Talk:Young Unionists

message: Can we get a list of past presidents up?  --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Great.  Presidents would also be good to have up to, given their all notables presumably.  --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Past Presidents 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 - Alison ❤ 18:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edit Wars 

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

message: 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 Hackney303 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I humbly submit that it does, really. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend humbly submitting full stop, as you're mistaken. Also what's that, Scotch Mist?! One Night In Hackney303 20:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's genuinely witty, I didn't think you'd be capable of it... --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Where is your verification of that?Traditional unionist (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: You are still failing to supply a reference for your use of the word defunct.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Website 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: There is a certain whiff of sock or meat puppetry beginning to emerge.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  PUP link to UVF - RFC 

message: ... what's the war over the website really about here? I mean, really?? This has been going on for months now with little progress - Alison ❤ 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's irrelevant, WP isn't a log of active/inactive websites! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok, ok - I give up