Talk:Young Liberals (UK)

Membership of LDYS/Liberal Youth

Can't members of the main party under 26 "opt-out" of being members of LDYS? Jamesedwardsmith 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, they can't. However, (a) there is no obligation to be actively involved in LDYS - they can just receive mailings and have the rights to attend LDYS conferences, vote and stand in internal elections if they wish, and (b) they are also automatically members of their local parties so can get involved locally as well or instead of with LDYS if they wish.

A complication is that both local parties and LDYS elect representatives to attend federal conferences. In order to avoid people getting two votes in this process, young members are supposed to choose to excercise these membership rights either through their local party or through LDYS. 80.229.220.14 10:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Silly question, but how can they be "fully autonomous" yet be (1) financially supported by the main party and (2) comprise all members of the main party under the age of 26? If they are dependent on the main party for money and members they are by definition at least partially dependent. Changed "fully autonomous" to "autonomous".

Fair enough - The Land 17:03, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Liberal Youth is financially capable of being fully autonomous and can act so if it wishes. We have previously held events and fundraising earning in excess of £60K. It can also hire members with no obligation on them to join the parent party. "Autonomy" here is used in the meaning of there being no outside interference in Liberal Youth affairs such as elections or practice. The party have only taken direct control twice in the last 20 years over the financial mismanagement of two members - I'd say that's pretty autonomous... Rbrown115 (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

All of this is up to independent reliable sources to verify. Bastin 14:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dates

I've just altered the early dates slightly; the previous entry suggested that LDYS was created in 1992, probably by working back through the people elected as Chair and giving each of their terms of office a full year. LDYS was actually created in 1993, through separate merger votes of the Student Liberal Democrats and the Young Liberal Democrats of England in March and April 1993 (first by conference resolutions, then all-member ballots). However, a decision to consider merger had been taken by each organisation in November 1992, at which point five people from each organisation formed a Merger Negotiation Committee (like Sarah Gurling, I was one of those elected to negotiate from the Student side).

Kiron Reid was the final Chair of the Young Liberal Democrats of England, then elected as the first Chair of LDYS from 1993 to 1994 (not 1992-1993 as originally stated here), and I was Chair from March 1994 to March 1995 (not 1993-1994), and that's the point at which I think the mistake crept in. Constitutional changes in March 1995 meant that the Chair's term of office would in future run from Autumn to Autumn rather than Spring to Spring from that point on, and therefore Phil Jones was only elected to serve from March to November of the same year. The facts look a little strange on the list as corrected, but they are the facts.

Alexwilcock 12:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Alex Wilcock

Whilst some internal organisational information (including dates of tenures) necessarily has to be provided by the Liberal Democrats, if it is in dispute, it has to be supported by reliable sources to verify it. Users may also request citation if they believe that any undue weight is given to said details; I have requested that for the organisational details, but do not believe that listing chairpersons is particularly undue. Bastin 14:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Most of this article seems to have been written before Wikipedia adopted its current, strict rules on verifiability. Independent reliable sources have to directly verify statements. For example, it is not enough to add URLs to two news articles and therefore conclude that that's 'significant coverage' of the Homophobia is Gay campaign; one has to find a reliable source that states that it was significant, or else one must delete such weasel words. Blogs, unless they are the official blogs of news outlets that are otherwise considered reliable and independent of the subject matter, are NOT themselves reliable.

To that end, I have requested better sources for the statements sourced from non-reliable sources (although I have left the current sources, as they may help find a better source). I have moved one reference that did not support any statement directly, but might be useful in future, to the 'External links' section, and deleted the vanity listing of Vice Chairpersons in the infobox (if the field doesn't exist, it's probably not notable, per WP:UNDUE). I have also added {{fact}}, requesting citations in support of the factual statements in this article that I believe are in contradiction of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, notability, undue weight, or conflicts of interest. Bastin 14:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth asking yourself for some NPOV given your links to Conservative Future. Once the UK General Election 2010 is over we will re-write this page taking on board your suggestions. Rbrown115 (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll notice that I actually referenced that article, per Wikipedia's policies. Furthermore, per WP:COI, edits that you make should be reviewed to prevent bias, due to a conflict of interest. Unsupported statements are unacceptable, and, since they're been up for over four months without being addressed, I'm now going to delete them. Bastin 14:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Liberal Youth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110830194329/http://www.liberalyouth.org:80/start-your-own-branch/ to http://www.liberalyouth.org/start-your-own-branch/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with English Young Liberals

There's little substantive content on the English Young Liberals page - most of it remains a list which would fall under WP:NOTDIR as far as I'm concerned. I'm unable to find significant third-party sources to justify keeping the page separate. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 10:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this is the best option. England is part of the UK, so it would be like saying California Democrats are the same as the USA Democratic Party, which they obviously are not. The English Young Liberals article has a load of problems anyways, so the content may not even be verifiable enough to merge, let alone be its own article. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• I totally agree with Redditaddict69. They're not the same, and in any case there would be an argument that all the other national Young Liberal organisations would need to be included, too. Rather than forcing a merger, it would be much better to look for, and provide, additional third-party sources for English Young Liberals, rather than adding its existing problemmatic content to this excellent article. Zhu Haifeng (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested opposition. Klbrain (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Resolved