Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fmph (talk | contribs) at 10:15, 18 June 2009 (→Comments against:: +hdg+comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Under the title “Findings of fact” in the section titled “Locus and state of dispute” ArbCom outlined the nature of the content dispute between the parties being:

1. the appropriate titles for the article or articles concerning the country of Ireland and the island of Ireland
2. the ambiguity that exists because the designation "Ireland" is used in English to refer to both of these
3. disagreements concerning recent page moves relating to these articles
4. whether consensus was properly obtained for the moves
5. the extent to which the current article titles conform with the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view.

Points 3-5 have not been addressed at all during any of the discussion; while points 1-2 have been endlessly discussed with no resolution been achieved. At the moment, we have been unable to locate the discussions which lead to the consensus for points 2 and 4. This proposal will not be directly addressing these issues.

This proposal is not something I came up with but is a compilation of a number of proposals by a number of Editors. MickMacNee got things started with this suggestion here. Suggesting an “Ireland which would cover all conceivable Ireland/Irish topics, such as History, Geography, Politics, Culture etc etc etc, with sensible formatting to fork to both all Ireland sub topics, and other specialist articles (Northern Ireland being the most obvious).” This was followed up by Rannpháirtí anaithnid with a similar suggestion here. They suggested “Ireland is a primary topic (i.e. deals with the history, culture, geography, people of all of Ireland). The article currently at Republic of Ireland is a subtopic of that (in respect of history, culture, geography, people etc.)… Contrast our way of doing things with Britannica which makes no distinction between the state and the island, having only one article that is ostensibly about the state, but which actually covers the whole island (like a merger between our current Ireland and Republic of Ireland). I would be in favour of such a solution too (over the current solution).” This was advanced to suggesting a merger of Ireland into Republic of Ireland then move Republic of Ireland to Ireland. These suggested were summarised then by Tfz in this post here. Having provide a sample Straw poll based on the comments of various Editors, I was prompted to put forward this proposal. This is the genesis of the suggestion so can not be considered mine alone.

Proposal.

To create one Ireland article, by merging the current article at Republic of Ireland with the Ireland article. The article would be covered with disambiguation hatnotes such as:

• For the constituent country of the United Kingdom, see Northern Ireland.
• For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation).

This Article would cover all conceivable Ireland/Irish topics, such as History, Geography, Politics, Culture in a general way with a summary style format. Each section would have a disambiguation hatnote linking to a more detailed sub-article on that topic. Such as:

• For the history of the Irish State see
• For the history of Northern Ireland see

This has been called the China solution.

Support:

1. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
2. BigDunc 22:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
2. My proposal is not a merge of Ireland and Republic of Ireland, unless you think my new Ireland (state) article is one of these proposed sub-topics of Ireland. MickMacNee (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3. - This is a totally unacceptable proposal and will get no consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
4. - Nope. Ireland is ambiguous. The way we address ambiguity is to deal with it in a neutral and sensible manner, not ignore it. Rockpocket 01:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments for:

Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Please address one point at a time. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions.

Comments against

Comments must address the content and not the editor. Editors must not use sweeping claims or generalisations, and all claims must be supported by referenced sources. Moderators will remove all infractions of this conditions.

• Creating this Ireland article is agreeable. However, deleting the Republic of Ireland article? is not. The RoI article should continue to exist under a new name - Ireland (state). GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments neither for, nor against

I would need to see an example of what the merged doc would look like, and be convinced of its WP:NPOV content, before I could support this proposal. But it is not totally out of the question. I think we will just be moving the arguments from the article titles to the article content. Fmph (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My rational.

I have stayed within ArbCom’s Final decision, and based my proposal on the Principles laid down. Based on this then, per Naming conventions, use of the term “Ireland” for the State/Country reflects current official usage by the UN, Europe and by the UK Government. The Government of the nation refers to itself as "Ireland." Numerous evidence cited indicates that the most common usage of the term "Ireland" is in reference to the nation, and not the island land mass. In addition, as pointed out by ArbCom in the section titled “Locus and state of dispute”, article titles must conform with the requirement of maintaining a neutral point of view, and based on all the available sources it does. This proposal is directed towards the Community and the reader and is not intended to appeal or appease any one group or individual as the suggested polls will possibly do. I have not addressed the issue of the Republic of Ireland article at this time, but suggest we address the initial cause of the dispute as outlined by ArbCom. Having worked out any possible concerns it would be the intension to place a notice on the various notice boards and ask for Community endorsement.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My comments:

1. I wish there were headings in this doc so I could edit with greater granularity.
2. I would need to see an example of what the merged doc would look like, and be convinced of its WP:NPOV content, before I could support this proposal. But it is not totally out of the question. I think we will just be moving the arguments from the article titles to the article content. Fmph (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)