Talk:Tory Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Etymology[edit]

Where does the name Tory come from? In keeping with the island being the land of plunderer pirates like More, Conand, and Balor, I offer the following etymology from etymonline.com:

1566, "an outlaw," specifically "a robber," from Ir. toruighe "plunderer," originally "pursuer, searcher," from O.Ir. toirighim "I pursue," related to toracht "pursuit." About 1646, it emerged as a derogatory term for Irish Catholics dispossessed of their land (some of whom subsequently turned to outlawry); c.1680 applied by Exclusioners to supporters of the Catholic Duke of York (later James II) in his succession to the throne of England. After 1689, Tory was the name of a British political party at first composed of Yorkist Tories of 1680. Superseded c.1830 by Conservative, though it continues to be used colloquially. In American history, Tory was the name given after 1769 to colonists who remained loyal to George III of England.

Translation[edit]

Any idea what the translation of the Irish names are (Oileán Thoraigh, Oileán Thoraí or formerly Oileán Thúr Rí)? These usually give a clue as to the history/geography of a place. Stormcloud (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Abandonement?[edit]

I heard in 1974 a severe storm nearly caused the island to be abandoned. Whats the story behind this? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Just saw this now). In January of 1974 a storm battered Tory for about 8 weeks. During that time the island was "cut-off" entirely. Not even helicopters could safely fly in the storm. The thought of it happening again was too much for some families, and a lot of people left the island. As many as 10 families moved to the Donegal mainland, and others considered doing the same. In the end the population dropped to about 130 people. There was even debate about a "mandatory" evacuation of the island at government level. In that, if the government couldn't guarantee safety/services/etc, then maybe everyone should be moved in a compulsory fashion. Like they did on the Blaskets in the 50s. In the end the remaining people who wanted to stay won out. But it could have gone the other way easily. If you think this warrants inclusion (and can find some supporting sources) I'd happily help frame it for inclusion. Guliolopez (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

TO THE PERSON WHO TAKE OFF THIS LINK: http://tory.wikia.com/wiki/Tory_Island_Wiki; Wikipedia is an open space, nothing allows you to remove links. This wikia is a serious website in construction providing informations about Tory Island.

Thanks to be a bit serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.164.92.132 (talk • contribs)

Hello - I actually explained my edit in the edit summary. Open or not, the relevant External Links policy "allows me to remove links" which have problems under that policy. The relevant policy on open Wikis (like the Tory wiki) is to include them only: if they are stable and have a large number of editors (the wiki you link only has one), if it provides a unique resource beyond the Wikipedia article (there is nothing new in the Tory Wikia space that isn't or couldn't be included here), etc. Further, the link appears to have been added - not to support the Wikipedia article - but to drive traffic to the Tory Wikia site. Which (regardless of the "seriousness" or respectability of the project) isn't what external links are for. What is it about this link that supports the Wikipedia article? Guliolopez (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


well. Where is the matter? You want a link, my wiki is in construction... I already explained the etymology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.171.15.73 (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure I'm following you here. Etymology means "the origin of a word" in the linguistic sense. If you mean "the reason for including the link", then I'm afraid I don't agree: I have seen no reason (either here or in edit summaries) which explains what value the link brings to this article. As I've pointed out, external links should add value or content that cannot be included in the article itself. As you point out "your wiki" is raw and empty and doesn't bring that value. As I've also stated, if you are linking here simple because it is somewhat related to the subject, and will drive traffic to "your site", then this is totally against the WP:EL#ADV guidelines. Which states that you don't include links for promotional reasons. And you don't include links to sites that you own, maintain or represent - because of WP:COI issues. Guliolopez (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It's not funny or clever do that but, keep your article of one page. You should print it as a book and put it in your bookshelve as an encyclopedia. I don't give you the right to say something bad about my wiki wich is in construction and already more interesting than your article that is a light copy of a touristic guide available on Tory. Etymology is fully explained in an article called Tory on my wiki. If you don't know it, you can find the whole description in the book of Robin Fox, Tory Island: A people of the celtic fringe. After I don't know who you are (How do you know I'm french? ), but you are not very interested into this subject... And it's not promotional, I don't sell anything. It's just a huge cultural project, that waits good contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.164.77.220 (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - Look. Firstly, I'm not "saying anything bad" about your Wiki project. I am not commenting on it as a project at all. What I am saying (very simply) is that it doesn't meet the WP:EL criteria for THIS project. That's all. It might be a great site, but it simply doesn't qualify under the relevant guidelines. Please don't take it personally. (And as I've said before in my edit summary, I knew you were French from your IP address. I made reference to that fact in an attempt to be personable. It has no bearing on anything.). Guliolopez (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


why?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.164.95.76 (talk • contribs)

For all the reasons I've already stated. Specifically those relating to linkspamming. Put as simply as possible, the link is added to the benefit of the external site. And not to the benefit of this site. You are clearly well intentioned, but - whether you mean it to be or not - that fact (that it is added to benefit your site) makes the link "spam". You may want to read "How not to be a spammer". (Paying attention to the suggestion that you "Review your intentions"). Again, please try not to take what I'm saying as a personal affront, or as negative commentary against your project. I wish your project all the best. But linking it from here, in this way, just isn't in keeping with what THIS project is about. Guliolopez (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]



"" Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. Likewise, if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something (and possibly pull up your sagging PageRank) you'll probably be disappointed, because Wikipedia uses nofollow on all external links, thereby causing search engines to effectively ignore them.""


All your accusations are wrong, as usual... We'll talk about that another day.

1/ No ideologies (if to say that Tory is a beautiful place is ideology, then the BBC article is too...) 2/ No promotional (nothing to buy or to sell) 3/ Just informations (articles and maps. ) 4/ Encyclopedia (under construction, as Wikipedia is, and that is the principle of a wiki...) 5/ Not against me? I'm not so sure of that...

We'll talk about that later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.164.73.234 (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


so I asked to other wriiters of wikipedia: Sur le fond, maintenant, non, personnellement je ne pense pas que ce soit du spam, mais je pense qu'il faut quand même que vous discutiez avec l'autre contributeur pour trouver une autre manière de rédiger tout ça. Bien sincèrement. --Christophe Dioux (d) 8 novembre 2008 à 19:29 (CET)

I seen your personal page so I think you understand what is writting here. N'est ce pas? For make it easier to understand: NON CE N EST PAS DU SPAM means NO IT S NOT SPAM... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saskia Levy (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm about done with this now. I've done everything I can to explain the guidelines to you, (and all I've gotten back is abuse). I will repeat the position one last time, and then I will be escalating this to someone else:
  1. Firstly, and most importantly, your link and your site may not constitute SPAM directly - however, your purpose in adding it here is to drive traffic to a site that you have a vested interest in. That breaches the basic WP:EL guidelines and the WP:COI guidelines. (Which is why I suggested that you "review your intentions". IE: I wanted you to ask yourself why you were adding the link - and if [as I expected] you were doing it to the benefit of your site (and not this project) then you would understand my point.)
  2. Secondly, in attempting to re-add this link - here and on other projects - you have also breached WP:NPA (by calling me and other editors names with no justification [1] [2]).
  3. Finally, the editor you asked about this CLEARLY stated that you needed to discuss the concerns before re-adding the link. I have noted from the very start that any external link should provide a "unique resource beyond the Wikipedia article". You have still not addressed this point, and have never explained what kind of a resource "your Wiki" provides. Instead you have engaged in WP:EDITWARring. Which is a further breach of project guidelines.
Now. I am going to ask another (impartial) editor to review this. Which should hopefully satisfy your (unfounded) concerns that I am acting out of "jealousy", "malevolence" or some other reason. When, in fact, I am simply applying the guidelines of this project without bias. Thank you. Guliolopez (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of the external link to the Tory island wiki by Saskia Levy and the other anon IP addresses used whether this is the same person or not, clearly contravene the External links guidelines. Look at the section entitled Links normally to be avoided and you will see that the link clearly falls within the description of # 12. For this reason it will be removed and if it keeps being added it will be removed. The COI, edit-warring are other reasons that breach Wikipedia policy and guidelines may get an editor barred by an administrator from editing this wiki. Sorry but even though anyone is entitled to make edits, there are some rules to be followed. ww2censor (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tory Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tory_Island&oldid=1204493777"