Talk:Workers' Youth League (Norway)

Notes on the massacre
I admittedly seemed angry when I undid the Texas IP's revision who was basically justifying the shooter. But we certainly can't go to the point of removing everything that's "politicized", otherwise we wouldn't understand much of it! It's an article about a left-wing youth movement, so it would be preposterous not to say that when its meeting was attacked, the shooter was motivated by far-right purposes. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Minimum Age
What has happened is awful and has shocked me deeply, and there is something else that is worrying me, and I would hope someone can put the answer in this article: what is the minimum age for this organisation? There is talk in the international media that there was an 11 year old at Utøya, and that there were 13 year olds killed. If this is true, then any real democracy knows there is something disturbingly Orwellian about having such young kids, below voting age, at a ruling party's political youth league camp - and that this must have contributed to putting them in harm's way. Harsimaja (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume you are American since 1) you didn't know such organization could exist 2) you look for answers to your questions on Wikipedia (arguably a place for finding missing facts, but not learning... more valuable is a research with keywords like youth politics or youth political organizations and read expert litterature on that)
 * Anyway, the first and obvious difference with the Nazis is that nobody is forced to enrol. In the US, Teenage Republicans and Young Democrats of America High School Caucus do exist, but given the popular reactions I've read from the US, they are probably near to unknown, or despised. In Britain however, Conservative Future has a history that stems from the early 20th century. In Europe, and particularly Scandinavia, there is a youth counterpart for each and every political party. And given that there are a lot of them, party competitiveness is much higher than in the US, so appealing to the youth is decisive. (in comparison, dems and reps take 2 and 1 third each and that's it).
 * In a nutshell:
 * Members of YO help their party campaign
 * They have a permanent say, through the use of Summer universities, like the yearly there is on Utøya, where they can discuss with the heads of the party (unless...)
 * The YO are often among those who choose who gets party leadership, like last year in Britain
 * The YO is the easiest path to a political career, because gaining power in a YO full of other ambitious people serves as a diploma for political (& oratory) skills. The current Norway PM was AUF leader at 31, Minister at 33.
 * They help form networks, which is essential for a party's luck
 * Last but not least, they introduce people to democracy by fueling debates within Universities, where the different YO have an office (debate being anointed in Scandinavia).

82.240.207.81 (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm an American? Never even be to that wonderful country, I'm afraid (note I used British spelling - and in fact I was born with secondary Norwegian citizenship). In that case, you must be French: you gave an automatic anti-American rant for absolutely no reason. Seriously though: I meant no offence, as I think was quite clear, and I expect more courtesy from someone so anxious to lecture. Unlike your response, my paragraph was not rude, merely concerned and inquiring, and I do not appreciate rants in bad faith: first and second rules of debating (important except for the more vicious career politician): never put words into people's mouths, and never pick an ad hominem fight. I never made any cliché comparison with the Nazis. This Youth League's predecessor used to be officially Communist, so if I wanted to rant unreasonably there would be some better unfair analogues... I did refer to Orwell, who was himself a Socialist, but had International, not National, Socialist dictators in mind in his books.


 * I resorted to Wikipedia late: I understand some Norwegian, and looked at the organisation's website first, but could not find the information I sought. I do not subscribe to political blogs (which are far more inaccurate and full of rants), and perhaps unlike you have no copious amount of knowledge about youth leagues' inner workings (forgive me, of course everyone ought to), so I used this in frustration. Though not involved with politics myself I have had to deal with a particular officially Communist youth league far worse than any in Western Europe - but I cannot but find it odd that in even in a perhaps naive democracy like Norway's children can be members: even the one I just mentioned is only for over-18 year olds. I agree this awful practice of both indoctrination and corrupting the minds of the (extremely) young with career politics of whatever ideology may be more widespread than I thought, though I have been aware of Britain's, America's, and other countries' Youth Leagues for some time.


 * It does not matter that they are not forced - I never dreamt they were - but the Norwegian government has something of an unjust hold over the state media, far from the BBC's relative neutrality (I find the bias and what failed attempts at political correctness there excruciating - does the NRK still report election results as 'Socialist vs. Non-Socialist'?), and I think there is something rather worrying about bringing people into a political party when they are legally deemed unable to vote, and should still be making up their minds without (even voluntary) indoctrination. I have now heard one victim was 14, which is sickening first for obvious reasons, but it is still a little worrying that he was there at all.


 * By the way, the Democrats and Republicans both do have youth 'wings', but members must be of voting age.


 * The only reason Wikipedia is not as perfect as you may like (at least in political and controversial issues) is because of those unbalanced, unreasonable contributors who rant, often with unwarranted personal attacks - though there is at least more of a moderating effect. Not only is it more balanced than Behring's evil rant of a document, I imagine it's more balanced than the material distributed by this youth league - which is party political - and this is the point - and I WAS looking for a simple missing fact. I do not intend to 'learn' about this deeply, or do a long depressing university course in youth politics - the student politicians I bump in to are annoying enough. Harsimaja (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A matter of fact is that, just between the moment I read your question and the moment I typed my answer, I came across a quote of some far-right American radio celebrity, about the shooting. I couldn't help thinking of a common link. I ended up answering the prejudiced pundit and didn't even looked for the "I would"s and the adverbs put at the end of your question, let alone the different nature of the inquiry. I wish the idea that I actually doubted you were American can put you at rest on that point.
 * In France the membership age must be at 15, perhaps 14. Norway seeming naive, it is very possible that the youngest killed were simply attendants but not members. Since you know bits of Norwegian, you could ask on a Norwegian website, a forum or wikipedia, the requirements of the law. I am not an expert on herd instincts, so my knowledge of youth organizations is limited. But I tend to dismiss the idea they are more manipulating than the media to other people. In France, they are more gatherings of young who have time to lose and who are already persuaded they're on the right way. Their willpower is then used as workforce for sticking posters, distributing leaflets.
 * As for Norway, manipulation might be less useful, since most governements are coalitions. Also, I am surprised by the widespread use of 'camp', that makes me think first of bootcamps - not perhaps for a native speaker - when describing this annual meeting - still a camp. Slate describes it as "Debates, lectures, and regular summer camp stuff.", like sports activities, between teenagers from 14 to 25.
 * At the end of the day, I can't fake knowledge, so the last word comes down to someone who knows the country. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link, which has confirmed that 14 year olds are included. Of course this should not be illegal, but I strongly stick with the not unheard-of view that childhood should be free from all party politics.


 * Indeed, as a native speaker, I find the word 'camp' can be positive or negative according to context (from 'happy camp' to 'death camp'). It's just the Old French for the modern 'champ', after all. Harsimaja (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I must admit I still don't understand why you think a blogger on Slate or a Norwegian political site carries more weight than Wikipedia: is this true learning either? If you glean correct facts from it, I suppose it is, but I might warn you it may not be much more reliable, especially without any moderation from other people. For example, the author pursues the idea of Breivik considering himself a Christian martyr because he considers himself a 'cultural Christian' and a 'crusader' - but he used the first term precisely to emphasise the fact he is NOT a religious Christian, and also states this explicitly in his manifesto. He uses the second term in the general sense of 'warrior for a cause'. Apparently he even jeered that he was 'God' to the victims, so he certainly did not want to be a 'Christian martyr'. Harsimaja (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My remark on Wikipedia wasn't relevant, since you are looking for a fact - which age - rather than be taught about youth organizations. Cause if you were, I'm not sure Wikipedia would have been as straight to the point (though pedantic) as me. You would have had to find all of (what's in my first message) this by yourself. Each solution has its drawbacks, but it seems that everyone has given up learning physics with Wikipedia. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict-of-interest editing
has been requested to exercise due caution in light of the fact that he has declared himself closely associated with this subject. Recent edits by Toresbe and attempts to address the situation on his user talk page have been futile, so I have filed a report at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. __meco (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They haven't been futile; I've told you to look at any one of the previous COI allegations on my talk page. Please learn how the COI rules work before accusing people of having COIs. I'm getting pretty frustrated. toresbe (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Members list
I agree with User:Toresbe that a list of members of AUF is not needed. Such a list would have include thousands of people, be impossible to maintain and is thus POV. Please do not re-add such content. A listing of leaders and their deputies is acceptable because of their role within the organization at question. If folks want to work on this article, the history section would most probably be a good place to divulge. Arsenikk (talk)  21:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And please do not add links to people on other languages of Wikipedia. If the people are notable, make a red link and consider making an article on them. If they are not notable, they probably shouldn't be in an article of this scope anyway. Arsenikk (talk)  21:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I have added Berge Furre and Tonje Brenna to one category—and the not so relevant other category includes Aril Edvardsen, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Øystein Mæland and Oddvar Norli. If other encyclopedias mention the AUF membership of notable people, then why should we not cite that in this article? --No parking here (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But Berge Furre is not notable for his AUF membership, he is notable for what he did after he left the organization, much like for instance Anders Behring Breivik would not be fit for inclusion in a brief FpU article. :) toresbe (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But Berge Furre is notable for what he achieved as an AUF member in 1958 (and for the amount of press he got that year). And seperately he is notable for what he did after he left the organization. I have already added one citation—a link from NRK, to support my view. What citation do you have to support your view, of something that happened 5 years before JFK visited Dallas, Texas for the last time? --No parking here (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding a list of members, there is no consensus for such a list, and it is unclear what inclusion or exclusion criteria you have for your list. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing a list of "Members who became notable outside AUF", there is no consensus for not having such a list. --No parking here (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Everyone in this debate except No parking here agrees that there should not be a list or other mention of members who are notable for other issues than their involvement in AUF. This means that there is consensus to not include such a list and adding it is disruptive. Arsenikk (talk)  11:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I also find this list a reasonable element of this article. AUF is in essence a leadership academy, and one of national significance at that, so it becomes intrinsically of interest to present members who have gone on to other notable achievements, in whatever capacity and arena. __meco (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The claim that AUF is a «leadership academy» is strange. Sure, teaching people how to participate in politics, which I guess you could say is a type of leadership, is a part of what the organization does, but... it's not exactly an MBA program. Having a members list, or notable members list, is simply not going to be a very practical endeavour. Indeed, As Arsenikk correctly pointed out, AUF has had too many notable members for this to be a workable idea. The list of members is simply being used as an awkward way of formulating the history of the organization, which is woefully incomplete on this article and something I hope to ameliorate myself in due time. toresbe (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @"simply being used as an awkward way of formulating the history". If there is consensus that this is the case, then I suggest we keep the list and add some tag at the beginning of each section (or subsection)—to address the allegedly "awkward way of formulating the history", and to indicate/hint (in few words) a better solution. Is there any suggestion as to what tag I should add, next time I expand the lists with new notable names from the first Stoltenberg Government? --No parking here (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Label
See Breivik a "terrorist" or not according to WP:Label?. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Political orientation
The news media usually calls the WYL a branch of the Labour Party. It is not. Given its origins in the merger of the Left Communist Youth League and Socialist Youth League of Norway, is the League politically to the left of the Labour Party?203.80.61.102 (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)