Talk:Young Republicans/Archive 1

YR Alumni
Is there any verifiable source for these people having been members of the Young Republicans? Montco 00:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states that the current Chairman of the Young Republican National Federation is Jessica Colon, and that she was elected at the 2007 Young Republican National Convention, held in July of 2007 at the Westin Diplomat in Hollywood, Florida. While Ms. Colon is infact the Chair, Glenn Murphy Jr. was elected at the convention, and shortly resigned. The Wiki is incorrect.

Generic Discription(use of the word libertarian)
The word libertarian has been added to this article many times in the following statement: The term can also be used as a generic description of relatively youthful political conservatives, whether or not they belong to the organization. While there are certainly some Republicans who are also libertarians, it is not common to hear people with libertarian views referred to as "young Republicans" in a generic use of the term. Libertarian share fiscal beliefs with Republicans and social beliefs with Democrats. Therefore, it would not be acceptable to lump them in with conservatives. This does not seem to stop an individual from adding this word the aforementioned statement. A citation should be used if they wish to add that word to this article.


 * The entire statement should be removed. The article is about the YR movement, not generic descriptions of people.Montco 01:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * according to the YR web site they are conservatives. "grassroots support for Republican candidates and conservative issues on the local, state and national levels." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.153.197.59 (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Scrubbing
Would Concerned2030 like to explain the motive for scrubbing facts out of the article? Demesne Lord 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The account was created this morning, and its sole contributions are to this article. It's obviously a friend of Murphy's who doesn't want his image besmirched on the page; all the facts are sourced, though, so there's nothing he can do.  He has been reported to administrators for violating 3RR, and will be dealt with accordingly. Anthony Hit me up... 19:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Per the biographies of living persons policy, I've removed the section- these are extremely flimsy facts considering the nature of the situation. The "DO NOT REVERT THIS" comments within the article were extremely inappropriate.-Wafulz 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected
This article has been reverted to Wafulz' last edit and semi-protected for a week, to prevent further IP and new account edits. Only established Wikipedia accounts can edit the article until next Wednesday.

This was done due to repeated insertion of material which is apparently in violation of Wikipedias' policies regarding Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP). Those policies require higher standards of notability and evidence for inclusion of potentially libelous, personal, or offensive information regarding living persons.

This is not a blanket requirement that this scandal not be discussed in the article at all. Edits to date have probably violated the BLP guidelines and are backed out now. I strongly recommend that anyone proposing to reinsert any such discussion read the BLP policy carefully and propose changes here on the Talk page first.

Blatant ongoing violators of BLP who refuse to cooperate with the policy are subject to blocking per existing WP rules and precedent. Nobody so far rises to that standard, and if anyone abuses this situation in the future you will be warned prior to blocking, but please be aware that Wikipedia administrators take issues like these very seriously. Please cooperate - read the policy, and discuss here.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 00:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest advisory
User:Sburns875, (self-identified as Shannon Burns, Technology Chair of The Young Republicans National Federation), recently made an edit to this article, which I reverted. I placed a COI tag on his/her user talk page, as well. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The section-blanking made by Ms. Burns was, in fact, appropriate - It was the right thing to do, aside from her "conflict of interest."


 * There are controversies like this which arise, in just about every one of these election races (often for those at the state level too!)... The Audra Shay allegations are relatively minor, compared to the situation with the last person elected National Chairman of the Young Republicans (he allegedly made a homosexual advance on a sleeping man, which was not his first brush-up with this type of legal situation - and resigned his position) - Yet (despite the fact that the last National YR Convention (2007) is, in fact, currently mentioned in the article), you don't see any mention of that, in this article, do you?


 * And the candidate who ran against Audra Shay, this time around (2009), has a recent misdemeanor criminal conviction, relating to election fraud; that is a more-serious charge (and one that has been legally established as factual ), but it is also omitted from this article.


 * It would not be feasible, nor in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, to provide even an overview or mention of each of these allegations; they arise all the time, and this will not be the last of them. It is unfair, therefore, to single out Audra Shay, for a new section of this encyclopedia entry.


 * Furthermore, it should be noted that, in correcting aforesaid imbalance in this article, Ms. Burns was doing her job... Due to the high-ranking of Wikipedia entries in search engines, and the increased worldwide knowledge and usage of this resource, many people have taken advantage of the ease-of-editing, in order to slant encyclopedia entries, in accordance with their personal biases, goals, or for other purposes (often political in nature). There is now an organized industry for "online reputation management" that has emerged, as a result of these problems - and wiki monitoring is a key part of this. Using Wikipedia for astroturfing (like Microsoft did) is of course wrong, but members of an organization correcting unbalanced editing of an article (about that organization) is a legitimate task for them to perform.


 * This is especially true when dealing with "biographies of living persons," for which Wikipedia has a strict policy - and which the current (unreverted) revision of this article remains in violation of. Pacificus (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I happen to believe that the controversies surrounding Audra Shay and previous chairs are noteworthy enough to mention, if not here, then in articles about the respective figures. I noticed that Jeff Gannon, whose primary (many people would say only) claim to fame is the fact that he was outed as a gay prostitute, has his own article and it is quite lengthy. If Gannon can get his own article, I'd say that Glenn Murphy should too (even if it is only a stub); Audra Shay as well. Finding enough RSes should take some work, but it will not be impossible. That's better than not mentioning this controversies at all, since they are very significant, and not mentioning them almost comes across as wiki-scrubbing. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

vandalism
It is clear that the current leadership is attempting to keep facts off this site. There are currently 30,000 Google returns when you type "Audra Shay" racist. This is a legitimate section. This story has appeared many times on CNN, FOX News and even appeared on an HBO show. They should not be allowed to continue to remove a valid story about the organization. How can we stop this vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.191.171 (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Shit list
Twice now I have removed the sentence "Her team members and supporters who promoted her candidacy after the controversy became public include: [list of names]". It should not be restored. None of the names on the list are notable and the list appears to exist solely for purposes of calling out evildoers in order to encourage retribution or humiliation. Mike R (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from using profanity and an uncivil tone. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

List of current leaders
I don't think a list of current YR leaders should be in the article at all. The organization has been around for years. There is no reason the current leaders are worth mentioning. Also the non-notable former members (those without BP bios) should also be removed. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
It is clear there is an organized effort by the Shay administration to remove the controversy section. When a subject can be found on over 30,000 web sites, and was covered multiple times on CNN and other credible news organizations, then it deserves mention. The effort to turn this into an internal YR squabble should not be allowed. This is not about the YRNF race, it is about the fact that the current chairwoman has been caught up in a nationwide scandal. That is worthy of mention in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.22.49 (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that most of the 30k websites are blogs/forums. Sure there are a few reliable sources as well but putting a controversy section in this article violates WP:UNDUE.
 * Remember that this article is about YR and not Audra Shay; I would support the inclusion of controversy material in her own biography but YR article should focus primarily on the elections—the facebook related controversy deserves no more than a mention in this article. —SpaceFlight89 06:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Joe Scarborough, Michael Steele and many other well know republicans have called for Shay to step down. This has been viewd by millions on major news networks.  It is completely pertinent to have a section cover the scandal in which the currently leader is involved in.  It has a direct affect on the organization.  If you look through the history, many people went back-and-forth to come up with a neutral account of this national scandal.  It should be on this page, and I will check this every waking hour to restore it if necessary.  There is a very small group of people with a clear bias trying to vandalize this page.  It is not acceptable, and I will make sure this article remains neutral.  If someone things something should be added or altered, I would certainly entertain ideas, but to trash it and make it something completely different will never be accepted. comment added by 99.205.22.49 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Is there a reason to remove the leadership race section? Please be careful with the Vandalism word and assume good faith. —SpaceFlight89 06:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, it bears mentioning that the version with the section header 2009 leadership race does in fact mention the controversy, and even cites some of the reliable sources mentioned in the previous Controversy section. Agree with SpaceFlight89 on all counts. WWB (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On top of the very valid undue weight issues the section has, it has an even worse problem with violating the BLP policy. Negative, inflammatory material about living persons, cited largely to blogs is unacceptable. The page has been protected until this is resolved.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if something is covered on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, and even an HBO political show it should receive mention on this page. Yes, the citations are mostly blogs, but it doesn't change that fact that it received nationwide coverage from credible news organizations.  Furthermore, the changes that made this about the "leadership race" seems to place slightly more attention on the person who lost.  While it appears to be true that she was arrested a few years ago, it did not make national news and certainly should not receive equal, and especially not more, mention in this article.  My assessment here is the Shay team has intentionally started an editing war to prevent this subject to be mentioned.  When national figures call for a leader of an organization to resign, that should be in this article.  What her previous opponent did several years ago should not be allowed to be used as a distraction from the ongoing controversy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.136.172.206 (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who protected the page and ultimately removed the material. Sorry, but you won't get very far if you're really claiming that that action must make me an operative of Shay or the Young Republicans. I reiterate that per the biographies of living persons policy, poorly sourced negative material must be removed. Even if better sources were found, as has been pointed out, devoting so much space to this one controversy gives it undue weight. Also, Wikipedia is not news, and shouldn't devote so much space to recent events.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems the minority opinion somehow is winning here. It is a very dangerous precedent to allow a very small group (it seems to be 3 people) to determine whether something should be on this page.  This is very big news that is currently affecting the organization. Operatives of the Shay administration should not be allowed to hijack this page. This should be put up for a vote and not allowed to have the minority opinion prevail.  68.243.137.209 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I vote to keep the controversy section. RNC Chairman Michael Steele, Congressman & tv host Joe Scarborough and John McCain's daughter Maghan McCain have publicly condemn the remarks.  This is having an affect on the organization.  States like my state (SC) are organizing efforts to put together a new organization because of Shay's racist remarks. It is appropriate for this article.70.11.17.157 (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP! How is this even a question, it was all over the news.173.137.36.245 (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a no-brainer...keep. This is an on going story with over 30,000 web sites talking about the racism scandal. Personally, I don't think Shay is a racist, just a person with poor judgment. Regardless, the page should mention all the famous people calling for her to resign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.151.100.179 (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple people should not be allowed to scrub an article clean of something they don't like. It was well documented and cited.  It also was pertinent information for this article. 173.136.105.65 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP the controversy section. It was written fairly without bias. 70.11.186.229 (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This sudden surge in interest from anonymous editors makes it quite clear that there's a concerted effort at vote-stacking in order to railroad the material in. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and this kind of Sock/meatpuppetry is not acceptable. If you want it included, you will have to do better than just repeating that you want it included and respond to the policy issues above.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Untitled
132.241.246.111, your link to the external article, while humorous, is biased, nor does it appear to be related to the content in the article. I believe you are allowing your personal views to interfere with your contribution. Perhaps you would like to edit the article to clarify how the slur is relevant? In the meanwhile, I have reverted the article. DGaw 01:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the section on "Veracity" magazine - this appears to be a non-notable publication of the San Diego chapter, and the text was likely inserted by the proprietors. - David Oberst 02:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Membership
How many members do they have? --Oudeís talk 12:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

And does their political position in any way nuance that of the "adult" Republicans? In Germany party youth organizations often represent the more "radical" wing of their respective party, that's why I'm asking --Oudeís talk 12:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)