Talk:Reform Group (Ireland)

Is it a real organisation?
''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.''


 * It is a real organisation. It has a website, mailing list, a committee (several of whom occasionally appear on televised discussion programmes) and members (including me !). So whatever about being nutcases there is definitely more than one of us !80.229.222.48 13:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They're a small organisation as far as I can tell. I occasionally see a letter in the papers - I may even have seen an article published by someone identifying themselves as a member (other than Robin Bury, who writes the letters). AFAIK, there are one or two people online who sympathise with them - one goes (or went) by the nym Ozymandias. Dunno much else about them, apart from having worked in the same building as someone who was supposed to be a member. Autarch 20:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They are a real organisation. I work in Irish-American circles in genealogical projects and know that Ruth Dudley Edwards, author of "The Faitful Tribe" is an advisor. I also have come across board members who represent the United States branch of the organisation.  It seems to me that is more of a think tank (circle of intellectuals and commentators) then a broad-based membership group but it did manage to get RTE Radio to discuss the Commonwealth issue when I was back in Dublin in 1999. The Rejoining the Commonwealth idea goes all the way back to Lemass and Lenehan so one can only speculate on why Wiki members are so quick to dismiss this organisation.  Whether one likes or dislikes their idea is irrelevant; I think it's ludicrous to delete the article due to the overused "notability". The Christian Solidarity Party has a page but The Reform Movement doesn't rise to the same level of notability. Give me a break. Redtory 00:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Irish Unionist Alliance.
The Irish Unionist Alliance has similar goals as the Reform Movement of Ireland.Here's a link to their website; []. - (Aidan Work 04:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC))


 * There may be come common features in the short term, but that note that the Reform Movement would not support the first objective of the Irish Unionist Alliance "To work for the creation of a new, dynamic and prosperous Ireland within a Federal United Kingdom" or another "To support the retention of the Pound Sterling as the currency of the United Kingdom". --Henrygb 03:28, 15 January 2006 (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)

Irish Parliamentary Party
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)

Language Freedom Movement
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)


 * Isn't that more along the lines of speculation, then? I'd still class that as a vague link - otherwise we might end up linking the article on Daniel O'Connell to the Language Freedom Movement! Autarch 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have since removed the link to the Language Freedom Movement, because it is irrelevant to the current article. A vague similarity just isn't enough to justify the link and it might give a misleading impression to users of Wikipedia about the two organisations. Autarch 14:38, 27 February 2007 (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)
 * The Language Freedom Movement was pretty much focused on changing the status of Irish wheras the Reform Movement has a whole lot of other aims - just look at their website. The fact that the Reform Movement has a stand on changing the status of Irish doesn't imply that they are related - I don't think that the Language Freedom Movement had any positions other than those on the status of Irish. The Language Freedom Movement seems to have wound down in the 1970s, wheras the Reform Movement was founded in 1998, as a search of soc.culture.irish shows. They are therefore two separate organisations with little to connect them apart. Autarch 17:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to remove the Language Freedom Movement link if it's still there. That John B. Keane or any of the many bright and wonderfully Irish supporters of LFM in the 1960s would have anything whatsoever to do with the neo-colonial agenda of these complete and utter non-entities in this ridiculously named organisation- a nostaligic organisation whose entire purpose is to make themselves once again feel like a privileged elite here in Ireland- defies belief. These "Reform Movement" types laud those who died for British Imperialism. The families of John B. and many of the rest in the LFM fought to free Ireland from that very fanaticism. If I recall, men on both sides of John B's family died in the hills of Kerry fighting British state terrorism. Jesus! The amount of absolute crap! Get a job you spent relics of the British Empire, you parasites of parasites. Work like the rest of us. Oh the conceit! Oh the delusional clinging on to some mythical "glory days" of the British Empire as a pathetic excuse to face the real Ireland where you have no special privileges over us natives. They're so obvious it is no wonder that every time all ten members of this ridiculously named organisation raise their heads in The Irish Times letters page they receive a barrage of letters from Irish Protestants rejecting everything they stand for. Ian Cox, who is no doubt on this page, is the most recent example of this. For that matter, why in the name of Christ do these ten tossers even have a wikipedia page? My granny achieved more significance in her days running Thompsons and Enfields and even sandwiches and jumpers as a member of Cumann na mBan during the war. Jesus again. 86.42.82.239 (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For someone who is accusing Reform of nostaliga for fanaticism that was quite a rant ? 80.229.222.48 (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the tags ?
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)
 * I see the tags are back ! Now someone (no doubt an opponent of the organisation) apparently reckons Reform arent "important enough" to merit an article on Wikipedia ? Now while nobody is claiming that Reform is some kind of mass movement it is a growing organisation whose membershp includes some pretty prominent figures. There are all manner of outfits far smaller than Reform with even longer articles on Wikipedia which dont suffer anything like the same level of vandalism ! 87.112.28.7 23:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can prove all of your asertions by using reliable sources then I would be happy to remove the tags. I also do not appriciate the absurd accusation of vandalism.--Vintagekits 23:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the existence of the tags is a textbook example of the worst elements of Wiki editor snottiness; Reform is a small organization with an interesting mandate that has punched above its weight in bringing their issue into the news media. Since when does an org have to publish a list of members (privacy issues?!) to prove notability? "If you can prove...I would be happy to remove the tags." What condescension! Redtory 00:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no snottyness, its just the there are no indepentent and verifiable sources that show the organisation is notable.--Vintagekits 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes the Christian Solidarity Party notable? David Alvey of Irish Political Review Group summarizes the group's notability at http://ireland.indymedia.org/article/79495. Scroll down to his summary. I do think the use of tags is snotty; I think Wikipedia encourages a certain level of intransigence in some people. This is honestly ludicrous; if this org had a different politcial agenda, we wouldn't even be having this debate. Redtory 00:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * IIRC, David Alvey is associated with the successors to theB&ICO, which have an ongoing dispute with the Reform Movement. This is more trivia than anything else. Autarch 16:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the main thing that needs to be done with the article is to find verifiable sources for the statements that can be verified and delete the statements that cannot. Not because of agreement with the organisations goals - I don't, but because it can be hard to judge how many sources constitute a notability when it comes to an organisation.Autarch 19:08, 14 March 2007 (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)


 * Agreed on the issue of notability - other equally obscure organisations (e.g. Christian Solidarity Party, the B&ICO, etc.) have entries that haven't been challenged. One small point - when leaving a comment on a talk page, type four tildes at the end of your comment, so Wikipedia will add your username, date and time of comment. Autarch 18:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Objections
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)

The Pheonix
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)