Talk:Labour Youth

Recent additions/removals
Regarding your edits to this page, was hoping you could just discuss here rather than continuing the edit war that's beginning to emerge. For what it's worth, I think Dmeenagh's recent edits are good. The "Recent developments" section was sourced only to Meenagh's own website, Quartz India (perhaps reliable, but makes no mention of the Labour Youth), and The Daily Mail (not reliable). The first additions about the fact that the Jim Kemmy Thirst For Justice Award is awarded at the summer school seems verifiable enough, but sources that supposedly verify that Warner won the award do not. As for the large "Controversy" section, the part on Emmet Stagg would seem more appropriate for his article or for the article on the Labour Party; the assertion that the Labour Youth drew controversy for releasing a statement in support of him is not supported by the cited source. The sanction of Warner is not verifiable, as far as I can tell, although the issuu source is difficult to navigate. If it is to be re-added, it should be source to a specific page or section, rather than an entire newsletter. The two sentences about the group condemning the anti-gay advertisement and Liam Van der Spek are perhaps the only things that could remain, but as far as I'm concerned, releasing a statement like that is not itself controversy. If you can cite sources to show that the Labour Youth's act of releasing statements was in itself controversial, rather than a part of controversy related to other groups, then maybe it could be re-added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello : I saw that you removed the section "Recent history", which I had reverted after it was previously blanked by an IP editor, who did not leave an edit summary. In your edit summary, you stated that this was to "bring in line with other youth wing pages" and that "the only current events listed were negative, so the inclusion of these is bias." I came to this page through monitoring recent changes, but I see now that there has been some dispute here in the past few days. While I agree with GorillaWarfare's assessment above, I do not think that a list of events with only negative incidents is necessarily an indication of bias, or that this is a sufficient reason to delete content that is properly sourced (see WP:NPOVFAQ). Kbseah (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sarry it's not clear to you, but when several fake accounts are impersonating members of hte orgonisation and putting up clearly false information, you have to act and stop it, to sum up the recent history of this orgonisation in two events in a section liek that is clearny bias, and it is not included on other similar orgonisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmeenagh (talk • contribs) 10:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Defacement of this page
Sorry I know you are trying to help, but this isn't a real user, he is impersonating a Labour Youth Officers. I won't debate with a fake account. If you look back a few months, this page is constantly being defaced. Would appreciate some help in locking it down as I am sick of having false and nasty stuff to remove all the time. It's sad that people are expressing political disagreements with my party to vandalise the important resource that is Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmeenagh (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I mostly just wanted to make sure you were both aware that there are other eyes on this now. If the content gets re-added, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page or via email. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid Dmeenagh's accusations are an attempt to shut down debate on this page. If you look through my edit history you can see I'm not a fake account. I'm sick of an edit war, there are several other users involved. Many of my additions that were well cited have been removed for no reason. Anything that is relevant to the organisation and well cited should be included. I'd rather we discussed what does and doesn't warrant inclusion than unilaterally deleting content. RobertodonneII96 (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)robertodonnell96
 * I have no idea if you're a "fake account" or not, but I am concerned with your editing. You need to stop adding material that is not supported by the sources you provide. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is RobertodonneII96 impersonating a member of the Labour Youth Executive? that's what I want to know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmeenagh (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Robertodonnell96 is the communications officer of Labour Youth. I'm Declan Meenagh, LY's International Officer, who are you and why are you impersonating me?DecMeenagh (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've blocked this account for impersonation. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Can an admin check my account to confirm that it is linked to an official Labour email? DecMeenagh is a fake account and so is robertodonnell96. These personal attacks are not being taken seriously, and young people involved in public life are being attacked by someone with malicious intent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmeenagh (talk • contribs) 10:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And I have verified this user's identity by email. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DMeenaghLY, User:RobertodonneII96‎, User:KevLYChair, User:DeclanM89, and User:DecMeenagh have all been blocked as sockpuppets. Hopefully that'll help with some of the chaos here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of job titles
The edit made by that recapitalizes terms such as "chairperson" and "secretary-treasurer" does not conform to Wikipedia's style; see MOS:JOBTITLES. Also be aware of WP:SPECIALSTYLE. Wikipedia does not capitalize fancy job titles any more than it capitalizes "assistant electrician", nor does it capitalize headings of sections or tables, except for the first word. After looking harder at "National Youth Executive", it appears to be a committee rather than a job title, so it might be properly capitalized, though there might not be universal agreement that it is a proper name. Please exercise some restraint with upper-case letters. Chris the speller  yack  18:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)