This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there anything to prove that 'The Reform Movement' is a real organisation, such as a published list of members? I get the strong impression that its merely a single nutcase who is an obcessive troll in internet discussions, using multiple online identities.
The Irish Unionist Alliance has similar goals as the Reform Movement of Ireland.Here's a link to their website; [ [1]]. - ( Aidan Work 04:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC))
To an extent this is true although on the currency issue Reform would say it was a matter for the People/Government of the United Kingdom to decide. As for supporting Irish membership of a federal UK while one can speculate on whether members of Reform would support such an arrangment the official line says that as such an aim is not practicable in the forseeable future it simply isint on the agenda. Thus Reform doesnt support Irish reentry into the UK and doesnt oppose it either. 87.112.24.52 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the point in having a link to the IPP here. The reform movement doesn't claim itself to be the successors to the IPP and it's not calling for Ireland to go back to Home Rule. Dermo69
On its website Reform states it is a Redmondite organisation so I guess thats why there is a link ! 87.112.24.52 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I can see why the article on the Language Freedom Movement might merit a link to the Reform Movement page, but is one in the other direction neccessary? It might be taken to imply that there is a connection which is tenuous at best. Autarch 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no connection. The Language freedom movement had (unfortunately IMNSHO) went out of existance many years before Reform was established but there is enough of a similarity in the aims of the two organisations to justify a link surely 87.112.24.52 19:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a vague similarity is enough to justify that - were there members of the Language Freedom Movement who later became members of the Reform Movement? Autarch 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Cant really answer that question but I suspect most Reform members werent born (or were very young) when the LFM was wound up. But since both organisations campaign(ed) for the ending of compulsion in relation to the study of Gaelic in Irish Schools I reckon the similarity is more than vauge although I accept that While just about all Reform members would have supported the aims of the LFM (had the two organisations been around at the same time) not all LFM members would have supported all the aims of Reform. 87.112.80.80 19:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
"it might give a misleading impression to some users" Unless of course they were to actually READ the articles and the discussion pages 87.112.28.7 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason for the continued existance of the dispute tags. The tone of the article niether condones or criticises the organisation but is simply a factual description of the organisation and its aims. Any of the statments marked "citation needed" van be verified with a quick glance at the Reform's own website. Can anyone come up with a reasonable justification for keeping the tags or shall I remove them ? 87.112.24.52 19:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Why this big hang up about notability anyway ? Weve established that the organisation exists and what it stands for. Is that not good enough ? Nobody claims they are a big organisation (The article itself states "most Irish people have never heard of them") Wikipedia has guidelines on notability, verifibility and original research for good reasons but the degree to which a lot of people have been interpreting them recently is bordering on the obsessive and has destroyed many a good article. Provided an article doesnt contain false or misleading information why cant people just let it be ?? The number of articles published (in print or on the internet) on a topic is not necessairly a reliable measure of its importance. 80.229.222.48 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Others believe becoming part of the Commonwealth is not necessary as the two countries already share close economic and cultural ties in the European Union, as well as similar television, sports events, etc
What similar sporting events? Is there hurling and gaelic football in England? Final played at Wembley yeah? And we have our own TV stations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.141.161.158 ( talk) 06:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else think that this section needs a rewrite ? The last three lines in particular sound more like an argument FOR commonwelth membership than against it ??? And wouldnt criticism(s) be a better title for the section than "objections" ? 80.229.222.48 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC) I agree...what cultural ties?? We speak the same language yes. But we have our own games (GAA), music/dance, language, art, religion (generally), and as far as I can see...a completely different outlook and philosophy on life. Why don't they leave our country to hell alone? Whoever wrote that sentence, is pro-reform movement... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.141.161.158 ( talk) 06:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding, this edit. Maybe it's not all satire but the editorial style means that we cannot pull a quote from the Phoenix and present it alongside the cold and objective tone of an encyclopedia.
I suggest it be removed and another source be found to criticise the group, if one is needed. -- RA ( talk) 19:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there anything to prove that 'The Reform Movement' is a real organisation, such as a published list of members? I get the strong impression that its merely a single nutcase who is an obcessive troll in internet discussions, using multiple online identities.
The Irish Unionist Alliance has similar goals as the Reform Movement of Ireland.Here's a link to their website; [ [1]]. - ( Aidan Work 04:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC))
To an extent this is true although on the currency issue Reform would say it was a matter for the People/Government of the United Kingdom to decide. As for supporting Irish membership of a federal UK while one can speculate on whether members of Reform would support such an arrangment the official line says that as such an aim is not practicable in the forseeable future it simply isint on the agenda. Thus Reform doesnt support Irish reentry into the UK and doesnt oppose it either. 87.112.24.52 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the point in having a link to the IPP here. The reform movement doesn't claim itself to be the successors to the IPP and it's not calling for Ireland to go back to Home Rule. Dermo69
On its website Reform states it is a Redmondite organisation so I guess thats why there is a link ! 87.112.24.52 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I can see why the article on the Language Freedom Movement might merit a link to the Reform Movement page, but is one in the other direction neccessary? It might be taken to imply that there is a connection which is tenuous at best. Autarch 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no connection. The Language freedom movement had (unfortunately IMNSHO) went out of existance many years before Reform was established but there is enough of a similarity in the aims of the two organisations to justify a link surely 87.112.24.52 19:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a vague similarity is enough to justify that - were there members of the Language Freedom Movement who later became members of the Reform Movement? Autarch 21:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Cant really answer that question but I suspect most Reform members werent born (or were very young) when the LFM was wound up. But since both organisations campaign(ed) for the ending of compulsion in relation to the study of Gaelic in Irish Schools I reckon the similarity is more than vauge although I accept that While just about all Reform members would have supported the aims of the LFM (had the two organisations been around at the same time) not all LFM members would have supported all the aims of Reform. 87.112.80.80 19:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
"it might give a misleading impression to some users" Unless of course they were to actually READ the articles and the discussion pages 87.112.28.7 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason for the continued existance of the dispute tags. The tone of the article niether condones or criticises the organisation but is simply a factual description of the organisation and its aims. Any of the statments marked "citation needed" van be verified with a quick glance at the Reform's own website. Can anyone come up with a reasonable justification for keeping the tags or shall I remove them ? 87.112.24.52 19:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Why this big hang up about notability anyway ? Weve established that the organisation exists and what it stands for. Is that not good enough ? Nobody claims they are a big organisation (The article itself states "most Irish people have never heard of them") Wikipedia has guidelines on notability, verifibility and original research for good reasons but the degree to which a lot of people have been interpreting them recently is bordering on the obsessive and has destroyed many a good article. Provided an article doesnt contain false or misleading information why cant people just let it be ?? The number of articles published (in print or on the internet) on a topic is not necessairly a reliable measure of its importance. 80.229.222.48 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Others believe becoming part of the Commonwealth is not necessary as the two countries already share close economic and cultural ties in the European Union, as well as similar television, sports events, etc
What similar sporting events? Is there hurling and gaelic football in England? Final played at Wembley yeah? And we have our own TV stations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.141.161.158 ( talk) 06:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else think that this section needs a rewrite ? The last three lines in particular sound more like an argument FOR commonwelth membership than against it ??? And wouldnt criticism(s) be a better title for the section than "objections" ? 80.229.222.48 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC) I agree...what cultural ties?? We speak the same language yes. But we have our own games (GAA), music/dance, language, art, religion (generally), and as far as I can see...a completely different outlook and philosophy on life. Why don't they leave our country to hell alone? Whoever wrote that sentence, is pro-reform movement... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.141.161.158 ( talk) 06:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding, this edit. Maybe it's not all satire but the editorial style means that we cannot pull a quote from the Phoenix and present it alongside the cold and objective tone of an encyclopedia.
I suggest it be removed and another source be found to criticise the group, if one is needed. -- RA ( talk) 19:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)