Talk:Troops Out Movement

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Poster50r.jpg

Image:Poster50r.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labels and NPOV

This organization has no official doctrine related to anti-monarchist or pro-republican movements. Any link to such ideological issues is pure speculation and a gross violation of wikipedia's policies. What can be objectivaly described in this encyclopedic article is the fact that this organization is based in the United Kingodom, with the purpose of fighting for the return of the military presence in Ireland. Maziotis (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From their own website: "We are a campaigning organisation committed to bringing an end to British rule in the 'Northern Ireland' statelet and thus re-uniting Ireland". This, in addition to the sources below (the Edwards source being taken with a punch of salt) clearly show it is a republican organisation I feel. [1] [2] [3] Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing in the quote you just showed me that has this organization categorically defined as being one that defends the ideology of republicanism. I can understand how some people, especially those involved in the troubles, may take the Irish question into two sides and say that TOM is a part of the "Irish republicanism" as opposed to the "loyalist". But this label is not objective and you should take care not to synthesize. If anything, by the sources you just showed me, the organization might be labeled "republican"; but I cannot see any clear official statement on its part. Please remember that we are NOT here to find the truth about this organization (Wikipedia:Verifiability).

I suppose there must be some British republicans involved in this organization. But is the organization officially defined by that, or is it just regarded as such? This would only concern the issue of directly labeling them on the first led line or how they are perceived in society in a subsequent section. Even when we are dealing with clear reliable sources, it is always important to distinguish who claims what and by what authority. It would also be interesting to ask whether they can work comfortably with British monarchists or not. But from this to labeling them an "Irish republican organization" goes a long way indeed. Maziotis (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem attributing the sources and stating what they say - ie "Foo has called the organisation republican" or whatever. But to remove any mention of republicanism from the article would mean it would fall foul of NPOV, as all major viewpoints would then not be mentioned. Just stating "is a republican organisation" was probably lazy editing by whoever wrote it, but it's hardly a contentious point. The website, including the quote above, clearly shows its politicial outlook. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see that connection as being obvious. I can understand that we are dealing with an organization that attracts British republicans as sympathizers. But that is not the same as claiming that the organization functions as a republican forum, much less being considered officially republican. Are you convinced that TOM is some kind of platform for republicans within United Kingdom? Anyway, the label in question was "Irish republican" and not just "republican". Besides the fact that there are clearly no sources to back that first category, I have to say in answer to your supposition that this does seem to me like someone's idea of making politics through Wikipedia. Maziotis (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't see how much more clear can the article be in terms of posing this organization as defeding the interests of the republican movement in Ireland. Perhaps describe its associations with Sinn Féin?

An organisation started by Irish people in Britain does not equal "British organisation". O Fenian (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please share your sources. You have to understand that I have no bias interest in this issue. I am here in good faith and I believe that my position is well backed up and justified. If you have new sources or a different interpretation on the existing ones, please do share. It is my understanding that this organization is indeed based in the United Kingdom. Maziotis (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read their website, something anyone with sense would have done to begin with. O Fenian (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read their website. We have been discussing their website in this discussion from the beginning. I think I understand where you are coming from, but Wikipedia:Verifiability does require that we be somewhat "naive" sometimes. Labelling this organization as "irish republican" is totally unaceptable per wikipedia's policies. Please read the discussion above. Maziotis (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to be lectured on about policy and discussions by an editor who ignores them at will. An organisation formed by Irish people in Britain is not British, or are you going to admit you ignored sources and policy? O Fenian (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the website, your premise is indeed false. I am not trying to lecture anyone. Maziotis (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to me, you can either revert your edit or be reported for breaching 1RR. You choose. O Fenian (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that I am working within the rules. Your only reason offered to revert the version of the article has been refuted. Please discuss in the talk page before editing the article. Maziotis (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like you did, where you keep saying you are right and edit war against anyone who disagrees. Why do you not take your own advice and "discuss in the talk page before editing the article"? O Fenian (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never changed the article without discussing it first. I only reverted yours because you only offered a justification on the summary edit and didn't seem to be willing to discuss it on the talk page. If no further justification is given on this page in the next 24 hours, I will revert the article again to the version that I believe is correct. If you believe that I am being bias and violating wp:or please point it out to me. So far, I cannot find a single source that either describes this organization as being "irish repulican" (it doesn't matter how much "patently obvious" some may find) or the organization being formed by irish in the UK (I have actually found sources indicating the opposite of this one). Maziotis (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your first post on the talk page was at 14:51, 4 January 2010, after you had edited the article at 21:16, 3 January 2010 and 14:43, 4 January 2010. "I have never changed the article without discussing it first" seems to be a bit inaccurate? O Fenian (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but that is simply absurd. The edits you have just mentioned were my first in the article, when no dispute was involved. Maziotis (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would suggest you are incorrect, at least in relation to the second edit. O Fenian (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it was clear to you that when I said "change", in the context of the conversation we were having, I meant it "change back". I can see you are having a hard time accepting my good faith. I hope that part can be clear out now.

You are right about that last diff. I should have waited for Stuart's response in the talk page before editing the article. I am sorry about that. Maziotis (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, what I have said about the importance of wikipedia's policies on the content of this article still applies. I have never tried to lecture anyone in any way, but I do feel that I am personally acting in good faith. I stand by what I said before discussing my false step in reverting the article. Maziotis (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you order other editors not to edit the article, while you can edit it? No thanks. O Fenian (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I think you should edit to whatever version you think is right. No one is addressing my point, so I changed to a then far non-disputed version. Simple rules of the wikipedia. I have never order anything to anyone, and my defense over supposed editar war violations did recognize the mistake regarding an edit by Stuart. I explained the reasons why. Maziotis (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Troops Out Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100510025233/http://www.tribune.ie:80/article/2010/may/02/the-phoenix/ to http://www.tribune.ie/article/2010/may/02/the-phoenix/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Present Tense?

As there's nothing here to show that the TOM is still active now, is the present tense still appropriate? If it has in fact been disbanded, shouldn't Wikipedia say so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.163.236.249 (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]