Talk:Young Liberals (Australia)/Archive 1

Last Paragraph Argument
The last paragraph appears slanted. a) only one side told, b) use of extreme language. Xtra 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Could do with some editing, but praise and/or criticism from the Liberal Party, especially from prominent figures like Hewson, is certainly worthy of inclusion. I recall there used to be some criticism in here from Malcolm Fraser, which gained plenty of attention around the time that convention in Hobart called for him to be expelled from the Liberal Party, perhaps we could find some sources for that. --bainer (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * nothing wrong with the paragraph, it's a referenced statement that has been documented. not extreme if it's exactly what he said verbatim. and coming from a reputable person from a reputable Liberal person. Steven Fitter 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides that report being incorrect in describing liberal students as young liberals. It left out an important part in that the chant of "were racist...." was in response to a socialist chant of "racist, sexist, anti-queer, liberals are not welcome here". Xtra 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. That lateline report is the biggest load of bullshit I have ever read, even from the socialist empire of the ABC. It does not deserve a mention and definitely not such a POV entry. Xtra 12:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Xtra are you a member of the Liberals? I think so. I think I see some bias. are you questioning what Dr John Hewson says. he went on the record. 210.56.69.116 13:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * by the way, it was 4 corners not lateline 210.56.69.116 13:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Xtra was referring to this addition by .--cj | talk 13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a Liberal, just as I know many Green and Labor wikipedians who edit this and other political articles. What is your point 210.56.69.116? Why should I receive critisism for having a veiw. I am not trying to promulgate my views in wikipedia, only to correct a falacy and POV language which I see as an attack and unencyclopaedic. Also, Hewson and others like Fraser are only speaking out because they are bitter that their factions are not as powerful as they were. Xtra 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is, it is similarly if Paul Keating or Bob Hawke said something similar about their own party that would also be noteworthy. you should not let your own political bias make you remove referenced text critical about your party 210.56.68.59 13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a version which I hope is more NPOV, it covers that the program detailed allegations of branch stacking by both left and and right factions, includes a response in the opinion pages that people like Hewson were only speaking out because they had lost their influence. Please let me know what you think, I'm planning on doing a similar workup of the material around the controversy with Malcolm Fraser last year. --bainer (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Much better. Xtra 06:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Lateline developments must be mentioned due to notability - the claims are recent and there is video footage of Liberal students singing racist chants. The article would be imcomplete if it didn't mention such important developments. Brendanfox 13:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The chants were not racist and were only sung to shut up the lefties singing their derogotary songs. seeing as it is the leftys who took the footage I wonder why their chants didn't appear. The Lateline report is POV and leaves out important facts. Xtra 13:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Xtra, I think you may have misunderstood the NPOV policy - it doesn't stipulate that all sources used must themselves be NPOV, but that all (important) POV's should be mentioned, so that the article itself is then of a NPOV. If you want to provide a response to the report, or some of those "important facts", this would be preferred over removing the content altogether. With regard to Young Liberals vs. ALSF, I believe the Lateline report should be mentioned in both articles.  As you've pointed out, the footage itself relates directly to the ALSF, whereas the Lateline report as a whole is concerned with the Young Liberals, and uses the behavior of Liberal students, many of whom are currently, or will eventually become members of the Young Liberals to consider the prevalence of racial attitudes and changing political beliefs of the Young Liberals and the Liberal party itself. Brendanfox 01:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Young Libs and the Lib students are really quite separate. Perhaps a better item to cover would be this report of the Melbourne Uni Liberal Club (ie, Liberal students) gatecrashing a Young Libs' ball. It's a fairly regular occurrence, the two groups hate each other, and in Victoria especially they're trying to phase each other out. --bainer (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember that report, and I'm aware that there are two seperate movements here, but I'm just not sure about this idea that Young Liberals are the moderates and Liberal Students are the right-wingers. A lot of the reporting about this footage, and incident has suggested that the lines between these two groups are not so clear, and that in fact the students in that footage are "Young Liberals". Brendanfox 10:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a popular misconception that liberal students are young liberals. and most people who don't know the difference are not scrupulous enough to differentiate them when making a report. Xtra 13:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On the issue of the Students being right wing and Young Libs being moderate. My experience (and I know this doesn't count for much for an encyclopedia) is that in Victoria at least, the Young Liberals are more of a board church than outright moderate (as they used to be) but the Liberal Students are very right wing. To make things complicated, some (but not all) of the Liberal Students are also Young Liberals - indeed as most of them are from Melbourne Uni and are called MULCers (Melbourne University Liberal Club) and are a (right wing) faction within the Young Liberals in Victoria. Of course if anyone wants to add anyone of this they will need to verify it and that will be tricky as Xtra notes everyone gets the Young Liberals and Students mixed up. On the whole the Young Libs are to the left of the ALSF but there are some right wing Young Libs - I guess that's what I am trying to say. Teiresias84 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you put something like - Recently there was media coverage of a XwhateverX event in which the X(left/right/whatever)X faction of the Xyoung/student/clubX liberal party was seen to be singing "were racist...." however this could of been prevoked by Xwho ever they wereX who were reported to be singing ""racist, sexist, anti-queer, liberals are not welcome here".

In the end People just want to know what happened and how it happened.

Text
This text was removed from the main Liberal Party article. Some of it could be useable here. Adam 04:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

History
The Young Liberal Movement owes its inception to Robert Gordon Menzies.

Around 1929 Menzies, serving as an Opposition member of the Victorian State Parliament joined with Wilfred Kent-Hughes (later the Member for Chisholm 1949-69) in the formation of the Young Nationalists Organisation, and served as its first President. The success of the Young Nationalists was such that they gained strong parliamentary representation and in 1932 the Premier, Sir Stanley Argyle, felt obliged to include three of them to the eight person United Australia Party Cabinet. Menzies himself became Attorney General, Minister for Railways and Deputy Premier of Victoria.

The Young Nationalists continued to play a most prominent role in the non-Labor side of politics in Victoria, and it was not surprising that Menzies invited them to send delegates to the meeting held in Canberra in October 1944, which was to lay the foundation for the Liberal Party that we know today. It was also Menzies who insisted on the creation of a youth wing for the fledgling political party: he announced simply, that 'there will be a Young Liberal Movement'.

Once the Liberal Party had been successfully launched at the Albury Conference in December 1944; then officially inaugurated on 31st August, 1945, attention turned to the creation of the Young Liberal Movement. After considerable planning a meeting was held in the Melbourne Town Hall on 12 December, 1945, attended by over 750 people, and at that meeting the Young Liberal Movement came into being.

Menzies described the meeting as "the most important gathering" that he had ever attended during his political life and concluding his address by saying: "I regard it as the supreme privilege I have had since ever I began to think about the creation of the Liberal Party, to be able to stand before this excellent audience to ask you to come to the battle with us, because with your aid, we will win."

In NSW, 'youth clubs', first created in 1946, became the foundation for the formation of the Young Liberal Movement. It is recorded in the minutes of the 1946 AGM of the State Council that there were 28 'youth club' branches with a membership of 1,461 young people aged 16-25 across New South Wales.

In 1948 a co-ordination committee was established to bring together representatives of all the different Youth Clubs. The Party State Executive appointed the chairman (Youth Organiser) of this Youth Council, a practice which continued until 1964. The original chairman was A.W. Butterell, who served seven terms in this position.

When the Youth Organiser's position was abolished in the mid-1950s, responsibility for the Young Liberals was passed to the Young Liberal Movement Committee, which consisted of the Chairman, five other members of state executive, the Deputy Chairman of Youth Council (who was elected by the Youth Council) and two other Young Liberal delegates.

In 1964, on the recommendation of a committee formed by General Secretary, Sir John Carrick the formal oversight of the Movement by the Senior Party's state executive came to an end. The last appointed Youth Council Chairman was David Arblaster (subsequently Member for Mosman) and the last Deputy Chair of Youth Council was John Howard (subsequently Prime Minister). Indeed it was Howard and Carrick, working together, who were decisive in re-constituting the Movement as a genuinely independent wing of the Party.

As such the Movement has contributed ever since to the evolution of policy within the Party; the winning of elections and the fostering of Liberalism.

Many Young Liberals — past Presidents as well as other members of the NSW Young Liberal Movement — have gone on to enjoy great success in parliamentary politics or other fields.

Recent Activity
The Young Liberal Movement is a vibrant organisation that offers young people who are between 16 and 30 years of age the opportunity to actively participate in the political process in Australia.

The Young Liberal Movement aims to be a vehicle for young people to have a voice in our society, and speak out about a whole range of issues, from local or community based issues to topics with international significance.

Many Liberal politicians began their career in the Movement. In fact the Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard MP, is a former President of the NSW Young Liberals as are many State and Federal Members of Parliament.

Shift to Conservative Values
The Young Liberal Wing of the Liberal Party in NSW was historically run by a group of left wing young adults, many of whom were closet homosexuals. This group had contempt for the Federal Leader John Howard, as he was associated with a more concervative ideal. This was illustrated in the fact that although being a member of the Young Liberals himself, John Howard was never given life membership, until the consevatives took over the movement. Since the shift to a more conserviative approach, the Young Liberals have become a movement that helps and supports Liberal candidates during elections through their Flying Squad. This squad is an well organised group that travels to many seats to help inform the electorate of the work that the Liberal member has been doing.

Previous Presidents
2005-06 - Natasha Maclaren

2005-05 - Dominic Perrottet

2002-05 - Alexander Hawke

Update on POV, lateline etc
Btw, I just moved that conversation at the top of the page to where it should be. Try and keep it neat by adding new stuff at the bottom of the page. Anyway, I added a paragraph about the "we're racist" etc deal. There was no reason for it not to be mentioned. I read over the page and it is all very fair so I removed the neutrality disputed notice. Both it and the argument were a few months old and appear to have ended. Any problems (I don't see what they would be though) please discuss here before any major editing. Cheers. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 15:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First up, I will admit, I'm a Young Liberal. But I don't think what you have done is very fair. The Australian Liberal Student Federation is different to the Young Liberals. It's the ALSF that attends NUS not the Young Liberals, so it would have been the ALSF who were shouting "we're racist". Its probably true that some of the those present are also members of the Young Liberals, but its not fair that the actions of an entirely different organisation which happens to have some of the same people involved in both tarnish the repuation of the other. So in short, this incident should be at the Australian Liberal Students' Federation page and it should discribe the incident in context (that is, they were provoked). I will remove therefore it from this page. Teiresias84 03:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points, but the fact that Young Liberal members took part in it, and that these people were "led" by a high profile YL members (Weber) is indeed note-worthy enough to be mentioned on this page as well. If a football player raped a woman this would be noted on both the club's page as well as the player's page. Bad analogy? Maybe so. But the point stands. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 07:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lateline entry
The chant sentence was removed without explanation. As it is referenced from a reputable source, it stays until someone can indicate which of Wikipedia's guidelines it violates. CnsBiol 03:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry mate, but they were not Young Liberals in the Lateline story, but members of the Australian Liberal Students Federation (Young Libs don't attend NUS conferences, the ALSF does). It's true that the ABC called them "Young Liberals" but evidentally those involved in writing the story got confused. They are two complety different organisations; the Young Liberals are members of the Liberal Party of Australia, while the ALSF are just a supporters group. Indeed there is huge rivilary bewteen the ALSF and the Young Liberals, even some of the more conservative Young Libs see the ALSF as a bunch of far right-wing troublemakers. I have no objection to this section being moved to the ALSF page however.Teiresias84 13:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have restored this section as its deletion was based on WP:OR. I hope that someone can provide a reliable source to confirm or deny the current statements. John Vandenberg 13:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK this page, also from the ABC, makes it (relatively) clear that it was the ALSF, not the Young Liberals, at the conference in question (although Jessica Weber is a member of both). It also notes that the ALSF is a seperate organisation to the Young Libs (although endorsed by John Howard). However, as a measure of good faith, I won't re-revert myself, I will leave it for others to decide.Teiresias84 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, clear as mud. I was hoping for an affirmative stmt by someone.  However, I've read the article that Teiresias84 has pointed out a few times, and conclude it was not an endoresed action of the Young Liberals.  I still have my doubts tho whether or not it confirms or denies that Young Liberals participated.  More sources would be useful, and I think that this article should cover the event briefly as even a denial of involvement is notable. John Vandenberg 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was hoping I could find something more clear, whether it was a failure by the Young Liberal leadership or poor reporting in the media I don't know. What if we were to write polished version of...

"The Young Liberal Movement attracted controversy when the ABC Lateline program played footage of Liberal students chanting "We're racist (etc)". The president of the New South Wales Young Liberals released a statement condemning the outbursts while the Queensland division pointed out the students represented the ALSF is a separate organization, although at least one prominent member of the Young Liberals (Weber) was involved." Teiresias84 21:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Something along those lines will do the trick. John Vandenberg 22:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think that makes the current ambiguity clear. I'll just shift around the references so that they point to their respective statements. CnsBiol 01:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, you have tided that up nicely. I think everyone is happy now. :-) Teiresias84 01:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Alex Hawke
The fact that Alex Hawke won preselection in Mitchell has been added to this page. I don't think it should be because plenty of former prominet YLers have been or are now parliamentarians (which Hawke isn't yet, although he almost certainly will be). Why is Hawke more notable than any of these? Maybe a list of prominet members/former members (which could inculde Hawke) would be better. Just putting the idea out there.Teiresias84 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Para
With ongoing reverts in relation to this para, it's worth discussing it further. In defining the Young Liberal Movement, some users have expressed motivation to include criticism of the movement which is either unfounded or factually incorrect. Further, the users who insist on including the criticism describe themselves as supporters of the Australian Labor Party and are clearly biased contributors. The criticism section contributes nought to any definition of the organisation as the organisation existed before and continues to exist after any criticism. There isn't a criticism para for the ALP, NPA or LPA and nor should there be. This Wiki Page should solely be dedicated to providing an explanation of what the organisation is, not commentary on what some people might think of it. I have therefore removed the para yet again though I expect Alans1977 (Labor party support amongst other things) to replace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.65.186 (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Being a member of the ALP does not mean that one does not know the difference between a biased and a non biased point of view. The only people who have constantly removed that section choose not to actually log in and who is to say you are not a member of the Liberal Party? Restoring paragraph. Alans1977 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this medium is to inform one of the basis of an entity, its origins, history, beliefs, and factually correct data. Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle through which biased idividuals, such as confessed members of a rival political party, voice their views on the entity on its information page. Such behaviour would make comment on the credibility of this medium and tarnish its reputation for impartial information delivery. This page should not have opinion of a negative nature, it is inappropriate and unnecessary. The sole purpose of this page ought to be explanation of the YL Movement and not a factually unsound opinion based page. The para should remain off the page and not replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.200.34 (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The information you constantly remove is referenced and not biased. Just because reality does not reflect to well on the Young Liberal movement it does not make informing people of reality biased. Alans1977 00:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Will the people who keep removing the Criticisms section stop doing so. That section has been there a long while and there is more people believing it should stay than not. Alans1977 03:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

ALP and Coalition ideology
Do people think it's more precise to classify the ALP as social democratic, rather than center-left. By the same token do people think it's more precise to classify the Coalition as neoliberal, rather than center-right. If anyone has any input into this please see the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_federal_election%2C_2007#Description_of_ALP. Alans1977 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Make Education Fair
I have tagged the Make Education Fair section for bias - it seems unduly one-sided (negatively towards the group of Young Liberals). Perhaps a re-write would be more appropriate? I think the the wording is too biased against the movement. Taymaishu (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If no reply is made, I think it is fair an edit be made within 24 hours to remove the biased wording. Taymaishu (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Removal has been made, WP:BIAS was not contested since 17 August (see above talk). Taymaishu (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than removing it entirely, how about re-writing it? It seems a notable and important episode in the Young Liberals' history. twilsonb (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The offer was there (see original post) since 17th August suggesting a re-write. I'm not knowledgable on the issue, so I cannot do the re-write myself. I would be happy if somebody re-wrote, however the wording was such that it shouldn't be displayed on the page. Thoughts? Taymaishu (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried to re-write the sections to remove the worst of the biased language. The wording of the article seems acceptable now. However, the strongest language is accurately quoted from other sources - it seems to be a representative report of the response to the campaign. From NPOV as at 25th August 2009: "Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate."


 * In order to further improve the article, sources that support the campaign could be located and included. twilsonb (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added some positive and neutral responses in the Responses section. If you think it needs further work, you're welcome to leave the tags there. twilsonb (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks very much - it does indeed look a lot better at first-glance. I will have a better look soon. Taymaishu (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Break
I do not normally edit political articles and know nothing about the subject, but I am happy to give the article a fresh pair of eyes. At a glance the lead looks obviously too long and has some signs of promotionalism and the Criticism section appears Undue, but I will need to look closer. CorporateM (Talk) 20:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell (only at a glance) there are a substantial number of well-documented controversies and they are not overtly bias. (I did some mild trims, but not as extensive as other areas) Like many articles, it needs to be balanced by adding high-quality encyclopedic content to other sections, such as Campaigns or History. The article shows signs of COI involvement, such as external links in the body of the article. The quality of the article in general is very poor and it is not inappropriate for someone to say so, though this often happens during edit-wars. CorporateM (Talk) 20:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Reasons behind undue template
I've added the undue template because more than half of this is devoted to a "controversy" section – quote from that page: "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally (also) discouraged". This article is the only article in Category:Youth wings of political parties in Australia that even has a controversy section – surely the Young Libs aren't the only youth wing that has had controversial actions, but that's the way this article makes it seem. I feel that the current section goes beyond what you would expect from a neutral article. Most of the info there is only tangentially related to the organisation. I would also note that Alans1977, the main contributor to the section, identifies as a supporter of the Labor Party, so I'm not sure they can really claim to be neutral in this case. (This isn't to say that they shouldn't edit whatever articles they want.) I'm definitely not trying to censor anything, as Libstar suggests, but there's no way more than half of this article should be on "controversies". 124.169.104.184 (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My membership of any particular political party is irrelevant. The material is notable, well referenced and delivered in a NPOV way. The fact that they deliver reams of material does not make the article written from a POV position as you suggest. Alans1977 (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it is not undue. Looking at  edit history, you can make your own judgement on this editor's neutrality. LibStar (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Alans1977 (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)