Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Evertype[edit]

The word "Ireland" is ambiguous[edit]

This dispute is terminological. There are three article topics on question. There is no consensus to retain the "status quo" (if there were, we would not be here). I'll describe the status quo here, then describe several scenarios to illustrate the problem. (I'm giving a link to the Request for Arbitration discussion in case I or others need to cite from it.)

Status quo:

  • Ireland - an article chiefly about the island and the nation of people who live on it, but to which has accreted much information duplicating material in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland articles.
  • Republic of Ireland - an article about the State which occupies 83% of the island. Republic of Ireland is an official "description" of the State, but the State's name as defined in its Constitution is Ireland, which is certainly the best-known name of the country world-wide.
  • Ireland (disambiguation) - a dab page containing references to (to use the current nomenclature) Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, a number of historical political formations, and the usual other dabs.

Not everyone wants change, but those who do may favour Scenario A or Scenario B.

Scenario A (To be superficial about it, this scenario tends to be favoured by people south of the border, Republicans or not)

Scenario B (To be superficial about it, this scenario tends to be favoured by people north of the border, Unionists or Loyalists or not)

I'm going to save this page now and shortly will be back with Scenario C. -- Evertype·✆ 10:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scenario C (The move to these three articles was implemented on 2008-11-30 [1][2][3] by Tariqabjotu; see his comment on the move. The move of these three articles was reverted on 2008-12-02 [4][5][6] by Deacon of Pndapetzim)

  • Ireland - arguably the only sensible name for the disambiguation page since it is clear that the word "Ireland" is deeply ambiguous.
  • Ireland (island) - this move could encourage a simplifying of the article to more generic, geographical, and geological elements; compare the article on the island Great Britain with the article on the State United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  • Ireland (state) - a name which doesn't entirely satisfy either those who want the name to be Ireland or those who want it to be Republic of Ireland, but seems to me to be the only workable compromise. It should be noted that there is currently discussion about moving Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) anyway, with growing consensus on how to use Ireland or Republic of Ireland or the Republic within articles as appropriate for language. This growing consensus is excellent, but it does not address the problem we have with Ireland being the name of the island article rather than a dab page—because that article does accrete material proper to the other article.

That's my summary of the scenarios. My preference is for Scenario C because Ireland is irretrievably ambiguous and Scenario C seems to me to be the most neutral of any of the proposals. If Ireland points to on article or the other, we will always have people insisting that "No, the most popular use of the word is Y, not X!"`—we have "enjoyed" that dispute for four years. I have cited Una Smith before and will do so here: "An ambiguous title such as Ireland should be a disambiguation page, because it is Ireland that will accumulate incoming links needing disambiguation and the task of disambiguating them is made vastly more difficult if Ireland also has 'correct' incoming links that refer to one topic by that name." (See this and this.) If we were to make Ireland the dab page, serious work would have to be done to make sure that articles linked to either the Ireland (island) or Ireland (state) articles. Once that were done, however, it would be possible for editors to look at what links to the dab page and pipe them properly. There is precedent: compare Georgia, Georgia (country) and Georgia (US state) (though no analogy is perfect).-- Evertype·✆ 11:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here affects sister Wikis[edit]

We recently had a bot make the following changes to the [ Ireland] article:

(diff) (hist) . . mb Ireland‎; 10:39:27 . . (-90) . . JAnDbot (Talk | contribs) (robot Removing: bn:আয়ারল্যান্ড, es:Isla de Irlanda, sv:Irlands geografi)

That deleted "Island of Ireland" from the Spanish Wikipedia, "Ireland's Geography" from the Swedish Wikipedia. The page in Bengali which was unlinked is called Ireland and is a disambiguation page linking to Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland. Since the English Wikipedia has a lot of influence, the dispute here is actually affecting the Wikipedia as a whole. -- Evertype·✆ 12:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A thought[edit]

It should be remembered that we're not naming Ireland. We're naming some encyclopaedia articles. -- Evertype·✆ 10:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Ireland should be a disambiguation page[edit]

MickMacNee said: "As a reader, I want to know about the historical/cultural/land mass of China, I type in China. I want to know about the communist state, I type in China. I want to know about the historical/cultural/land mass of Ireland, I type in Ireland. I want to know about the modern state, I type in Ireland. I want to know about Georgia? I type in Georgia. And then realise my world view is not big enough. It's a fundemental concept, we write for reader's, not for editor's. People giving the China example are (imo) not even meaning the confusion between the communist state and ROC, they mean as with Ireland, the name of a land mass and an overlapping state. You simply cannot tell readers they were wrong for typing in Ireland expecting one or the other. You can also not attempt to shape their world view by forcing them to believe that Ireland has two separate and unrelated meanings (by offering them a two option dab like Georgia)." I agree with everything here... except his final conclusion. Everything he has said gives a perfect picture of why Ireland should be the disambiguation page, just like Georgia. In my opinion, if this were done, it would be possible for us to solve the other problems we have within the two articles. -- Evertype·✆ 10:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Scolaire's comments about me[edit]

He's right. Two years ago I had a different view. At that time I thought there was a right answer. Over those two years all of the bitter infighting has convinced me that we need another look. I am not "crusading". Believe me, I've got better things to do that fight this "battle". I participated in compromise proposals hoping to encourage consensus. I filed the Request for Arbitration after seeing a dozen people talk about the need for Arbitration. I have done this because of my esteem for the Wikipedia. I do think that only the Ireland = dab, Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) provides a nomenclatural structure that can let the Wikipedia get on with the business of editing articles about Ireland. I have also stated that I am willing to accept whatever decision the Arbitrators arrive at. (It is interesting to see his list of citations of my involvement in trying to get away from "winners" and "losers" by shifting Ireland to the disambiguation page. Evidently I have put a lot of passion into that attempt.) -- Evertype·✆ 20:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Rockpocket's comments[edit]

I endorse Rockpocket's comments completely. To respond to his summary:

  1. Do we have evidence that either the state or island of Ireland is significantly considered a primary topic, compared to the other? No, we do not have such evidence. What evidence we do have is that significant numbers of people have views that Ireland refers and must refer to the state, and that significant numbers of people have views that Ireland refers and must refer to the island. Neither can be considered to be primary in my view.
  2. Should we need to disambiguate the state as a result of (1.), how to we decide whether ROI or Ireland (state) is the more appropriate disambiguator given our policies and guidelines balanced with geo-political tension over terms? Fortunately on this point a reasonably mature discussion is taking place, with a clear trend to consensus suggesting that Ireland (state) should replace ROI in article titles, with a range of in-text terms to be used, including "the Republic", "the Irish Republic", "the Republic of Ireland", and of course "Ireland" all to be correctly piped.

I thank Rockpocket for his contribution. -- Evertype·✆ 18:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by HighKing[edit]

Current title of Republic of Ireland is contentious and political[edit]

A large part of the arguments for and against using "Republic of Ireland" centre around the difference between a "name" and a "description". Internationally, the "name" of the state is accepted as "Ireland" and it is the name of the state in the English language under the Irish constitution. In 1948, Ireland declared itself a Republic and broke away from the British Commonwealth. This Act is known as the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 and states It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland. The controversy arises from the fact that the British government passed the Ireland Act 1949 which states The part of Ireland referred to in subsection (1) of this section is hereafter in this Act referred to, and may in any Act, enactment or instrument passed or made after the passing of this Act be referred to, by the name attributed thereto by the law thereof, that is to say, as the Republic of Ireland. Under UK law (and still in force today) the name is "Republic of Ireland" and this has been a diplomatic bone of contention between the UK and Ireland since then. T*85 posted a good summary here of an article by Professor Mary E. Daly. Continuing to use the term "Republic of Ireland" in Wikipedia is confusing and inaccurate. Using the term as an article title, or on maps showing the state, or depending on context, even within articles themselves, incorrectly propagates the idea that "Republic of Ireland" is some sort of alternative official name. This confusion is largely a result of British organizations using their legally correct term for the state, but it is no excuse for the international community or Wikipedia.

Disambiguation, but not as an alternative name[edit]

There are many instances where a description is useful. For example, if there are two John Smith's, we would often use a description to tell them apart so that we don't confuse John Smith the dentist with John Smith the gynacologist. But since "Republic of Ireland" is also a legal name in the UK, it is too confusing and controversial to also use this term as a disambiguator. We all know and accept that there are instances where Ireland the state needs to be disambiguated from Ireland the island or from Northern Ireland, but many arguments have been put forth for using one over the other. In some circumstances it is appropriate to use the description, but unfortunately the description is abused on Wikipedia and takes the place of the name. For example, the article about the state is located at Republic of Ireland, a map at Ireland shows the name of the state as "Republic of Ireland", and other articles about functions of government are located at RoI titles e.g. Civil service of the Republic of Ireland. Why must RoI be used as disambiguation at all times and in such a way that it is also being used not as a disambiguator, but as a name? --HighKing (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Waggers[edit]

Fundamental principles[edit]

Just to explain where I'm coming from...

  1. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is a meritocracy not a democracy. That means we decide things based on consensus: a result of a discussion with the decision based on the best argument(s), NOT on shear weight of votes.
  2. WP:IAR starts with an "if" and that's a big if. IAR is not a licence to ignore policy on a whim- there has to be a good, common sense reason to ignore a Wikipedia project-wide policy.
  3. If the decision to ignore a policy is contentious or disputed by a significant number of editors, the policy should probably be adhered to. (I don't think that one's written in policy anywhere but I'd be surprised if there's widespread disagreement to it!)
  4. WP:NAME is a an official English Wikipedia policy, not a guideline/suggestion/random idea. In particular, "Do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings." is Wikipedia policy.

The names of the articles have always been within the remit of the Ireland Disambiguation Task Force (IDTF)[edit]

Despite claims to the contrary, part of the task force's remit has always been to look at the names of the three disputed articles - this is clear from the creation of the task force page through to the current version.

Ample notice of the task force and move discussions was given on the relevant article talk pages[edit]

- BEFORE the polls that opened on 25th November: [7] [8] [9] [10] (there are more diffs but I'm sure those are sufficient to illustrate the point)

Events in a nutshell[edit]

  1. Most attempts to centralise discussion or notify the wider community of what the task force was doing were treated with an assumption of bad faith [11].
  2. The task force achieved consensus several times over on a way forward, but at least one editor insisted that consensus within the task force did not constitute a "proper" Wikipedia consensus[12] (regardless of the notifications I've mentioned above and the fact that WP:RM allows the discussion to take place at a centralised point for multiple page moves).
  3. Assistance from uninvolved administrators was requested but no volunteers were forthcoming.
  4. To appease those editors who thought the task force discussion could not constitute a "proper" consensus, further polls were initiated on the article talk pages (Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation) at this stage, as these two had the greatest consensus on the task force; the Republic of Ireland move had consensus, but to a lesser extent), but progress was blocked, apparently by some kind of voting bloc, as it was mainly by plain voting (without any new reasoning being put forward) - in violation of WP:NOT as described above.
  5. The vast majority of those allegedly with "strong" feelings who were opposed to the moves in the 25th November polls did not take part in the task force. The point being, if they really felt that strongly, why weren't they involved in the formulation of consensus when, as demonstrated above, there had been plenty of warning that this was coming? The actions and words were simply not tying up, and from the point of view of those who had worked hard to get a consensus on these issues this seemed very much like a WP:POINTy, disruptive pattern of editing from quite a number of editors.
  6. Towards the conclusion of the polls, my own involvement in and awareness of this matter was suspended due to off-wiki events. When I semi-returned (I'm still not up to speed yet) I found that the polls had been closed, a new poll opened at Talk:Republic of Ireland, an admin had moved the pages according to the (meritocratic, the Wikipedia way!) task force consensus, another admin had reverted the moves based on the (democratic, ie. not the Wikipedia way!) article talk page polls, Matt Lewis had resigned from Wikipedia and a request for arbitration had been made.

Evidence presented by SirFozzie[edit]

User:Mooretwin edit wars on numerous articles[edit]

User Mooretwin has edit-warred on numerous articles, aggressively undoing the edits of other authors. Recent examples are: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17].

User:Mooretwin has been sanctioned in the past for edit-warring[edit]

Mooretwin has been blocked five times for editwarring. One was later overturned, as it was discovered that he had been editwarring against a banned user, but of the other four blocks, the three earlier ones were 3RR violations, the most recent one was for violating The general 1RR sanctions on numerous Troubles related articles (including after being specifically warned by several people about these sanctions.

User:Mooretwin has a history of uncivil comments[edit]

In addition to the aggressive behavior shown above, he has a habit of inflaming dispute with uncivil comments:

"Stop your nonsense. This has been put to bed. Go to Talk on 1981 hunger strike"

"Stop your nonsense - go to Talk on 1981 hnger strike, or you'll be reported"

Go ahead and tell the teacher.

Do us all a favour and block the Domer48/Big Dunc tell-tale tag-team, too. They are consistently disruptive editors. Just ask The Thunderer, who appears to have been bullied off WP

Evidence presented by UKPhoenix79[edit]

China Example[edit]

I have stayed out of this debate, but I wish to make a suggestion. China currently leads to a very good page that is essentially an expanded disambiguation page. We do not link to the WP:COMMONNAME for the country, that honour goes to the Peoples Republic of China. So I suggest :

Also the Republic of Ireland page was created with the name currently used and the first major edit was the same, So wouldn't that be covered by WP:MOS#National varieties of English?

I know it is not much, but I wish to be brief and not get drawn too much into this debate :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by MickMacNee[edit]

The admin corps are not helping resolve the issue[edit]

Admin waggers has it half right in his evidence when he points out no admin came to assess the consensus that was believed to exist at the task force after a request at the admin noticeboard. He had it wrong when he believed that opening polls started at different times in deifferent venues would automatically reflect the same consensus. His assertion that the resulting illogical result was a product of vote blocking is quite a conspiracy theory.

In actual fact, we don't know what happened outside of vested interest views, because the uninvolved administrator who eventually came along to close the IDTF proposals was not even aware of the later 'confirmation polls' when he made his decision. He later stated he reviewed them and stood by his decision, but in doing so he did not summarise any of the points made in the polls, and his subsequent washing his hands of the issue (was this more or less likely to help the dispute?), lead to an Rfc illustrating many views that the 'meritocracy' approach of independant review of argument by an admin had failed here, leaving the way open for the kind of accusations of bad faith on a coordinated scale from waggers. At this point also, due to comments made by the closing admin in his summary, weight seemed to start to gather behind the idea that the longer an issue is disputed, the more valid a non consensus imposition becomes. I am unaware of any policy that supports this idea. Ignore all rules cannot simply be invoked when people have failed to adequately demonstrate consensus. Similarly, the presence of unchekced bad behaviour hindering that is also not a justification for invoking IAR.

Waggers and others have it wrong when they say that people did not contribute to the IDTF out of some plot to later vote block. I have seen many people comment later that they did not take part in the IDTF simply because the discussions were couched in the same old incivility and bad faith, and would not even stay on track. Some people just didn't have a clue what it was even for. (And it should be noted that the IDTF itself was in a way hijacked by a simple 3 way move request, when its original stated remit was a wider MOS debate, that may or may not produce move requests). I stopped watching the IDTF pages soon after my own proposal was derailed into well trodden territory by the usual suspects, and only later became involved again on initiation of the 'confirmation polls' at a venue I was watching, the pages themselves.

A later recent attempt by me to get an actionable outcome to a proposal that had appeared to have gained consensus on the IDTF pages, was greeted with opposition based on 'process' alone, when the very same process had been used in the move described by waggers that had a 'meritocratic consensus'. If this opposition to the move to allow further discussion does not fit the behaviour of blocking by process, I don't know what is. No admin comment or direction on this view of process was forthcoming. (I later withdrew it at the request of more discussion from the proposer Mooretwin. But this proposal, like many previous, has now stalled with no clear future direction, or any firm wording to be voted on/assessed for agreement).

Admin Jza mentioned in the arbcom request that maybe an appeal to "the very top" was needed to solve this dispute. Well, this had actually happened recently. I saw no discernable increase in the amount of admin oversight of either the IDTF pages or the main pages in dispute, after even this appeal.

Folowing the move and reversal, and subsequent opening of an Rfc, I reported to the ANI a basic problem of tendentious editing from Matt Lewis, here. A simple problem, confined to one page and one editor. This post was not commented on or actioned at all by any admin, not even to say it was a frivelous complaint.

Evidence presented by Scolaire[edit]

The same users voted for and against all proposals to December 2008[edit]

Note: in the following, only currently involved parties are tallied, and parties dealt with in later sections are excluded; there is no intention to suggest that either side was numerically smaller at any point.

Beginning in February 2007, the first date the current personnel are (is?) involved:

  • Sarah argues for Ireland (island) and Ireland (state), Djegan disagrees S1
  • Title change straw poll, 14 March 2007 [S2]
"I support the current set-up": Angus McLellan, Scolaire, ww2censor, Bastun
"I support another set-up": Sarah777
  • Proposal to move Republic of Ireland to Ireland, 29 June 2007 [S3]
Support: Sarah777
Oppose: Guliolopez, ww2censor, Bastun, Nuclare
  • "New Proposal" on naming Ireland articles, 3 July 2007 [S4]
Ireland (state)/Ireland/Ireland (disambig): Nuclare
Ireland/Ireland (island)/Ireland (disambig): Sarah777
ROI/Ireland/Ireland (disambig): Djegan, Guliolopez, ww2censor, Bastun, DrKiernan
Ireland (state)/Ireland (island)/Ireland: Redking7
  • Republic of Ireland → Ireland (state), 24 August 2008 [S5]
Support: Sarah777, HighKing, Matt Lewis, Snowded, Gnevin, RashersTierney, Redking7
Oppose: Djegan, Angus McLellan, Mooretwin, Scolaire, ww2censor, Bastun, Traditional unionist
  • Matt Lewis's "package deal", 25 August 2008 [S6]
Support: Sarah777, HighKing, Matt Lewis, Snowded, Gnevin, RashersTierney
Oppose: Djegan, Angus McLellan, Guliolopez, Scolaire, Nuclare, Traditional unionist
  • Republic of Ireland → Ireland, 30 October 2008 [S8]
Support: Sarah777, Snowded
Oppose: Djegan, Guliolopez, Scolaire, Bastun, Nuclare, Traditional unionist
  • That Ireland be made a disambiguation page, 31 October 2008 [S9]
Support: Sarah777, HighKing, Snowded, RashersTierney
Oppose: Mooretwin, Scolaire
  • Evertype's "compromise": Ireland (state)/Ireland (island)/Ireland, 18 November 2008 [S10]
Support: Sarah777, Highking, Matt Lewis, Snowded, RashersTierney, Redking7
Oppose: Djegan, Guliolopez, Mooretwin, Scolaire, ww2censor, Nuclare, Traditional unionist
  • Ireland (state)/Ireland (island)/Ireland (resulting in the page moves), 21 November 2008 [S11]
Ireland (island): Sarah777, Highking, Matt Lewis, Snowded, RashersTierney, Redking7
No move: Mooretwin, Scolaire
Ireland (state): Sarah777, Highking, Matt Lewis, Snowded, Gnevin, RashersTierney, Redking7
Republic of Ireland: Djegan, Guliolopez, Mooretwin
  • Ireland to "Ireland (island)" (actual RM discussion), 25 November 2008 [S12]
Support: Sarah777, Matt Lewis, Snowded
Oppose: Djegan, Angus McLellan, Guliolopez, Mooretwin, Scolaire, ww2censor, Nuclare

Only Evertype changed sides during those two years[edit]

  • Proposal to move "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland": "Bitterly oppose for all the reasons stated above in this – and all the previous – debates." [18]
  • "New proposal" on naming (option C is the status quo): "Option C and Option C only. This "vote" is an embarrassment. What we have already expresses consensus." [19]
  • Republic of Ireland → Ireland: " "Ireland" is the offical name of the country" [20]

He supported all subsequent proposals to move (and see below).

Uninvolved admins have focussed entirely on disambiguation[edit]

Mooretwin's proposal has support from both sides[edit]

  • Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state), but keep ROI as disambiguator where desirable within articles [S13]
Support or conditional support: Sarah777, Redking7, Angus McLellan, Guliolopez, HighKing, Mooretwin, Scolaire, Snowded, Nuclare, Traditional unionist
Oppose: Evertype, Djegan
  • For the first time ever in this dispute, editors on both sides have not stopped at voting, but have gone on to discuss the practicalities of the proposal - in particular its implications for pipe-linking within other articles - in some detail and with a fair measure of agreement [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] and [43]

The task force was not always representative of opinion in general[edit]

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force was initially set up by Matt Lewis, who had set out its terms of reference himself before anybody else joined in[44] (note in particular the section heading "Up and running"). Except for one constructive if qualified comment by Guliolopez[45] reaction from the "other side" was hostile [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]. The result was a proposal to delete it. The voting in the MfD followed the traditional lines (see above):

Delete: Djegan, Scolaire, ww2censor, Bastun, Traditional unionist
Keep: Sarah777, HighKing, Matt Lewis
Merge: Guliolopez

In general, from then until the bringing of this case, most of the status quo side stayed away from the task force, only adding the occasional comment or registering a vote. While this may be deplored by some, it does explain why the change side often felt that consensus was moving in their direction, when the reality was that the task force and the polls on it were heavily weighted towards their own standpoint, see [S10], above, for instance.

As well as established status quo supporters, the most recent requested move was opposed by a significant number of editors who had not been part of any recent discussion, some of whom were very likely unaware of the existence of the task force, including Roadnote, Cameron, MartinRe, Srnec, Message from XENU, TheChrisD, Hohenloh, Kathryn NicDhàna, Sam Blacketer, Pigman, Number57, Timrollpickering and Boothy443. The comment of Sam Blacketer[52] is just one illustration of how far removed the view of some uninvolved and respected editors was from that of the majority on the task force.

Evertype has turned his "compromise" into a personal crusade[edit]

  • Proposes the "compromise" [53]
  • Mooretwin "unwilling to compromise" [54]
  • Mooretwin and Scolaire "not interested in compromise" [55]
  • "Bah. Seems like you really don't want a resolution here." [56]
  • "I however am willing to compromise." [57]
  • "The consensus is clear." [58]
  • "The compromise proposal has majority enough to be workable" [59]
  • "So there, I compromise." [60]
  • "A solution which makes everyone equally unhappy." [61]
  • "...which is why I have accepted Ireland (state)..." [62]
  • Informing Jimmy Wales of "compromise" [63]
  • "Editing is effectively pointless until we get a compromise." [64]
  • "I still can't see a better compromise" [65]
  • "A lack of understanding about what the issues are." [66]
  • Request for Arbitration: "My own proposal for compromise was based on negotiation strategy: agree to what you can, even if it's not your preference." [67]
  • "there are people here who do not wish to offer credible compromise." [68]
  • "Little compromise has been on offer from those who oppose us." [69]
  • "They're not my first preference, but I can live with them." [70]
  • "So I'm compromising by saying Ireland (state) is OK." [71]
  • "A compromise...which satisfies neither group A nor group B, and which disappoints both equally...is to my mind the only way forward. [72]
  • "I can't see any other compromise being stable. [73]
  • "The compromise is not sufficient" [74]
  • "Negotiation means COMPROMISE, people!" [75]
  • "Both Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) with Ireland = dab involves compromise on all sides." [76]
  • "The most neutral of any of the proposals." [77]

Evidence presented by User:Domer48[edit]

Ireland[edit]

BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN (Constitution of Ireland) not once mentions “Republic of Ireland.” Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland states that: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."

The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, states quite clearly that “It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.” Now I don’t think I need to explain the difference between an Act and the Constitution, suffice to say the constitution can only be changed by referendum.

It is my considered opinion that suggesting that the name “Ireland” is ambiguous and therefore confusing is pure conjecture on the part of some Editors. I, like Highking agree that T*85 summarizes the article from the Journal of British Studies very well.

Far from it describing an ambiguous term, it places the subject in its correct political context. The last section in the article by Mary E. Daly (revisionist) professor of Irish history and principal of the College of Arts and Celtic Studies at University College Dublin) sums up rather well “By the mid 1960s, Britain was the only country not to refer to the state as Ireland… however since 2000 it has… and the credentials presented by the British ambassador, Stewart Eldon, in 2003, were addressed to the President of Ireland… Yet Britain's recognition of “Ireland,” far from being “a gesture of despair,” as officials feared in 1934, now reflects a new confidence, a new level of involvement in the affairs of the entire island, and a more equal relationship with the United Kingdom.”

The best example of this “new confidence” and Britain’s recognition of “Ireland,” is the The Belfast / Good Friday Agreement which not once mentions “Republic of Ireland.” It instead uses terms such as "Government of Ireland," "island of Ireland" and "Constitution of Ireland."

What this illustrates quite clearly is; the world and his brother recognize Ireland as both the name of the State and the island. This includes the British government, demonstrated in an internationally recognized agreement between both governments, and endorsed through referendum in both parts of Ireland.

Ireland on Wikipedia[edit]

We currently have an Article titled Ireland on Wikipedia. It contains headings such as geography, wildlife, history, politics and culture. It also has a section on Northern Ireland. This article is not ambiguous or confusing and should remain as it is barring expansion of course.

We also have an Article Republic of Ireland, which is both ambiguous and confusing. This article should be about the Republic of Ireland in the context of the The Republic of Ireland Act,1948and a history of its use. Therefore if and when the Republic of Ireland is pipe linked readers know how and why it’s used. For example, in the Republic of Ireland, people use the name County Derry; however in Northern Ireland they use Londonderry. Republic of Ireland should only be used in the context outlined above, and should never be used in naming an Article. Another good example how Republic of Ireland can and should be used is Counties of Ireland.

Examples of how Republic of Ireland should not be used would include Politics of the Republic of Ireland, Economy of the Republic of Ireland and Financial services in the Republic of Ireland. If a reader is looking for Politics of Ireland, they get this. However if a reader looks for Politics of Northern Ireland they go straight to Demography and politics of Northern Ireland. What that tells us is, that if a reader is looking for anything on Northern Ireland, they know what they are looking for, however if their looking for anything on Ireland they may be confused? Complete nonsense!

There is a whole world of difference between Northern Ireland and Ireland. If a reader is looking for an article on Ireland, that is what they will look for. Likewise, if they want Northern Ireland. To suggest then that Ireland is ambiguous in my opinion is simply conjecture on the part of some editors.

That would be similar to me saying Northern Ireland is ambiguous, because the most northern part of Ireland is Donegal. Having then established this going around and putting every article on Northern Ireland as disambiguation pages?

This whole issue is politically motivated, and as has been demonstrated above, even the British government no longer associates its self with it. The majority of people both North and South have endorsed this view in referenda and its internationally recognized. The rest of the world have moved on, and so should we. Otherwise we will continue to have move requests like this one here, were the most notable aspect is how those who “Supported” the move based it on sources which were both WP:verifiable, reliably sourced and internationally recognized. Those who “Opposed” did so based on comment / opinion, conjecture and the suggestion of ambiguity without ever having demonstrated how this was the case.

Now I think its time this suggested ambiguity was challenged. Editors who suggest that Ireland is ambiguous should be asked to explain how this is so, and why the rest of the world don’t see it?

Evidence presented by Rockpocket[edit]

The term "Ireland" is ambiguous[edit]

According to many, many reliable sources, "Ireland" refers to two different geo-political entities. This is perhaps best stated by a academic journal article addressing this very issue. The opening words in Mary E. Daly. The Irish Free State/Eire/Republic of Ireland/Ireland: “A Country by Any Other Name”? Journal of British Studies 46 (January 2007): 72–90. (Mary E. Daly is professor of Irish history and principal of the College of Arts and Celtic Studies at University College Dublin) states:

"Ireland is the name of an island in the North Atlantic. Ireland is also the name of a state, comprising roughly three-quarters of that island, which secured independence from Britain in 1922."

Wikipedia currently, and properly, has distinct articles on both these entities (there there is some overlap in content, since one entity - the state - is a wholly encompassed by the second - the island.)

We have a mechanism for dealing with ambiguity in article titles[edit]

WP:D is a guideline, and WP:NAME is a policy, that we should consult to address this ambiguity. A number of factors need to be considered to determine how we should disambiguate:

  • Is there are primary topic?

In other words is the evidence that most people would consider "Ireland" to mean that state rather than the island, or vice versa. Arguments have been presented for each. Whichever is deemed the primary topic should be the article at "Ireland", if there is no completely convincing evidence either way (and I have yet to see any) then "Ireland" should be a disambiguation page. Whatever decision is made either the state, the island or both requires a different title.

  • Is there another term or more complete name that is equally clear?

Regarding the island, there is not another (English) term, or more complete name. Regarding the state, the argument has been presented that "The Republic of Ireland" (ROI) is another term that is equally clear. The source above, and other evidence presented here makes it clear the ROI is not a "more complete name", but it is "another term" used in the English language that has a significant level of clarity and unambiguity. However, it is also clear from numerous sources that the term "ROI" originated from Britain, is predominantly used in Britain, as is probably used as another term in English because of the British influence in the English language. Due to political and historical issues, the term "ROI" is therefore considered unwelcome by a significant proportion of the Irish population. The question then becomes one of balancing the historical and political issues around "ROI "as a disambiguating term, vs our preference of using another term instead of parentheses.

  • A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses.

Should the island require to be disambiguated then the title Ireland (island) appears to be generally noncontroversial. Should the state require disambiguation Ireland (state) appears to favoured by one group of editors, while ROI is favoured by another.

Summary[edit]

Irrespective of the confounding factors, such as the alleged political motivations of editors supporting either position, and the poor editing behaviour and personalization of the issues, this case boils down to two issues which ArbCom may be able to address:

  1. Do we have evidence that either the state or island of Ireland is significantly considered a primary topic, compared to the other?
  2. Should we need to disambiguate the state as a result of (1.), how to we decide whether ROI or Ireland (state) is the more appropriate disambiguator given our policies and guidelines balanced with geo-political tension over terms?

Evidence presented by Redking7[edit]

I would like to be brief. I support moving the Republic of Ireland article to Ireland (state). Ireland is the name of the Irish state. I would encourage those concerned to read:

where so many relevant facts are set out. Facts are important, opinions much less so - because this is an encyclopedia. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case any genuine non-POV users might get confused and consider China some sort of acceptable example to follow:
  • PRC (Peoples Republic of China) is the official name of the most widely recognised China. The large majority of countries recognise the PRC as the only Chinese State;
  • ROC (Republic of China) is the official name of the much less recognised China - more commonly know as Taiwan (which is where the non-Communists established themselves after the Chinese Civil War and where the Communists have never ruled). A minority of countries, for example, the Vatican City recognise only the ROC (Taiwan) as the Chinese State;
That is broadly the reason for the way the China, the Peoples Republic of China and the Republic of China have the article names they do.
In contrast:
  • RoI (Republic of Ireland) is not the official name of the Irish State;
  • "Ireland" is the name by which the Irish State is recognised by every country in the world (including even UK of GB and NI!);
In short, there is no comparison between the Chinese and Irish article names! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by uninvolved BigDunc[edit]

Comparison with other articles[edit]

On Wikipedia we have a number of Articles on European countries, including this one, List of European countries by GDP, and this one Europe. On Europe for example we have a Political geography section with all the flags to the various countries. Each country is linked to the country articles all of which follow the same format. Except Ireland. Ireland links to Republic of Ireland, not I might add the official title of the country. Now the Official and internationally recognised name of the country is Ireland, and yet on the above article it is linked to Republic of Ireland. So could someone explain why these examples below are not linked to their official titles, and the reverse is the case only on Ireland?

Out of the 44 European countries listed only on Ireland does it link to Republic of Ireland. You click on the name of any European country, and you go to that countries article. Except Ireland. The flags are the same, you click on the flag icons and you get Flag of Spain, Flag of Germany, etc on Ireland we had to have a move request to have the Irish flag at Flag of Ireland. BigDuncTalk 15:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by angusmclellan[edit]

In March 2007 I wrote "I can't see any benefit from changing [things]". Here we are in December 2008 and still I don't see any benefit from changing things in the way suggested by Evertype, Rockpocket and others.

Every argument I have seen on moving the pages around has turned on ambiguity - correctly the issue is imprecision since it very often be correct to link to Ireland in place of Republic of Ireland (or whatever), but will sometimes be less precise - on legal arguments, or on personal preferences. These kind of arguments would be reasonable if we were making decisions in a vacuum. But we are not.

What we do impacts the readers, so let's see what readers do. According to wikistics.falsikon.de, Ireland has an average of 10K views a day and ranks 264th in their count of viewed pages; stats.grok.se agrees on about 10K views a day but reckons this is 467th. An exercise here puts Ireland at 11K views a day and 217th in May 2008. If you google Ireland, you get Ireland first and Republic of Ireland second. Republic of Ireland is quite well visited too. stats.grok.se says it ranked 1867th, a more than respectable 3K5 views a day.

Armed with these dubious statistics, if we assume that every reader who wants to find Ireland-the-state ends up at Ireland-the-nebulous-concept first, there are still twice as many people looking for Ireland-the-nebulous-concept than for Ireland-the-state. We can make another assumption safely enough. If Ireland (disambiguation) is moved to Ireland, thousands and thousands of readers will have to click through a disambiguation page to get where they are going, as many as 15K if every view is a real person and gets there from typing Ireland in the search box. This a completely unrealistic assumption and has to be discounted by whatever amount you think is appropriate, but it is still a very large number of views over a year.

So all we need to decide is whether readers would benefit from changing the current setup - Ireland for the superset, Republic of Ireland/Ireland (state)/whatever for the modern country and Ireland (disambiguation) for the trivia - to something else. Or is the current setup most likely to deliver what they want, first time, to the largest possible number of readers under the largest possible number of circumstances? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Steve Summit[edit]

[This is a continuation of some thoughts I posted on the talk page last week. Like so much of the content of this Evidence page, some of these arguments are inevitably content-driven and wouldn't have a place in a proper Arbcom case, but I do have some specific noncontent suggestions for Arbcom also.]

The "Share the Misery" compromise doesn't share the misery equally enough[edit]

"Share the misery" compromises are always, I think, a last resort. And as I've thought about it some more, I'm afraid the suggested compromise here -- of having Ireland be neither the page on the country nor the page on the island but, rather, a disambiguation page -- doesn't quite share the misery equally enough to be fair, after all.

If I lived in Ireland, I'd want to see my country at Ireland. I wouldn't want to see it at Republic of Ireland, and I wouldn't want to see it at Ireland (state) or Ireland (country), either. So under the share-the-misery compromise, the Ireland-as-Ireland partisans lose a lot with respect to what they want, lose almost as much as they lose under the status quo, and gain almost nothing. The article on their country still has a weird name which is not Ireland.

But what of the other side, that wants Ireland to be the island? Sometimes it seems that what that side really wants is not so much for Ireland to be the island, but for it not to be the country. And under that interpretation, the compromise -- which repurposes Ireland as a disambiguation page, and renames Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) -- loses that side nothing, causes no misery at all. Ireland is still not the country.

It ought to be possible to have a single article[edit]

The other day, having not thought about this question at all for a few days, and coming at it with a fresh outlook, it occurred to me that what we really need is... a single article. Really. It could be called Ireland, and it could talk mostly about the country that exists today. Under "History" it would explain (among other things) that from 1801 to 1922 all of Ireland was part of the UK, and that since 1922, Northern Ireland still is. Under "Geography" and/or "Geology" it could talk about the interesting physical aspects of the island, with a link out to a more detailed "Geography of Ireland" article if there's a need to say more. This is by direct analogy to Australia and Geography of Australia. And, lookit that, there already is a Geography of Ireland article! So what we really need to do with the current Ireland article is not rename it to Ireland (island), but rather, merge it into Geography of Ireland.

Having a single article would never fly, of course, but not because it wouldn't make sense. (I wonder whether the real reason to have two articles is just so that the two warring camps can have separate playpens to retreat to so they don't have to fight head-to-head all the time. But that's what doesn't make sense, because it's a stratagem that exists only to serve Wikipedia's editors, not its readers. Which brings me to my next point.)

The solution to this imbroglio ought to be one that favors our readers[edit]

Too much of the debate over Ireland article naming seems to be driven by issues of nationalist pride. Our poor Wikipedia article, and in particular the mere issue of its name, becomes a pawn in this internecine debate. One side or the other in a real-world debate over Irish politics wants to score a debating point, or exact a toll in recompense for some perceived loss, by having a Wikipedia article named in a certain way. But this is of course a pirating away of what our project is supposed to be for. Wikipedia articles should be named in sensible ways, in accordance with uniform standards and policy, in ways that make sense for our readers. A goal in naming Wikipedia articles (let alone the primary goal!) is not the salving of some wounded Wikipedia editor's nationalist pride.

Arbcom might want to issue firm guidelines on how this debate should be resolved[edit]

Arbcom does not and should not typically take part in content disputes. But it might be able to perform a real service in the current dispute by reminding the disputants of what some acceptable and unacceptable arguments are, in furtherance of coming to a good and lasting solution to the conundrum. For example, "It can be shown that most readers think of 'Ireland' as the country, not the island" is a (hypothetical) argument which has valid currency in the debate. On the other hand, "We're upset that Ireland tried to drop out of the United Kingdom in 1919, and we're not going to let it take that name with it" is an (also hypothetical) argument which obviously should have no place in the decisionmaking process. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Bastun[edit]

Ireland is ambiguous[edit]

This is self-evident.

A certain group of users are extremely insistent that the article on the state must reside on the page titled after the official name of that state and that this should supplant the article on the island.

A certain group of users are extremely insistent that the article should reside at Republic of Ireland as the use of the state's own official description is a workable counter to the ambiguity.

A certain group of users has proposed an "equal misery" compromise whereby disambig tags are added after the title (Ireland (Island) and Ireland (state).

The debate rears its head at periods ranging from weeks to months, but won't go away, despite a lack of consensus for a change. This is a content dispute, and therefore usually outside Arbcom's remit, but an Arbcom resolution might at least put an end to this for once and for all.

A characterisitc of the debate has been polls conducted in sometimes unusual places, including a task force apparently set up to decide the issue, which hasn't always advertised itself and its polls as well as it might.

A characteristic of some of the polls has been attempts to impose deadlines by solo-run editors, including providing provocative "countdowns" to when the editor (not an admin) will close the poll and move the pages; and bizarre interpretation of poll results.

A characteristic of some of the polls has been attempts to discount editors because they apparently (in the opinion of a partisan user, not an admin) have merely !voted (I think "per some editor" is counted as merely !voting in these cases), or not provided a link or diff to their previous argument from other polls.

Another characteristic of the debate is the personal level it often sinks to. Specifically, those who favour the status quo are sometimes accused - incorrectly! - of trying to impose a "British PoV" by - well, its not hard to find by whom. Maybe in some cases those who favour using RoI do have a British PoV - but that's irrelevant. I know at the very least some Irish editors such as myself and User:Djegan have argued for the status quo because it makes most logical sense to us. We shouldn't be attacked for this. For my part, I make the argument for retention of RoI because:

  • Disambiguation is needed;
  • Republic of Ireland is workable, unambiguous, and uses the state's own official description, per legislation;
  • It doesn't allow the state to reside at a page called by its official name, but so what? There are literally dozens of country articles in the Wiki not on the official name of their state;
  • I honestly don't know how many people typing 'Ireland' into a search box are looking for the island or are looking for the state - and I don't think there is a way to know.
  • For quite some time an acceptable compromise of pipelinking Republic of Ireland as Ireland in appropriate places was working fine - no reason it can't be used again.

Good luck with this particular row. It, and others like it - mostly involving a small band of "dedicated" editors, have helped me make up my mind that WP can be a great resource for trivia but will never be a credible encyclopedia. I may drop in from time to time but I've already severely curtailed my involvement. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Srnec[edit]

Case study[edit]

This news article from CBC News online is a good example of English usage in a context with inherent ambiguity. And I hardly think the Canadian media can be accused of bias for or against one side. Srnec (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by {your user name}[edit]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}[edit]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}[edit]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names/Evidence&oldid=431105910"