Talk:Young Unionists

Website offline
User Traditional Unionist repeatedly deletes sources and information relating to dispute over Senior Young Unionists having their photograph taken with Ian Paisley at battle of Somme commemoration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cephalus (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Unionist's claim that source is unreliable is ridiculous. It is the primary source of the photograph. It proves beyond doubt that the photograph was taken at a Somme commemoration. Can only assume Traditional Unionist's editing is due to bias coming from his UUP membership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cephalus (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read the wikipedia policy that I pointed you to on your IP address? WP:SPS? Blogs are not sufficient evidence of verifiability.  You will be reported and blocked if this persists.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the present article is it gives no indication whether the dispute was over senior Young Unionists having their photograph taken with Ian Paisley at a DUP rally or a Somme commemoration. I am at a loss as to why you keep deleting edits which informs the reader the context the photograph was taken in.

Citing a blog as a third party source is not sufficent evidence of verifibility. However citing a blog as the primary source is. For example Iain Dale's blog is cited as evidence Iain Dale rated the Young Unionist :::::website 221st best political blog in the UK. Likewise the wikipedia article on the Daily Kos references numerous articles on that blog. As the wiki page on the Young Unionist website mentions the photograph and article which caused the dispute, claiming referncing the webpage on the Young Unionist website where both appear as "unreliable" is nonsense. --Cephalus
 * The peice linked to meerly demonstrates that a photo with some people and Ian Paisley was taken, not that this was contentious or the reason for the website being offline.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The reasons for the Young Unionist website being taken down is not the issue of contention here, the edits that I made and you subsequently deleted did not address this. They informed the reader the context in which the photograph was taken, a Somme commemoration. Left unclarified the reader may assume that the photograph was of senior Young Unionists endorsing Ian Paisley's political platform rather than participating in an act of rememberance with him. You challenged this was the case, presumably you had neither seen the photograph or the article, and so I referenced the relevant webpage on the Young Unionist website. In this light continuing to delete my edits can only be seen as vandalism. Cephalus (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason is the issue. Your edits imply that the photo was a reason for it being taken down, your link is not an adequate reference for this claim, nor for the positions of the persons in it.  Therefore the info cannot remain.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly you have difficulty comprehending what I am saying. I have made no edits as to why the Young Unionist website was taken down, nor have you deleted any edits making such claims. My edits have simply stated that the photograph was taken at a Somme commemoration. I don't see why that should be a problem. Cephalus (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You must have some difficulty reading. Your edit makes the article read:

(as of October 2007 due to a dispute over picture of some of the members, including the current Chairman of the UYUC, a former Chairman and the current Chairman of the QUB YU Branch and the Secretary of the Belfast Branch, with Northern Ireland's First Minister Ian Paisley at the 2007 Battle of the Somme Service of Remembrance held in France being posted on it offline..
 * Indicating that the picture in a reason for the website being offline. You have not provided any evidence for this, never mind admissible evidence.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a red herring. You had no problem with the article claiming the Young Unionist website was taken down due a photograph of Ian Paisley appearing on it. Your issue is with my editing the article to state that the photograph was taken at a Somme commemoration. Cephalus (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It least we have worked out that the edits are inadmissible under wikipedia's verifiability rules. If you continue to attempt to include the information after the protection has expired, you will be reported and blocked.  You should also famaliarise yourself with wikipedia's sockpuppetry rules.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Past Presidents
Can we get a list of past presidents up? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A president hasn't been elected for 5 or 6 years! Last one was Donaldson as far as I remember.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? Do I mean chair then? Is President nominal then?  Can I suggest Abercorn, Westminster, Brookeborough or even Kilclooney.  --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I had that discussion a few years ago, will bring it up again soon. After it reformed the post of president fell into disuse, Donaldson had been president for 10 years - perhaps so he could keep in with new members to make sure it stayed 90% anti agreement.  Chairman is the important role.  I'll see if I can persuade some YU old boys to edit the list of Chairmen.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Presidents would also be good to have up to, given their all notables presumably.  --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say it'll be almost impossible. A lot of papers went missing after the disbandment in 2003.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Why was it disbanded, surely that was hardly productive, given it got young people involved. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Constitution was written for a much larger orginisation than we had at that time. Branches could send delegates to the AGM, but only one branch existed, and it forgot to submit returns, so only the outgoing officers could vote for election of the new officers.  Decision was taken to disband, and a few people remained and built the orginisation back up again.  Was a shot in the arm that was needed in truth.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edit Wars
Reg's Empey's defection from the UUP is just as relevent of that of Alene Foster, Jeffrey Donaldson and Peter Weir. Any removal of this will be undone by myself172.216.71.252 (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPOV and WP:3RR. That information is included in the articles of the individuals concerned.  The relevance of Foster and Donaldson's resignations is dealt with in a discussion about the wider reduction in membership of the time.  No such contextual information is given for Empey's, and therefore is not relevant to the sentence at hand.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While I've no interest nor knowledge of the content, what you are suggesting here is an invite to edit-warring. Please read WP:3RR and WP:RS to understand our policies on edit-warring and reliable sources - A l is o n  ❤ 18:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned Comments 22:01, 9 April 2008
Edits were made by myself --Big Boys Rules 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Website
One cannot prove they don't have a website, just that they do not have one at their old address. To say they don't have one also surely involves original research, doesn't it?


 * Not really. One Night In Hackney  303  20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I humbly submit that it does, really. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend humbly submitting full stop, as you're mistaken. Also what's that, Scotch Mist?! One Night In Hackney  303  20:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's genuinely witty, I didn't think you'd be capable of it... --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a philosophical debate with no conclusion! Not at least until the website is redesigned.  4 to 6 weeks estimation, maybe a bit longer.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely a website and domain name are not the same thing. They have a domain name at youngunionists.org.uk but no website uploaded. Here is a useful refrence from slugger o'toole http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/young-unionists-exit-stage-right/ stating that back in September the YUs were claiming to have a website back in a number of weeks (Like traditional unionist does above) however such things did not materialise and I have no reason to believe that the above comment is any differentCurious Quentin (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you outline how any of this is relevent? There is no evidence for your claim.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is your verification of that?Traditional unionist (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is you Traditional Unionist who is found making unsubstantiated claims- namely that the YU website will soon be back in a number of weeks. Where is the evidence for that? From the outset it appears that a website which once existed is currently defunctCurious Quentin (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are still failing to supply a reference for your use of the word defunct.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Try this http://www.youngunionists.org.uk/. Curious Quentin (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a reference if it said "this website is defunct". Which it doesn't.  So it's not.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

But a defunct website doesn't have any content - a la the above website.Curious Quentin (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A definition of [| defunct] would be very applicable to the YU website. Unless a reference can be found to support the claim that the website is inaccessible (that it still exists but can't be viewed by the public) then I will object to the terms inaccessible or unavailable or any similar unsupportable adjective. Curious Quentin (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not edit war, engage in discussion. You have no evidence that the website is defunct.  There is no evidence that it "does not exist".  There is only evidence that it once existed.  To assume that its unavailability is permanant is WP:OR and defies basic logic.  Personally, I feel currently unavailaible is the only NPOV phrase that can be verified, even if that is by what is technically an unreliable source.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not accuse me of edit war. I discussed the situation here for a long while before undoing anything, then found that two days having failed to respond to my recent comments edited the section again to suit your party agenda. I acted, and explained my action on the talk page. Examine what you just said " There is no evidence that it "does not exist". There is only evidence that it once existed.", that means in the here and the now the website does not exist. Currently unavailable does not describe a non existant website, and is in no way verifiable, not even from unreliable source. (Your own hearsay cannot be considered worth listening to in any way). The word defunct, meaning "having ceased to exist" can therefore be applied to a website that as you yourself claim once existed. Please bare in mind that in the past references were in place to display the website's past possible activity, but in the post "We'll be back soon with a new website" era, the google cache disappeared and you appeared delighted to delete that reference. Expect the same leway with your own unreliable sources.Curious Quentin (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are advised to read WP:CIVIL. The word defunct is not verifiable.  We can confirm that a website once existed, we cannot confirm that the website has been permanently removed, we cannot confirm that another website does or does not exist, we cannot say that the website is not coming back.  What we can say is that it is unavailable at the old URL.  That is verifiable, your version is not.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

PUP link to UVF - RFC
I would like some comment from uninvolved editors about the recent mini edit war. I am still concerned that the sentence is irrelevant to the topic at hand and adds undue weight. There is a link to the PUP article for a reason.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My reasons for including it are simple - Peter Bowles resigned from the UUP and as chairman of the UYUC after they began their association with the PUP, the reason he resigned over this was BECAUSE the PUP had these links to the UVF and RHC. It is therefore highly relivant to his resignation, as it is the very REASON for it. I believe I have avoided giving any undue weight, I presented it as a statement of fact, which it is - as the Guardian article cited as a reference for his resignation shows it was due to this link, indeed to quote Cllr Bowles in that article "A party with links to paramilitaries is not a party I want to be part of", also Cllr Bowles has give this as the reason on several other occasions. My edit is clear, concise and relivant. The link to the PUP article, while helpful, should not make it irrelivant to provide a short description for readers of THIS page as to why Cllr Bowles resigned from the UUP. Examples of this being done are common on wikipedia.Ulster_Vanguard (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Peter Bowles resigned from the UUP some months after his term as UYUC chairman was over. 2)I was requesting comment from uninvolved editors, we both know each others position.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I was simply placing the debate in context. As Jeffery and Arline's defections (stated in another part the page) are deemed relivant to the Young Unionist's then surely Cllr Bowles' resignation is also, as a past chairman (as Jeffery was). As you suggest, let us now yield the floorUlster_Vanguard (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see the reasons for Bowles' defection are worth mentioning briefly (as in the sentences or two advocated), provided references are given (which they were). When an editor who on his or her user page displays support for the UUP removes seemingly accurate information like this, it seems a trifle partisan. Wikipedia should not be a forum for re-writing history to make the UUP seem like the best thing in the world. The info. should stay. Curious Quentin (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could try again, and this time address the issue. The question is not about accuracy, but about relevance, and undue weight.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're in a very sound state of agreement that such information is accurate. Did I call it's accuracy into question above? I stated (twice) that it does have a place on this article, which I would have thought, conveys I find this information relevant. When an youth wing of a political orgainsation is re-established only to have one of it's former leaders leave over policy difficulties with the greater party, then it's interesting and relevant content. Perhaps you could try again, and this time address the issue: why is this accurate information irrelevant?Curious Quentin (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Traditional Unionist if you put your reason why the information about a former chairman of the UYUC resigning from the UUP is deemed irrelevant a decision would come about quicker. From what I see it is relevant as 1) He was a chairman of the 3rd UYUC, 2) Is listed in the section on chairman and 3) Jeffrey Donaldson and Arlene Fosters defections are mentioned. Maybe also given the fact that Peter Bowles is referenced as a cllr it would be necessary to clarify that he no longer is a UUP cllr. --Big Boys Rules 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Boys Rules (talk • contribs)

You are all missing the point. What is in question is the embellishment of the information with background information on the PUP. That is what the PUP article is for.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is the entire point: Peter Bowles left not because the UUP dealt with another unionist party per se, but because the UUP linked itself to a unionist party that had UVF links. Fascinating stuff. Relevant too, it should stayCurious Quentin (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is not relevant to the Young Unionists. The background to his departure is covered in detail elsewhere, all directly linked to from this article.  The only part of the incident notable to this article is the fact that he is no longer a member.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is relevant to the Young Unionists;not simply has a member left, but an ex-chairman and one out of two elected represantatives left. It's sensible to include this on the article and it's sensible to include why it happened. I think the phrase is fine as it stands, and you can't find a coherant reason otherwise. Perhaps you could try again and say what you'd rather appear on the Young Unionist article and we can discuss what's wrong with that. Curious Quentin (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil. You haven't actually constructed an argument for why his reason for leaving should be here, simply for why his leaving should be here, which isn't really in dispute (although, as time goes on, it seems less notable in the context).  His reasons for leaving are noted elsewhere, where it is relevant.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I shan't be taking any lessons in manners from yourself thank you very much. He left the young unionists, he is notable in that he was an ex-chairman and elected representative, therefore his departure should be put on this article. Given his departure should be included, the reasons for his exit should also be included. It is not enough to say Bowles left because he objected to the Ulster Unionist Party associating with the PUP, and expect the reader to go to the PUP's article, note that they are linked to the UVF and Red Hand Commando and assume that this issue is what Bowles objected to. Rather, it's necessary to highlight Bowles' objection to the PUP as a reason for objecting to his party dealing with them. Now that said, I invite you once again to construct a reason for omitting these details. Curious Quentin (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, please remain civil. Your assertion that "It is not enough to say Bowles left because he objected to the Ulster Unionist Party associating with the PUP" is a statement, not an argument.  I do not believe that your statement is correct.  To go into an explination of the ins and outs of why he objected is needlessly verbose, and is also coming close to commentary.  This article must be written in an encylopedic fashion, not a journalistic one.  The link to the PUP's article is there for a reason.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The flipside of that is to say "it is enough to say Bowles left because he objected to the Ulster Unionist Party associating with the PUP" is a statement, not an argument, one you've yet to explain. Put simply, that does not explain Bowles' problem with the UUP associating with the PUP, it just cites that he had a problem. It would be better practice to explain the problem that he had. My own theroy is it makes him look like a flat earther who couldn't bear to see his party co-operate with another party, when he was in fact more upset that his party latched on to a party with guns. It's the truth, no? Can you not handle it? Curious Quentin (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your not very good with structured argument. My agrument was not an inverted version of yours.  You have failed to address the charge that the section in question is written in a journalistic and not encylopedic fashion.  The facts about the PUP are made clear on the PUP page.  The fact that a former chairman is no longer a party member hsould be made clear, the background of the PUP is not a matter for this article.Traditional unionist (talk) 09:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Traditional Unionist, we've put it out to consultation and it appears my edit is a good one. Case closed. [User:Ulster_Vanguard|Ulster_Vanguard]] (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't for you to decide. There has been no input from uninvolved editors.  Yet.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Do I not count as uninvolved? Or do you mean uninvolved wiki-users who have backed you?--Big Boys Rules 20:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Boys Rules (talk • contribs)
 * There is a certain whiff of sock or meat puppetry beginning to emerge.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason for his leaving definitely belongs in the article. Members of the Young Unionists should stop removing details about their group's well documented connection to Unionist paramilitaries. Domer48 (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your behaviour Domer is becoming more and more concerning. can you substanciate the claim thet the Young Unionists are connected to Loyalist paramilitaries?  You claim it is well documented....where?Traditional unionist (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ok - I give up
... what's the war over the website really about here? I mean, really?? This has been going on for months now with little progress - A l is o n  ❤ 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Young Unionists had a website at www.youngunionists.org.uk. The website was taken offline in September with a home page stating "We'll be back soon with a new website". 6 months on no such website materialised, and the homepage was changed to a default sever page. That is all true, I do not think it is contraversial, merely fact. As you can see Traditional Unionist gets most perturbed when the situation is documented. What is an outsider's opinion.Curious Quentin (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're currently edit warring when you should be discussing. Given your history on wikipedia, that is not a smart thing to do.Traditional unionist (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant, WP isn't a log of active/inactive websites! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)