things in place now, please don't fire at them later. — ] 17:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Clarify: I meant for us all to hold fire until the panel was complete. --] (]) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::: I find the whole talk of "fire" somewhat disturbing. The reason why this was escalated to ArbCom was precisely that people were not able to solve this with the mindset of firing at each other. The whole point of having mediators is to move people from a mindset of ''fight'' to a mindset of ''cooperation''. We have a problem, and we want to solve it together. We don't need a third mediator to clarify what matters to each of us at ]. Again, I invite you to participate constructively. If you choose not to, and you come back later to fire at the result of a cooperation of the community, then it will not be tolerated. — ] 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::: - no more, no less. You say, "Maybe we should start publicizing this already despite the panel not being complete" I say, "I'd hold fire until everything is in place." (= "I'd wait until everything is in place.") --] (]) 01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::: OK, sorry about the misunderstanding! — ] 00:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
== How to get there? == | |||
: ''This section is for proposals how to achieve our goals, once we agree on the ]. For now, I'm also moving a message here that was apparently posted under the assumption that we already have that agreement.'' | |||
: <small>''the following is part of a reply to ]:''</small> | |||
:: Agree with BritishWatcher, but I would add that it is critical that Arbcom engage with the nature of evidence presented. This is not a matter of majority votes etc. The mediators also need either direct, or easy access to people with deep knowledge of the political and social history here who have not engaged so far. ] and ] come to mind, both admins, both disengaged from the debates but with knowledge of the subtleties. It should also be noted that we have some of the same issues (and editors) as resulted in Arbcom sanctions over the Troubles. --] <small>]</small> 11:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
::: I understand your first sentence to mean that you want us all to consider evidence, as opposed to counting votes. This has been discussed at ], and I think the consensus is clearly with you. By "Arbcom", I assume you mean moderators. To my knowledge, there is no plan for direct ArbCom engagement. | |||
::: Thank you for the pointer to ] and ]. Ideally, I would like them to contribute here. It sounds like they would be good candidates for the open moderator position? | |||
::: I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence. — ] 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::: Yes I meant the moderators - thanks for the correction. I dn;t think you will get either to accept the third position, but please try! However I think they might be prepared to act as advisors and they have considerable knowledge of the issues. In respect of the last sentence there has been a series of issues with a range of Irish articles such as those on the Troubles, the Provisional IRA and many others. The net result was Arbcom placed specific sanctions on several authors, including some active on this issue. I made the point as I think (sorry to suggest this) that you might want to have a look there to see the level of passion and intractability of some of the problems involved. --] <small>]</small> 01:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::: Thank you for the clarifications! Would you have a link to the sanctions? I don't see them at ]. — ] 02:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Snowded is probably referring to ] and ]. Beware, though, to read them all the way through (particularly the former) is soul destroying. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 02:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::: Thank you for the links. And for the warning - I'll put on some uplifting music to make the soul want to remain in my body. :-) — ] 03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::: Actually, this is what I expected, and why I accepted the nomination as a moderator. It is about as bad as the Sri Lanka situation was before we started SLR. Interestingly, now I remember that back then, it wasn't easy to get people to join in, too. Admittedly, one big difference that made it easier then is that we had much more time. Before the project itself, I was mediator in a related case (]), and I remember how hard it was for me to even get a single person to speak for one side of the conflict. I think that was, similarly to this case, because many people were still licking their wounds. There had been all sorts of RfCs and such, and some people had been permanently banned. (I'm not too sure about all this, since that happened before my time.) Anyway, our list of warnings became much shorter (although admittedly part of that is because eventually people stopped the practice), and we're ] anymore. — ] 04:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: can I suggest you try Götterdämmerung but the interpretation which sees it as redemption through sacrifice, freed from the tyranny of Gods etc. Given that we have had interpretations of the Ring which take it into the Stalin's psychology hospitals, one situated in Ireland in the closing decades of the last century is only a matter of time. It is as Rockpocket says pretty soul destroying but I would have hope. Just tell us what you need us to do and apologies for not providing the diffs. --] <small>]</small> 08:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
== The end of the world == | |||
== Move: Republic of Ireland → Ireland (country) == | |||
We are going through the worst economic crisis any of us have ever experienced; scientists say we're heading towards a climate catastrophe from which we will not recover for the next thousand years, and people here say they're experiencing a ] - a war of the gods which brings about the ]. | |||
{{atop}} | |||
As an Irish citizen, I was shocked and surprised to find that the title of the Misplaced Pages page for my country does not bear the actual name of my country. | |||
I agree that Ireland, the island, pre-dates the establishment of either state on the island and therefore the article "Ireland" should refer to the island. The use of parenthetical disambiguation is a fair, accurate and unbiased solution. | |||
Well, it would be a bit of an exaggeration to say the end of the world is near just because we have some economical and ecological problems. The world will live on. So what is it that brings about such gloom? Drum roll, please ... | |||
Any reference to "The Republic of Ireland Act 1948" in relation to the name of the country is irrelevant, as the act made no reference to the name of the country and the name is clearly defined in the Irish constitution of 1937 and no subsequent amendment has changed the name. https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#part2 | |||
It should also be noted that since the 2009 poll on this topic, Misplaced Pages has introduced auto suggest in the search field on the homepage. When a user enters the word “Ireland” into the search field the country is not in the list of suggested articles, as it is currently identified by a reference that is obscure to most. ] (]) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC) (]) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Introducing ... | |||
:{{tpq|As an Irish citizen, I was shocked and surprised to find that the title of the Misplaced Pages page for my country does not bear the actual name of my country.}} Why? '''Most''' countries aren't at their official name on Misplaced Pages. Very, very few 'state' articles actually reside at the official name of the state in question - see, e.g.: ], ], ], ], and ] - all doing well at page titles other than the official. "Ireland" is also the name of the island, which doesn't have a natural disambiguator. "Republic of Ireland" is a natural disambiguator for the state and is its official description. This has worked perfectly well both before and after the ]. If you read through ''that'', and the archives of this page, and can still then bring something new to the table, then of course it can be discussed - ] can change. But if your argument is solely that this isn't the name of the state, that won't serve to change anything. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
The Ireland naming question! | |||
::Thanks for pointing me towards the historical discussion on this topic, it made for fascinating, yet disappointing, reading. I would counter that the current naming isn't working, as requests for change are made so frequently, much to the chagrin of mods. | |||
::What surprised me (and offends others) is the simple fact that the name of the country is Ireland and that Misplaced Pages does not reflect that (internationally recognised) fact. Very few other countries actually bother to define their name in their constitution, yet Ireland clearly has, in both Irish and English. | |||
::For 85 years, this self-determination has been undermined by anti-Irish elements in an attempt to delegitimise the country, hence many Irish people balk at the forced imposition of the name "Republic Of Ireland". This delegitimisation is further perpetuated across Misplaced Pages as users link to a description rather than a country ( I know ] does have a guideline to use <nowiki>]</nowiki> when linking, but in practice that is unlikely to happen as many casual editors will just copy the title of the Ireland article). | |||
::All of the states you mentioned above have been afforded the respect of redirecting from their official title to their respective articles. | |||
::The argument that using "Republic Of Ireland" as the name is weak, as it is akin to using "Sparkling Soft Drink with Vegetable Extracts" in place of Coca-Cola to distinguish it from Pepsi, as both are official descriptions. | |||
::In my opinion, parenthetical disambiguation of "Ireland (country)" is a fair, balanced, inoffensive and factual disambiguator for the page. There is precedence in the disambiguation between ] and ], even with there already being a natural disambiguation as the official title of the US state is "State Of Georgia". ] (]) 13:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::The most persuasive of your arguments is the one regarding the search field in the opening comment, but here you undermine your own position by posting an absurd and unsubstantiated rant in your third paragraph that reveals more about your own prejudices and bias than other people's and writing logically incoherent nonsense in the fifth and sixth paragraphs. ] and ] are disambiguated and ] covers both. No article is at ]. ] and ] are disambiguated and ] covers both. No article is at ]. ] is a state. ] (]) 14:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::The clearest examples of attempts to undermine the constitutional name of Ireland are by the British government in both the Eire Act 1938<ref>{{cite web | title=Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act, 1938 | url=https://vlex.co.uk/vid/eire-confirmation-of-agreements-808327717}}</ref> and the Ireland Act 1949<ref>{{cite web | title=Ireland Act 1949 | url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/41/enacted}}</ref>, neither of which acknowledged the name of Ireland. These choices were politically motivated as there was still a degree of animosity between the newly independent Ireland and the former empire at the time. This position has subsequently changed<ref>{{cite web | title=Country names: The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British official use | url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/country-names/country-names-the-permanent-committee-on-geographical-names-for-british-official-use}}</ref>. | |||
::::@] As for the Coke/Pespi example, just like your "Island in the Atlantic Ocean" example, it is absurd and was made to highlight how irrespective of how official a description is, it is not the name. | |||
::::That aside, it would be good to discuss the negative impact the page title has on the discoverability/usability in the search field. ] (]) 16:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
The work that editors and moderators do on Misplaced Pages is fantastic and I appreciate it very much. | |||
I'm sure many are jaded by this topic rearing it's head so frequently and are reluctant to entertain a change to the status quo. | |||
Thirteen years have past since the last major debate over the naming of the articles, yet the issue keeps coming up as many see it as factually incorrect and it can no longer be dismissed as recently established consensus. | |||
Building a consensus is obviously the only way a change can be made here. | |||
May I ask, who determines that consensus has changed? ] (]) 21:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:The community. As you can see in the archives here the subject has come up many times. No new information seems to be raised in the conversations and they always (to date) end with the same consensus. There was even an attempt on this very page in the section immediately above, where the proposal was completely shot down. Now ] but it also doesn't have to change. I have zero issues with people re-opening the conversation and trying to alter or establish a new consensus, just as long as it isn't continuously happening. ] ] 21:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::I did see that it was recently discussed but the topic had been closed so was unable to reply within context. | |||
::As a relatively inexperienced contributor to Misplaced Pages (historically only making small additions), this WikiProject is quite an obscure corner of the platform that many users do not know about, but is a great way to discuss and gain agreement for changes. | |||
::Coupled with how intimidating it can be to new editors when an admin or moderator dismisses their suggestion, it's no surprise as to why the topic of fixing the title of ] is destined to always be classified as ]. | |||
::Might I suggest that, given the frequency of contributions on this matter, a topic be left permanently open for discussion? ] (]) 17:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::{{ping|Cashew.wheel}} You seem to be under a number of misconceptions here. 1) There is no position of "moderator" on Misplaced Pages, so {{tq|requests for change are made so frequently, much to the chagrin of mods}}, for example, makes no sense. 2) There is a position of administrator, but nobody has taken any admin action in the discussions here or at ] or ]. All that has happened is that other users like yourself have put forward their views, countering your arguments – not dismissing them. 3) Discussions like the three above end up as WP:SNOW because a great majority of those who take the trouble to ] are opposed to any move (8–1 in the most recent move request), not because "new editors" are "intimidated" against !voting. 4) The topic ''is'' left permanently open for discussion; otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it now. An individual ''thread'' is closed when there has been no additions for a reasonable amount of time, as was the case in the three threads above. Not a misapprehension as such, but I completely disagree that the name "Ireland" {{tq|has been undermined by anti-Irish elements in an attempt to delegitimise the country}}, that ROI is imposed by force (by whom?), that many Irish people "balk" at it, or indeed that Irish people in general find it offensive in the real world. For this reason, as well as all the reasons given above, I am opposed to any change in the status quo. ] (]) 14:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::@] Thanks for clarifying about editors, admins and topics. I am new to discussing edits and as such am unfamiliar with the terminology, process and etiquette (I didn't even know to sign my first comment). I was not accusing anyone of intimidation, just noting that it can be intimidating for new editors to engage on a talk page with more seasoned editors who reply with terms, conventions, history and even markdown that they are unfamiliar with and may be put off from returning to contribute more. | |||
::::I have found the editor community welcoming and fair when engaging in constructive, albeit repetitive, discussion. | |||
::::The only case that I know of where the term "Republic Of Ireland" was actually forced on an Irish entity, is the 1953 ruling by FIFA on the name of teams fielded by the Football Association Of Ireland.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.fai.ie/domestic/news/fai-history-chapter-6-%E2%80%93-fifa-rules-on-irish-issue| title=FIFA rules on Irish issue}}</ref>. Other none-forced cases referred to the refusal of the British government to acknowledge the official name of the country until the late 1990s, the downstream impact that had on reporting by the media and thus the spread of the use of the incorrect name of the country. | |||
::::We can agree to disagree as to the degree as to proportion of the population that might take offence, it is subjective after all. ] (]) 17:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
*The country's official description is "Republic of Ireland" and as someone in England I'd not even known the country's actual (short) name was just "Ireland" until I came across this debate in 2017. Many countries have official descriptions that aren't in common usage like ] and aren't really ambiguous so we use the official (short) name namely ]. ''']''' (]) 17:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
==Opposition to name change== | |||
''Shudder!!!'' | |||
{{atop|result=Discussion ended: closed to allow eventual archiving. ] (]) 17:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)}} | |||
Forgive me but its time to finally call this out. But it seems from looking at the history of the wiki contributors who object to having the above change, 99% of them come from a British nationalist persuasion judging by many of their edit history and interactions, and are completely unimpartial in this regard. | |||
I question the validity and feasbility of WikiProject Ireland now as it has clearly been hijacked by British nationalist and Northern Ireland unionist/loyalist editors projecting their political agenda and bias on an encyclopedia, as evidenced by the proposed requested move hiding behind "consensus" (between themselves) and "previous discussions" (agreed amongst themselves) they have become the gate-keepers now of this project and topic. Many Irish editors have simply given up on this project and can't be bothered dealing with this project anymore. This has clearly escaped the attention of the Arbritration Committee who should intervene in this issue and that of the move discussion on 'Ireland'. It seems like some radical Irish republicans and British nationalists have something in common by opposing the usage of the term Ireland also in that regard, leaving all the reasonable people scratching their heads. ] (]) 11:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
People, ''please!!'' Wake up!<br> | |||
:All is forgiven. ooOOOh I do love a good conspiracy theory. Go on then, don't be a tease - give us more juicy facts / examples of hijacking. ] (]) 12:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
The world doesn't revolve around you! | |||
::At least this question of its hijacking is out in the open now. Hardly a conspiracy theory when its so obvious to outside observers who will read and dig through the history and discussion on all this. I think everyone who wants to look can look at editors' like yourself and this project's contribution and talk history, same with the Ireland page, can judge for themselves and agree. At least on wikipedia people can see everything if they want to search. :) ] (]) 12:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::Ooooh I do love a good title that has to wrap, even on a desktop. Succinctness is overrated. ] (]) 12:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::You're welcome. ] (]) 12:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::<small>The prevtious heading for this section was {{tq|Hijacking of the WikiIreland Project by British Nationalists + Opposition to name-change to 'Ireland' (actual name of country) from 'Republic of Ireland' (description)}}. I changed it to {{tq|Opposition to name change}} on 9 December. ] (]) 11:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
:While I welcome support for a change of consensus on the name of Ireland, the aggressive, confrontational tone is not going to achieve anything. Also by not being a user, you lack accountability & credibility. ] (]) 12:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
::I have had an account for many years, but it was inactive for a while and cannot remember my log in details and username anyway so I stopped using it (I am not a sockpuppet a CheckUser will confirm that), me being a user or IP shouldn't matter anyway as the point still stands, the tone may be considered aggressive and confrontational by some, but when bad faith and political bias interfere with encyclopedic work and its impartiality then assertiveness is required to address it, I am sure any reasonable and impartial reader here would agree with that statement. ] (]) 12:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::Oooohh I '''do''' love a good stream-of-consciousness paragraph. Punctuation is overrated. ] (]) 13:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
:Ooooh I do love a good conspiracy theory. Let's have the evidence shall we? ] ] 13:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
::The proof is in the pudding as they say, you and the editors with British nationalist sentiments who are all over the WikiIreland project and oppose Ireland having an article being referred to by its actual name is amongst the evidence. Why don't you rename the France article "the Republic of France' or Spain 'the Kingdom of Spain' while you are at it? ] (]) 15:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm not a British nationalist, I fully expect a United Ireland in my lifetime, something I never thought I'd see but the UK shot itself in the foot on that one. Do not make such attacks on other editors. My only objection to having the country at Ireland is that that is where the island is and the island is the primary topic. We prefer not to have clumsy brackets in topic names if it can be avoided such as Ireland (state). Thankfully the Irish government and legislation gave us a very handy disambiguation alternative. (Plus almost every single country on Misplaced Pages is not at the country's actual name, not the United States of America, not the Commonwealth of Australia, not the State of Israel, not the Republic of Korea and not even the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.) Not a single person on here denies that the name of the country is Ireland. And as I've clearly stated many times, consensus can change but nothing new has been brought to the table to result in enough of a discussion to alter that consensus. It's hardly anyone here's fault that when they formed the country they choose the same name as the island it was on despite not being all of the island. ] ] 15:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::Additionally stop accusing other editors of being nationalist editors and gatekeepers, if you continue with that you will be blocked for personal attacks. ] ] 15:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::Feels a bit disingenuous to compare - I believe some of those list acceptable alternatives and none of those were imposed on them by former colonial overlords (who still occupy territory!) despite decades of trying to stop that former overlord using the incorrect name. | |||
::::Republic of Ireland isn't an alternative name, it's a description of the state. As far as I knew Misplaced Pages generally uses accurate names instead of descriptions of things - is that not for the text in an article? ] (]) 03:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::I am forced to repeat: "End the tryanny inflicted on the ]! Liberate the ]! Stop the oppression of the ]! Won't someone please think of the ]?" (Ok, in fairness, someone actually ''did'' end the tyranny inflicted on the ] pretty soon after I originally wrote the preceding sentence - but for several years that ''was'' the official name of the state!) So, er, ''no'', actually... Misplaced Pages uses ], and, in situations where there is ambiguity (as there is between the name of the state and the name of the Ireland), we use a disambiguator. ''Most'' 'state' articles aren't at the official name of the state. <small>Why do I have to keep pointing this out...</small> ]<sup>]</sup> 10:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::::Probably because it continues to be an issue. As mentioned previously, in my opinion parenthetical disambiguation of the article, while retaining the MOS ] in it's current form, would probably prevent the issue being brought up so frequently. ] (]) 13:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::Um Republic of Ireland as the official description of the state was suggested and signed into legislation in Ireland by the government of Ireland in 1948, not by some colonial overlord. ] ] 13:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
* What are you proposing here? Are you proposing to move the country to "Ireland" and the island to "Ireland (island)" or are you proposing to move the country to "Ireland (country)"? As has already been discussed "Republic of Ireland" is the common name and the island serves as broad-concept article. Personally I'm from England and until I came across this about 5 years ago knew very little about Ireland, I wouldn't even have known which country Belfast and Dublin were the capital of, if someone asked me where either of them were I would have answered "Ireland". And I also had no awareness the country's official name is just "Ireland" I'd always heard it called "Republic of Ireland". ''']''' (]) 16:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
*:Genuinely hilarious - unless I'm misinterpreting this you're literally arguing this from a British point of view. Why should the Irish put up with an incorrect name imposed on them by Brits and have that defended by Brits saying "oh it's just what we knew" ] (]) 03:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
*Just looking from {{oldid|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration|1101164007|the top of this page}}, I see support for the status quo coming from myself ({{U|Scolaire}}), {{U|SeoR}}, {{U|Laurel Lodged}}, {{U|Guliolopez}}, {{U|Nicknack009}}, {{U|FDW777}} and {{U|ww2censor}}, all of whom (correct me if I'm wrong) are Irish, and none of whom are of a "British nationalist persuasion" as can be seen from their edit history and interactions. What intrigues ''me'' is the number of anon editors and ] who have opened discussions on this page and {{oldid|Talk:Republic of Ireland|1097040363|Talk:Republic of Ireland}} in the last few months saying they are to find that the title is being foisted on good faith Misplaced Pages users by a cabal of British editors! After ten years of nobody making any comment. I'll say no more. ] (]) 17:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
** How interesting! The last time I checked, I had a Dutch passport. But I confess, I live in the Free Fenian Republic of Ireland on the ]. {{smiley}} <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 18:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
::And I've never revealed my nationality or anything. In all my years in the Ireland related space I've been called a Protestant, Catholic, Unionist, Republican, British, Irish, IRA sympathiser, UDA whore, and every single possible variant combined with as many expletives as you'd like. I really should make a list as I'm honestly not sure which side of the divide I've been accused of being on the most by people interested in maintaining a divide and continuing to foster divisions. ] ] 10:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::Ha! My "I know who/what you really are!" Misplaced Pages accusations CV includes an ETA member, a muslim, Sepp Blatter, Ian Duncan Smith and, based on an article I created, . It's almost always those busting a gut to push a POV that make such charges, ironically enough. ] (]) 15:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::Oh yeah I've been accused of many other things (usually by people who are blocked very shortly after.) I was just restricting to the Ireland related articles :) ] ] 19:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
==Why not a disambiguation page?== | |||
I spent many hours trying to appeal to people's sense of reason, but it seems that many just don't listen, and those who do don't have the guts to speak up against such nonsense. | |||
{{atop|result=Discussion ended: closed to allow eventual archiving. ] (]) 16:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
I read through some of the recent discussion on renaming this page and the argument generally seemed to be "there can be only one article named Ireland and so that is the island" and that's the way it's always been so that's the way it should always be. | |||
There seems to be some inconsistency here with respect to how ] is treated though. That goes to a disambiguation page that suggests Britain could commonly either refer to the island of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Why would Ireland likewise not default to a disambiguation page that says Ireland most often refers to the island or the Republic of Ireland? ] (]) 05:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
To be honest, it wouldn't bother me so much if I didn't also have to fight at the home front. I described to an ArbCom member that having to ] makes mediation much more complicated, according to a former professional mediator I spoke with yesterday. The reply only worsened the problem in my view. | |||
:I see no need for consistency between these articles and ]. Ireland defaulting to a disambiguation page was one of the options in the ] in 2009. It did not reach consensus. There is no reason to believe that consensus has changed since then. It's fine to have the British dab page at Britain and the Irish dab page at ]. 20:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
If you think I've done a good job before, then please give me the trust I need to do something similar again. If not, then it will be a waste of time for everyone. There are ''real'' life threatening problems in this world that need to be resolved. — ] 00:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
::As someone else said above, "Thirteen years have past since the last major debate over the naming of the articles, yet the issue keeps coming up as many see it as factually incorrect and it can no longer be dismissed as recently established consensus." ] (]) 20:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I trust you. When I proposed this for ArbCom I was hoping we would get some sane heads into this debacle. Having said that... what is happening? I see talking about talking about talking about talking. (I see little actual talking.) Is there something I (for instance) as a member of the Collaboration project am supposed to ''do''? -- ]·] 06:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Nobody said that it is a "recently established consensus." It has been the consensus since 2002, and that consensus was clearly shown in the 2009 poll. The fact that there has been no major debate since 2012 is itself evidence that consensus has not changed. You have made a reasonable suggestion here – though one with which I disagree – but there was no rush of support for it, just as there was no rush of support for any of the other recent proposals, from which I conclude that consensus still hasn't changed. ] (]) 10:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: I think you are getting co-operation Sebastian and the odd touch of humour (please don't loose your sense of that, its easy on these pages and note which interpretation of ] I referenced, the one that brings about the end of the Gods and the start of responsibility). I think however that people just want this to move forwards with some structured process. You can get some basic rules agreed on behaviour (and you will have to enforce them), but this issue reflects one of the longest standing political/ethnic (even which you choose of those two words has implications) conflicts in Europe. Moving people into that process will hopefully build trust. If we are waiting on action from Arncom then just say so and halt until we have it. --] <small>]</small> 06:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::"You have made a reasonable suggestion here – though one with which I disagree – but there was no rush of support for it, just as there was no rush of support for any of the other recent proposals, from which I conclude that consensus still hasn't changed." | |||
::::Thank you for agreeing that I've made a reasonable suggestion. Reasonable minds can certainly disagree, just as I disagree with your conclusion that the supposed lack of support for my proposal on this page is evidence that consensus hasn't changed. I would argue that there was no "rush of support" for the same reason there was no rush of opposition, because this discussion page is difficult to find and has low visibility. Even as someone who was interested in addressing the topic, it took me awhile to find it, and only because I actually cared about posting in the designated area. | |||
::::If you want to limit discussion to people who have already made up their minds, and are already aware that this page exists, then that's an easy but questionable way to maintain consensus for the status quo. If, on the other hand, you want to get a sense of what the broader Misplaced Pages community thinks about this, you'd be better served revisiting this topic on the actual discussion page for ] and/or ]. ] (]) 04:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::You are actually unusual in raising the issue on this page. Mostly, discussions about naming ''are'' started at Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland. This is followed by somebody pointing out that discussions must take place on this page (by order of the ], not "people who have already made up their minds"), at which point either the discussion moves here, or it lapses. Either way, the outcome is the same: people are made aware of the discussion but do not turn turn up in numbers to overturn consensus. Thus the consensus remains. ] (]) 12:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Disambiguation pages are usually not necessary where there are only two alternate pages, as in the case with Ireland; in the case of Britain, there's a decent list there. While I personally prefer to refer to the state as Ireland where possible, and think it could actually be done so more extensively on Misplaced Pages without confusion than is the case at present, it is an official description of the state in Irish law. According to ], where there is a natural disambiguation, that is typically the best term to use, as '''Republic of Ireland''' qualifies as that. ] (]) 11:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
::: Thank you both! I'm feeling much better already. I wrote today's messages hoping to clear up the stuffy air here, but I realize that I may have gone too far. I know I already lost Ddstretch with one of them, but I hope it's not too late for other people to forgive me; I'm only human, too. I'm not going through an easy time myself, and I realize that the disheartenment I criticized in others is what I'm fighting in myself with equal vigor. | |||
:::"Disambiguation pages are usually not necessary where there are only two alternate pages, as in the case with Ireland; in the case of Britain, there's a decent list there." | |||
::: You are right, there's been too much meta-talking, and it would be best to jump into action soon. I have to go to bed now, but I will sleep over it before I make any big decisions. — ] 07:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::How do you figure? There are only 11 entries on the disambiguation page for ] and 25 on ]. In both instances, there are only two main disambiguation links - to the island and the country. ] (]) 20:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Och, I have a terrible cold right now and it was a fit of coughing that had me up at dark o'clock so naturally I came to this page. Heh. *cough* Anyway, I don't see what you've done ''wrong''. The thought of a ten-point winnowing process causes me some despair. Will this never be over? I don't know whether some people's desire Not To Talk About Ireland Until The "Process" Is Agreed is genuine, or if it is passive-aggressive delaying tactic. This topic is no stranger to trollery, certainly. -- ]·] 09:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:After all these years, I'm not seeing any consensus for changing the title of this page ''or'' for making it into a disambiguation page. The ], are down to just the bones. ] (]) 18:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::Sebastian, it would be really great if you were to get DDstretch back on board. ] ] 10:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:For all the talk that "consensus can change" ], it's just a fallacy. Those against change hide behind it as an excuse while those in favour of change grow disillusioned by the vague arbitrary goalposts being set. I would support a disambiguation page and the use of parental disambiguation. ] (]) 18:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
::"Consensus can change" is not a fallacy. See for instance ] on whether to make "China" a redirect to China (disambiguation) instead of to "Chinese civilization" (the then current setting), and compare it with ] which decided that "China" should be the article for the People's Republic of China. In that case there was a clear and obvious change in consensus, which led to the desired change. It wasn't a case of "twenty people over the last five years have expressed dissatisfaction so we'll have to change it." Nothing similar has happened on these pages. Also, please ]. Neither I nor anybody else is hiding behind anything as an excuse. We're replying to your arguments, that's all. And what in the world are these "vague arbitrary goalposts"? The reasons for keeping the status quo are concrete and clearly (and consistently) stated. ] (]) 12:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::Further to my point above about where this discussion should take place to truly determine current consensus, I note that those 2006 and 2011 discussions on ] that you mentioned took place on the actual talk page for Chinese civilization (which was the default redirect at the time). ] (]) 04:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::An earlier ArbCom ruling has stated that this discussion on moving Ireland, renaming the articles on Ireland and Republic of Ireland, must take place here. Unless that ArbCom ruling is withdrawn or rescinded then here is the only place any such discussion may take place. I will agree though that that does have a measure of potentially limiting involvement in the discussion which could be an issue, however anytime anyone brings up this topic elsewhere they do get redirected here and there are headers on the relevant pages directing to this one. ] ] 12:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::Well, I'm glad you agree that does potentially limit involvement in the discussion. While ] mentions that most people initially raise the issue on the ] or ] talk page, he also says that the discussion almost immediately gets rerouted here. That probably has the same net effect of limiting both visibility and participation in the discussion. | |||
:::::However long ago that ArbCom decision may have been made, it might be time to revisit it, if only temporarily. if there's an actual desire to take the temperature on current consensus, then I think it's quite frankly unlikely to happen as long as the discussion is limited to this page. | |||
:::::I do appreciate, whatever other differences of opinion we may have on the matter, that you both acknowledge my suggestions here have not been unreasonable. ] (]) 06:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::I don't accept that rerouting the discussion "has the same net effect of limiting both visibility and participation in the discussion". If there was a substantial number of people wanting change (i.e. enough people to overturn the consensus), they would see the request at the Ireland or ROI talk page, see that the discussion was moved, and follow the link to this page. Compare {{oldid|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration|1143899445|the current version}} of this page with ], which I picked at random out of 34 archive pages(!), and see the amount of discussion and the number of people that contributed over a period of just three days. That simply wouldn't happen today. | |||
::::::I would have no problem with somebody asking ArbCom to change its ruling, and allow naming discussions to be held at the article talk pages. ] (]) 15:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Since {{U|TempDog123}} raises the same point twice, I'll answer it twice. More often than not, requests to rename the pages ''are'' initially made on Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland, so people are aware of the request but do not turn up in numbers to overturn the consensus. To reiterate, consensus can change, but in this case it just hasn't. Sorry. ] (]) 13:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::Also it's worth nothing that most requests to move the page are by drive by accounts with no real skin in the game, just new accounts or editors that fly by after being outraged at it, post some angry messages, and then leave with no actual desire to engage in actual real conversation or debate on the topic beyond a couple of hours. When this is the instigation and participation, it's no wonder that there isn't any further progress on anything. ] ] 13:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
== Credibility bot == | |||
==Proposal for 3rd moderator== | |||
I trust BrownHairedGirl (who was or is Irish) and NewYorkBrad and Rockpocket and Tyrenius. If we asked for one or more of these to be the 3rd moderator, do you think that might be allowed? I know BHG has done moderating / discussing / PR in real life. Of course they would have to consent. ] ] 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to ]. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at ] and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at ]. Thanks! ] (]) 17:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
: Before talking about individual people, I need to explain what is the biggest problem for me: The fact that I can't just do what I'm good at - mediate a conflict - but that I have to follow a bureaucracy. (Search for "]" ].) That has multiplied the effort for me, and catapulted this assignment beyond the limit of what I can fit in the rest of my life. The reason it is a problem for me is because I don't know how to reconcile the demands of moderating an ongoing discussion with my desire to incorporate my co-moderators' ideas and expectations in all moderator actions. | |||
== ARCA == | |||
: The easiest solution seems to me if there were one head moderator, who defines strategies and makes the quick decisions needed in ongoing discussions. I would love to work under an arbitrator as head moderator here. Taking a subservient role would allow me to relax. Before you mentioned NewYorkBrad, I had already proposed this to another arbitrator, but he unfortunately recused himself. As for other people, I would need to clarify our roles and mutual expectations first. | |||
There is a discussion at ] about changing the notices to say discussion about the Ireland articles should take place on this project's talk page rather that the project page its self. I'm not suggesting any other changes are needed or that the articles should be moved. ''']''' (]) 22:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
: So, about the other people you proposed: I haven't had any contact with them before. I would appreciate if we had someone who knows the subject. Are there any objections from others? — ] 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Now that such discussions are allowed to take place on the ] & the ] talkpages? Maybe this WikiProject could be retired. Since there's already ] in existance. ] (]) 06:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Inevitably, some lover of drama or good-faith new editor will propose a move. Seeing as that will effect, at minimum, the Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation) pages, it makes sense to have a "neutral" central place to have the discussion. There is also a '''lot''' of material here that people will want to link in any ensuing discussion. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::"Retired" doesn't mean deleted. Linking to here in any future discussion may be useful, but moving the discussion to here would be directly counter to the ArbCom decision. ] (]) 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::PS: See ] for links. ] (]) 13:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 13:42, 3 December 2023
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Move: Republic of Ireland → Ireland (country)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As an Irish citizen, I was shocked and surprised to find that the title of the Misplaced Pages page for my country does not bear the actual name of my country.
I agree that Ireland, the island, pre-dates the establishment of either state on the island and therefore the article "Ireland" should refer to the island. The use of parenthetical disambiguation is a fair, accurate and unbiased solution. Any reference to "The Republic of Ireland Act 1948" in relation to the name of the country is irrelevant, as the act made no reference to the name of the country and the name is clearly defined in the Irish constitution of 1937 and no subsequent amendment has changed the name. https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#part2
It should also be noted that since the 2009 poll on this topic, Misplaced Pages has introduced auto suggest in the search field on the homepage. When a user enters the word “Ireland” into the search field the country is not in the list of suggested articles, as it is currently identified by a reference that is obscure to most. Cashew.wheel (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC) (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashew.wheel (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
As an Irish citizen, I was shocked and surprised to find that the title of the Misplaced Pages page for my country does not bear the actual name of my country.
Why? Most countries aren't at their official name on Misplaced Pages. Very, very few 'state' articles actually reside at the official name of the state in question - see, e.g.: State of Libya, French Republic, United Mexican States, State of the City of the Vatican, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - all doing well at page titles other than the official. "Ireland" is also the name of the island, which doesn't have a natural disambiguator. "Republic of Ireland" is a natural disambiguator for the state and is its official description. This has worked perfectly well both before and after the huge debate of 2009. If you read through that, and the archives of this page, and can still then bring something new to the table, then of course it can be discussed - consensus can change. But if your argument is solely that this isn't the name of the state, that won't serve to change anything. Bastun 15:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)- Thanks for pointing me towards the historical discussion on this topic, it made for fascinating, yet disappointing, reading. I would counter that the current naming isn't working, as requests for change are made so frequently, much to the chagrin of mods.
- What surprised me (and offends others) is the simple fact that the name of the country is Ireland and that Misplaced Pages does not reflect that (internationally recognised) fact. Very few other countries actually bother to define their name in their constitution, yet Ireland clearly has, in both Irish and English.
- For 85 years, this self-determination has been undermined by anti-Irish elements in an attempt to delegitimise the country, hence many Irish people balk at the forced imposition of the name "Republic Of Ireland". This delegitimisation is further perpetuated across Misplaced Pages as users link to a description rather than a country ( I know WP:IMOS does have a guideline to use ] when linking, but in practice that is unlikely to happen as many casual editors will just copy the title of the Ireland article).
- All of the states you mentioned above have been afforded the respect of redirecting from their official title to their respective articles.
- The argument that using "Republic Of Ireland" as the name is weak, as it is akin to using "Sparkling Soft Drink with Vegetable Extracts" in place of Coca-Cola to distinguish it from Pepsi, as both are official descriptions.
- In my opinion, parenthetical disambiguation of "Ireland (country)" is a fair, balanced, inoffensive and factual disambiguator for the page. There is precedence in the disambiguation between Georgia_(country) and Georgia_(U.S._state), even with there already being a natural disambiguation as the official title of the US state is "State Of Georgia". Cashew.wheel (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- The most persuasive of your arguments is the one regarding the search field in the opening comment, but here you undermine your own position by posting an absurd and unsubstantiated rant in your third paragraph that reveals more about your own prejudices and bias than other people's and writing logically incoherent nonsense in the fifth and sixth paragraphs. Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola are disambiguated and cola covers both. No article is at Sparkling Soft Drink with Vegetable Extracts. Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are disambiguated and Ireland covers both. No article is at Island in the Atlantic Ocean to the west of Great Britain. Georgia is a state. DrKay (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- The clearest examples of attempts to undermine the constitutional name of Ireland are by the British government in both the Eire Act 1938 and the Ireland Act 1949, neither of which acknowledged the name of Ireland. These choices were politically motivated as there was still a degree of animosity between the newly independent Ireland and the former empire at the time. This position has subsequently changed.
- @DrKay As for the Coke/Pespi example, just like your "Island in the Atlantic Ocean" example, it is absurd and was made to highlight how irrespective of how official a description is, it is not the name.
- That aside, it would be good to discuss the negative impact the page title has on the discoverability/usability in the search field. Cashew.wheel (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- The most persuasive of your arguments is the one regarding the search field in the opening comment, but here you undermine your own position by posting an absurd and unsubstantiated rant in your third paragraph that reveals more about your own prejudices and bias than other people's and writing logically incoherent nonsense in the fifth and sixth paragraphs. Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola are disambiguated and cola covers both. No article is at Sparkling Soft Drink with Vegetable Extracts. Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are disambiguated and Ireland covers both. No article is at Island in the Atlantic Ocean to the west of Great Britain. Georgia is a state. DrKay (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
References
- "Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act, 1938".
- "Ireland Act 1949".
- "Country names: The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British official use".
The work that editors and moderators do on Misplaced Pages is fantastic and I appreciate it very much. I'm sure many are jaded by this topic rearing it's head so frequently and are reluctant to entertain a change to the status quo. Thirteen years have past since the last major debate over the naming of the articles, yet the issue keeps coming up as many see it as factually incorrect and it can no longer be dismissed as recently established consensus. Building a consensus is obviously the only way a change can be made here. May I ask, who determines that consensus has changed? Cashew.wheel (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- The community. As you can see in the archives here the subject has come up many times. No new information seems to be raised in the conversations and they always (to date) end with the same consensus. There was even an attempt on this very page in the section immediately above, where the proposal was completely shot down. Now WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE but it also doesn't have to change. I have zero issues with people re-opening the conversation and trying to alter or establish a new consensus, just as long as it isn't continuously happening. Canterbury Tail talk 21:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- I did see that it was recently discussed but the topic had been closed so was unable to reply within context.
- As a relatively inexperienced contributor to Misplaced Pages (historically only making small additions), this WikiProject is quite an obscure corner of the platform that many users do not know about, but is a great way to discuss and gain agreement for changes.
- Coupled with how intimidating it can be to new editors when an admin or moderator dismisses their suggestion, it's no surprise as to why the topic of fixing the title of Ireland is destined to always be classified as WP:SNOW.
- Might I suggest that, given the frequency of contributions on this matter, a topic be left permanently open for discussion? Cashew.wheel (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Cashew.wheel: You seem to be under a number of misconceptions here. 1) There is no position of "moderator" on Misplaced Pages, so
requests for change are made so frequently, much to the chagrin of mods
, for example, makes no sense. 2) There is a position of administrator, but nobody has taken any admin action in the discussions here or at Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland. All that has happened is that other users like yourself have put forward their views, countering your arguments – not dismissing them. 3) Discussions like the three above end up as WP:SNOW because a great majority of those who take the trouble to !vote are opposed to any move (8–1 in the most recent move request), not because "new editors" are "intimidated" against !voting. 4) The topic is left permanently open for discussion; otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it now. An individual thread is closed when there has been no additions for a reasonable amount of time, as was the case in the three threads above. Not a misapprehension as such, but I completely disagree that the name "Ireland"has been undermined by anti-Irish elements in an attempt to delegitimise the country
, that ROI is imposed by force (by whom?), that many Irish people "balk" at it, or indeed that Irish people in general find it offensive in the real world. For this reason, as well as all the reasons given above, I am opposed to any change in the status quo. Scolaire (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)- @Scolaire Thanks for clarifying about editors, admins and topics. I am new to discussing edits and as such am unfamiliar with the terminology, process and etiquette (I didn't even know to sign my first comment). I was not accusing anyone of intimidation, just noting that it can be intimidating for new editors to engage on a talk page with more seasoned editors who reply with terms, conventions, history and even markdown that they are unfamiliar with and may be put off from returning to contribute more.
- I have found the editor community welcoming and fair when engaging in constructive, albeit repetitive, discussion.
- The only case that I know of where the term "Republic Of Ireland" was actually forced on an Irish entity, is the 1953 ruling by FIFA on the name of teams fielded by the Football Association Of Ireland.. Other none-forced cases referred to the refusal of the British government to acknowledge the official name of the country until the late 1990s, the downstream impact that had on reporting by the media and thus the spread of the use of the incorrect name of the country.
- We can agree to disagree as to the degree as to proportion of the population that might take offence, it is subjective after all. Cashew.wheel (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Cashew.wheel: You seem to be under a number of misconceptions here. 1) There is no position of "moderator" on Misplaced Pages, so
References
- The country's official description is "Republic of Ireland" and as someone in England I'd not even known the country's actual (short) name was just "Ireland" until I came across this debate in 2017. Many countries have official descriptions that aren't in common usage like Republic of France and aren't really ambiguous so we use the official (short) name namely France. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Opposition to name change
Discussion ended: closed to allow eventual archiving. Scolaire (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Forgive me but its time to finally call this out. But it seems from looking at the history of the wiki contributors who object to having the above change, 99% of them come from a British nationalist persuasion judging by many of their edit history and interactions, and are completely unimpartial in this regard.
I question the validity and feasbility of WikiProject Ireland now as it has clearly been hijacked by British nationalist and Northern Ireland unionist/loyalist editors projecting their political agenda and bias on an encyclopedia, as evidenced by the proposed requested move hiding behind "consensus" (between themselves) and "previous discussions" (agreed amongst themselves) they have become the gate-keepers now of this project and topic. Many Irish editors have simply given up on this project and can't be bothered dealing with this project anymore. This has clearly escaped the attention of the Arbritration Committee who should intervene in this issue and that of the move discussion on 'Ireland'. It seems like some radical Irish republicans and British nationalists have something in common by opposing the usage of the term Ireland also in that regard, leaving all the reasonable people scratching their heads. 51.37.118.212 (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- All is forgiven. ooOOOh I do love a good conspiracy theory. Go on then, don't be a tease - give us more juicy facts / examples of hijacking. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- At least this question of its hijacking is out in the open now. Hardly a conspiracy theory when its so obvious to outside observers who will read and dig through the history and discussion on all this. I think everyone who wants to look can look at editors' like yourself and this project's contribution and talk history, same with the Ireland page, can judge for themselves and agree. At least on wikipedia people can see everything if they want to search. :) 51.37.118.212 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ooooh I do love a good title that has to wrap, even on a desktop. Succinctness is overrated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're welcome. 51.37.118.212 (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- The prevtious heading for this section was
Hijacking of the WikiIreland Project by British Nationalists + Opposition to name-change to 'Ireland' (actual name of country) from 'Republic of Ireland' (description)
. I changed it toOpposition to name change
on 9 December. Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- The prevtious heading for this section was
- You're welcome. 51.37.118.212 (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ooooh I do love a good title that has to wrap, even on a desktop. Succinctness is overrated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- At least this question of its hijacking is out in the open now. Hardly a conspiracy theory when its so obvious to outside observers who will read and dig through the history and discussion on all this. I think everyone who wants to look can look at editors' like yourself and this project's contribution and talk history, same with the Ireland page, can judge for themselves and agree. At least on wikipedia people can see everything if they want to search. :) 51.37.118.212 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- While I welcome support for a change of consensus on the name of Ireland, the aggressive, confrontational tone is not going to achieve anything. Also by not being a user, you lack accountability & credibility. Cashew.wheel (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have had an account for many years, but it was inactive for a while and cannot remember my log in details and username anyway so I stopped using it (I am not a sockpuppet a CheckUser will confirm that), me being a user or IP shouldn't matter anyway as the point still stands, the tone may be considered aggressive and confrontational by some, but when bad faith and political bias interfere with encyclopedic work and its impartiality then assertiveness is required to address it, I am sure any reasonable and impartial reader here would agree with that statement. 51.37.118.212 (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oooohh I do love a good stream-of-consciousness paragraph. Punctuation is overrated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have had an account for many years, but it was inactive for a while and cannot remember my log in details and username anyway so I stopped using it (I am not a sockpuppet a CheckUser will confirm that), me being a user or IP shouldn't matter anyway as the point still stands, the tone may be considered aggressive and confrontational by some, but when bad faith and political bias interfere with encyclopedic work and its impartiality then assertiveness is required to address it, I am sure any reasonable and impartial reader here would agree with that statement. 51.37.118.212 (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ooooh I do love a good conspiracy theory. Let's have the evidence shall we? Canterbury Tail talk 13:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- The proof is in the pudding as they say, you and the editors with British nationalist sentiments who are all over the WikiIreland project and oppose Ireland having an article being referred to by its actual name is amongst the evidence. Why don't you rename the France article "the Republic of France' or Spain 'the Kingdom of Spain' while you are at it? 51.37.118.212 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not a British nationalist, I fully expect a United Ireland in my lifetime, something I never thought I'd see but the UK shot itself in the foot on that one. Do not make such attacks on other editors. My only objection to having the country at Ireland is that that is where the island is and the island is the primary topic. We prefer not to have clumsy brackets in topic names if it can be avoided such as Ireland (state). Thankfully the Irish government and legislation gave us a very handy disambiguation alternative. (Plus almost every single country on Misplaced Pages is not at the country's actual name, not the United States of America, not the Commonwealth of Australia, not the State of Israel, not the Republic of Korea and not even the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.) Not a single person on here denies that the name of the country is Ireland. And as I've clearly stated many times, consensus can change but nothing new has been brought to the table to result in enough of a discussion to alter that consensus. It's hardly anyone here's fault that when they formed the country they choose the same name as the island it was on despite not being all of the island. Canterbury Tail talk 15:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Additionally stop accusing other editors of being nationalist editors and gatekeepers, if you continue with that you will be blocked for personal attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 15:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Feels a bit disingenuous to compare - I believe some of those list acceptable alternatives and none of those were imposed on them by former colonial overlords (who still occupy territory!) despite decades of trying to stop that former overlord using the incorrect name.
- Republic of Ireland isn't an alternative name, it's a description of the state. As far as I knew Misplaced Pages generally uses accurate names instead of descriptions of things - is that not for the text in an article? Saoirserose (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I am forced to repeat: "End the tryanny inflicted on the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya! Liberate the French Republic! Stop the oppression of the United Mexican States! Won't someone please think of the State of the City of the Vatican?" (Ok, in fairness, someone actually did end the tyranny inflicted on the State of Libya pretty soon after I originally wrote the preceding sentence - but for several years that was the official name of the state!) So, er, no, actually... Misplaced Pages uses common names, and, in situations where there is ambiguity (as there is between the name of the state and the name of the Ireland), we use a disambiguator. Most 'state' articles aren't at the official name of the state. Why do I have to keep pointing this out... Bastun 10:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Probably because it continues to be an issue. As mentioned previously, in my opinion parenthetical disambiguation of the article, while retaining the MOS WP:IRE-IRL in it's current form, would probably prevent the issue being brought up so frequently. Cashew.wheel (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Um Republic of Ireland as the official description of the state was suggested and signed into legislation in Ireland by the government of Ireland in 1948, not by some colonial overlord. Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I am forced to repeat: "End the tryanny inflicted on the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya! Liberate the French Republic! Stop the oppression of the United Mexican States! Won't someone please think of the State of the City of the Vatican?" (Ok, in fairness, someone actually did end the tyranny inflicted on the State of Libya pretty soon after I originally wrote the preceding sentence - but for several years that was the official name of the state!) So, er, no, actually... Misplaced Pages uses common names, and, in situations where there is ambiguity (as there is between the name of the state and the name of the Ireland), we use a disambiguator. Most 'state' articles aren't at the official name of the state. Why do I have to keep pointing this out... Bastun 10:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not a British nationalist, I fully expect a United Ireland in my lifetime, something I never thought I'd see but the UK shot itself in the foot on that one. Do not make such attacks on other editors. My only objection to having the country at Ireland is that that is where the island is and the island is the primary topic. We prefer not to have clumsy brackets in topic names if it can be avoided such as Ireland (state). Thankfully the Irish government and legislation gave us a very handy disambiguation alternative. (Plus almost every single country on Misplaced Pages is not at the country's actual name, not the United States of America, not the Commonwealth of Australia, not the State of Israel, not the Republic of Korea and not even the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.) Not a single person on here denies that the name of the country is Ireland. And as I've clearly stated many times, consensus can change but nothing new has been brought to the table to result in enough of a discussion to alter that consensus. It's hardly anyone here's fault that when they formed the country they choose the same name as the island it was on despite not being all of the island. Canterbury Tail talk 15:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- The proof is in the pudding as they say, you and the editors with British nationalist sentiments who are all over the WikiIreland project and oppose Ireland having an article being referred to by its actual name is amongst the evidence. Why don't you rename the France article "the Republic of France' or Spain 'the Kingdom of Spain' while you are at it? 51.37.118.212 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- What are you proposing here? Are you proposing to move the country to "Ireland" and the island to "Ireland (island)" or are you proposing to move the country to "Ireland (country)"? As has already been discussed "Republic of Ireland" is the common name and the island serves as broad-concept article. Personally I'm from England and until I came across this about 5 years ago knew very little about Ireland, I wouldn't even have known which country Belfast and Dublin were the capital of, if someone asked me where either of them were I would have answered "Ireland". And I also had no awareness the country's official name is just "Ireland" I'd always heard it called "Republic of Ireland". Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Genuinely hilarious - unless I'm misinterpreting this you're literally arguing this from a British point of view. Why should the Irish put up with an incorrect name imposed on them by Brits and have that defended by Brits saying "oh it's just what we knew" Saoirserose (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Just looking from the top of this page, I see support for the status quo coming from myself (Scolaire), SeoR, Laurel Lodged, Guliolopez, Nicknack009, FDW777 and ww2censor, all of whom (correct me if I'm wrong) are Irish, and none of whom are of a "British nationalist persuasion" as can be seen from their edit history and interactions. What intrigues me is the number of anon editors and SPAs who have opened discussions on this page and Talk:Republic of Ireland in the last few months saying they are shocked, shocked to find that the title is being foisted on good faith Misplaced Pages users by a cabal of British editors! After ten years of nobody making any comment. I'll say no more. Scolaire (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- How interesting! The last time I checked, I had a Dutch passport. But I confess, I live in the Free Fenian Republic of Ireland on the island of Ireland. The Banner talk 18:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- And I've never revealed my nationality or anything. In all my years in the Ireland related space I've been called a Protestant, Catholic, Unionist, Republican, British, Irish, IRA sympathiser, UDA whore, and every single possible variant combined with as many expletives as you'd like. I really should make a list as I'm honestly not sure which side of the divide I've been accused of being on the most by people interested in maintaining a divide and continuing to foster divisions. Canterbury Tail talk 10:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ha! My "I know who/what you really are!" Misplaced Pages accusations CV includes an ETA member, a muslim, Sepp Blatter, Ian Duncan Smith and, based on an article I created, God. It's almost always those busting a gut to push a POV that make such charges, ironically enough. Valenciano (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh yeah I've been accused of many other things (usually by people who are blocked very shortly after.) I was just restricting to the Ireland related articles :) Canterbury Tail talk 19:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ha! My "I know who/what you really are!" Misplaced Pages accusations CV includes an ETA member, a muslim, Sepp Blatter, Ian Duncan Smith and, based on an article I created, God. It's almost always those busting a gut to push a POV that make such charges, ironically enough. Valenciano (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- And I've never revealed my nationality or anything. In all my years in the Ireland related space I've been called a Protestant, Catholic, Unionist, Republican, British, Irish, IRA sympathiser, UDA whore, and every single possible variant combined with as many expletives as you'd like. I really should make a list as I'm honestly not sure which side of the divide I've been accused of being on the most by people interested in maintaining a divide and continuing to foster divisions. Canterbury Tail talk 10:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Why not a disambiguation page?
Discussion ended: closed to allow eventual archiving. Scolaire (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I read through some of the recent discussion on renaming this page and the argument generally seemed to be "there can be only one article named Ireland and so that is the island" and that's the way it's always been so that's the way it should always be.
There seems to be some inconsistency here with respect to how Britain is treated though. That goes to a disambiguation page that suggests Britain could commonly either refer to the island of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Why would Ireland likewise not default to a disambiguation page that says Ireland most often refers to the island or the Republic of Ireland? TempDog123 (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- I see no need for consistency between these articles and Britain. Ireland defaulting to a disambiguation page was one of the options in the poll on Ireland article names in 2009. It did not reach consensus. There is no reason to believe that consensus has changed since then. It's fine to have the British dab page at Britain and the Irish dab page at Ireland (disambiguation). 20:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- As someone else said above, "Thirteen years have past since the last major debate over the naming of the articles, yet the issue keeps coming up as many see it as factually incorrect and it can no longer be dismissed as recently established consensus." TempDog123 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody said that it is a "recently established consensus." It has been the consensus since 2002, and that consensus was clearly shown in the 2009 poll. The fact that there has been no major debate since 2012 is itself evidence that consensus has not changed. You have made a reasonable suggestion here – though one with which I disagree – but there was no rush of support for it, just as there was no rush of support for any of the other recent proposals, from which I conclude that consensus still hasn't changed. Scolaire (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- "You have made a reasonable suggestion here – though one with which I disagree – but there was no rush of support for it, just as there was no rush of support for any of the other recent proposals, from which I conclude that consensus still hasn't changed."
- Thank you for agreeing that I've made a reasonable suggestion. Reasonable minds can certainly disagree, just as I disagree with your conclusion that the supposed lack of support for my proposal on this page is evidence that consensus hasn't changed. I would argue that there was no "rush of support" for the same reason there was no rush of opposition, because this discussion page is difficult to find and has low visibility. Even as someone who was interested in addressing the topic, it took me awhile to find it, and only because I actually cared about posting in the designated area.
- If you want to limit discussion to people who have already made up their minds, and are already aware that this page exists, then that's an easy but questionable way to maintain consensus for the status quo. If, on the other hand, you want to get a sense of what the broader Misplaced Pages community thinks about this, you'd be better served revisiting this topic on the actual discussion page for Ireland and/or Republic of Ireland. TempDog123 (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- You are actually unusual in raising the issue on this page. Mostly, discussions about naming are started at Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland. This is followed by somebody pointing out that discussions must take place on this page (by order of the Arbitration Committee, not "people who have already made up their minds"), at which point either the discussion moves here, or it lapses. Either way, the outcome is the same: people are made aware of the discussion but do not turn turn up in numbers to overturn consensus. Thus the consensus remains. Scolaire (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody said that it is a "recently established consensus." It has been the consensus since 2002, and that consensus was clearly shown in the 2009 poll. The fact that there has been no major debate since 2012 is itself evidence that consensus has not changed. You have made a reasonable suggestion here – though one with which I disagree – but there was no rush of support for it, just as there was no rush of support for any of the other recent proposals, from which I conclude that consensus still hasn't changed. Scolaire (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- As someone else said above, "Thirteen years have past since the last major debate over the naming of the articles, yet the issue keeps coming up as many see it as factually incorrect and it can no longer be dismissed as recently established consensus." TempDog123 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Disambiguation pages are usually not necessary where there are only two alternate pages, as in the case with Ireland; in the case of Britain, there's a decent list there. While I personally prefer to refer to the state as Ireland where possible, and think it could actually be done so more extensively on Misplaced Pages without confusion than is the case at present, it is an official description of the state in Irish law. According to WP:NCDAB, where there is a natural disambiguation, that is typically the best term to use, as Republic of Ireland qualifies as that. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Disambiguation pages are usually not necessary where there are only two alternate pages, as in the case with Ireland; in the case of Britain, there's a decent list there."
- How do you figure? There are only 11 entries on the disambiguation page for Britain and 25 on Ireland (disambiguation). In both instances, there are only two main disambiguation links - to the island and the country. TempDog123 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- Disambiguation pages are usually not necessary where there are only two alternate pages, as in the case with Ireland; in the case of Britain, there's a decent list there. While I personally prefer to refer to the state as Ireland where possible, and think it could actually be done so more extensively on Misplaced Pages without confusion than is the case at present, it is an official description of the state in Irish law. According to WP:NCDAB, where there is a natural disambiguation, that is typically the best term to use, as Republic of Ireland qualifies as that. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- After all these years, I'm not seeing any consensus for changing the title of this page or for making it into a disambiguation page. The poor old horse's remains, are down to just the bones. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- For all the talk that "consensus can change" WP:CCC, it's just a fallacy. Those against change hide behind it as an excuse while those in favour of change grow disillusioned by the vague arbitrary goalposts being set. I would support a disambiguation page and the use of parental disambiguation. Cashew.wheel (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Consensus can change" is not a fallacy. See for instance this 2006 discussion on whether to make "China" a redirect to China (disambiguation) instead of to "Chinese civilization" (the then current setting), and compare it with this 2011 discussion which decided that "China" should be the article for the People's Republic of China. In that case there was a clear and obvious change in consensus, which led to the desired change. It wasn't a case of "twenty people over the last five years have expressed dissatisfaction so we'll have to change it." Nothing similar has happened on these pages. Also, please assume good faith. Neither I nor anybody else is hiding behind anything as an excuse. We're replying to your arguments, that's all. And what in the world are these "vague arbitrary goalposts"? The reasons for keeping the status quo are concrete and clearly (and consistently) stated. Scolaire (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Further to my point above about where this discussion should take place to truly determine current consensus, I note that those 2006 and 2011 discussions on China that you mentioned took place on the actual talk page for Chinese civilization (which was the default redirect at the time). TempDog123 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- An earlier ArbCom ruling has stated that this discussion on moving Ireland, renaming the articles on Ireland and Republic of Ireland, must take place here. Unless that ArbCom ruling is withdrawn or rescinded then here is the only place any such discussion may take place. I will agree though that that does have a measure of potentially limiting involvement in the discussion which could be an issue, however anytime anyone brings up this topic elsewhere they do get redirected here and there are headers on the relevant pages directing to this one. Canterbury Tail talk 12:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad you agree that does potentially limit involvement in the discussion. While Scolaire mentions that most people initially raise the issue on the Ireland or Republic of Ireland talk page, he also says that the discussion almost immediately gets rerouted here. That probably has the same net effect of limiting both visibility and participation in the discussion.
- However long ago that ArbCom decision may have been made, it might be time to revisit it, if only temporarily. if there's an actual desire to take the temperature on current consensus, then I think it's quite frankly unlikely to happen as long as the discussion is limited to this page.
- I do appreciate, whatever other differences of opinion we may have on the matter, that you both acknowledge my suggestions here have not been unreasonable. TempDog123 (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't accept that rerouting the discussion "has the same net effect of limiting both visibility and participation in the discussion". If there was a substantial number of people wanting change (i.e. enough people to overturn the consensus), they would see the request at the Ireland or ROI talk page, see that the discussion was moved, and follow the link to this page. Compare the current version of this page with this one, which I picked at random out of 34 archive pages(!), and see the amount of discussion and the number of people that contributed over a period of just three days. That simply wouldn't happen today.
- I would have no problem with somebody asking ArbCom to change its ruling, and allow naming discussions to be held at the article talk pages. Scolaire (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Since TempDog123 raises the same point twice, I'll answer it twice. More often than not, requests to rename the pages are initially made on Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland, so people are aware of the request but do not turn up in numbers to overturn the consensus. To reiterate, consensus can change, but in this case it just hasn't. Sorry. Scolaire (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also it's worth nothing that most requests to move the page are by drive by accounts with no real skin in the game, just new accounts or editors that fly by after being outraged at it, post some angry messages, and then leave with no actual desire to engage in actual real conversation or debate on the topic beyond a couple of hours. When this is the instigation and participation, it's no wonder that there isn't any further progress on anything. Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- An earlier ArbCom ruling has stated that this discussion on moving Ireland, renaming the articles on Ireland and Republic of Ireland, must take place here. Unless that ArbCom ruling is withdrawn or rescinded then here is the only place any such discussion may take place. I will agree though that that does have a measure of potentially limiting involvement in the discussion which could be an issue, however anytime anyone brings up this topic elsewhere they do get redirected here and there are headers on the relevant pages directing to this one. Canterbury Tail talk 12:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Further to my point above about where this discussion should take place to truly determine current consensus, I note that those 2006 and 2011 discussions on China that you mentioned took place on the actual talk page for Chinese civilization (which was the default redirect at the time). TempDog123 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Consensus can change" is not a fallacy. See for instance this 2006 discussion on whether to make "China" a redirect to China (disambiguation) instead of to "Chinese civilization" (the then current setting), and compare it with this 2011 discussion which decided that "China" should be the article for the People's Republic of China. In that case there was a clear and obvious change in consensus, which led to the desired change. It wasn't a case of "twenty people over the last five years have expressed dissatisfaction so we'll have to change it." Nothing similar has happened on these pages. Also, please assume good faith. Neither I nor anybody else is hiding behind anything as an excuse. We're replying to your arguments, that's all. And what in the world are these "vague arbitrary goalposts"? The reasons for keeping the status quo are concrete and clearly (and consistently) stated. Scolaire (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Credibility bot
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Misplaced Pages:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
ARCA
There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Ireland article names about changing the notices to say discussion about the Ireland articles should take place on this project's talk page rather that the project page its self. I'm not suggesting any other changes are needed or that the articles should be moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Now that such discussions are allowed to take place on the island & the country talkpages? Maybe this WikiProject could be retired. Since there's already WP:IRELAND in existance. GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Inevitably, some lover of drama or good-faith new editor will propose a move. Seeing as that will effect, at minimum, the Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation) pages, it makes sense to have a "neutral" central place to have the discussion. There is also a lot of material here that people will want to link in any ensuing discussion. Bastun 10:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- "Retired" doesn't mean deleted. Linking to here in any future discussion may be useful, but moving the discussion to here would be directly counter to the ArbCom decision. Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- PS: See here for links. Scolaire (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Inevitably, some lover of drama or good-faith new editor will propose a move. Seeing as that will effect, at minimum, the Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation) pages, it makes sense to have a "neutral" central place to have the discussion. There is also a lot of material here that people will want to link in any ensuing discussion. Bastun 10:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Project-Class Ireland pages
- NA-importance Ireland pages
- Project-Class Ireland articles of NA-importance
- All WikiProject Ireland pages
- Project-Class Northern Ireland-related pages
- NA-importance Northern Ireland-related pages
- All WikiProject Northern Ireland pages
- NA-Class Irish republicanism pages
- NA-importance Irish republicanism pages
- WikiProject Irish republicanism articles