Jump to content

Talk:Young Americans for Freedom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ideology

[edit]

Lawrence King, would you be interested in reviewing this edit and also adding some reliable sources to the Ideology section? I'm pinging you in particular since you re-wrote the section waaaaay back in 2005 without sources, and I see fortunately you're still active at Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted that edit. The term "neoconservatism" did not exist before the early 1970s. In the 1970s it was used to refer to a specific movement which began after the chaos of the late 1960s. It is true that in the 21st century, some have begun to use the word "neoconservative" to refer to the entire National Review-inspired conservative movement, but even by that definition the edit in question makes no sense.
I'm swamped right now, or else I would add some ideology sources. If nobody else does, I'll try to do it in a couple months, but I can't get to it now. — Lawrence King (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Source

[edit]

see [1] Doug Weller talk 19:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal: Sharon Statement

[edit]

Per WP:PAGEDECIDE and the closer's comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Sharon Statement, I'm proposing that Sharon Statement be merged into this article. The Sharon Statement is YAF's mission statement, and it's both irregular and impractical for for a political advocacy group to have an article devoted solely to its mission statement, especially when neither article is particularly large. Granted the Sharon Statement is notable, but it would be more beneficial to readers for it to be explained within the context of the YAF. Pinging AFD participants: E.M.Gregory Lionelt Tryptofish DGG Nosebagbear Capitals00 Serial_Number_54129 --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Rjensen (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - I'm not sure there would be an enormous benefit to the two articles by merging them, though YAF might benefit from the summary section (or something similar) of the Sharon Statement, regardless of whether a full merger took place or not. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Merge: this merge proposal fails on all points and considering the KEEP result at AFD this borders on WP:FORUMSHOP.
  1. Fails WP:PAGEDECIDE bullet 1: Nominator fails to comprehend the significance of the Sharon Statement. Sharon is not merely the YAF mission statement. The significance of this document extends far beyond YAF. According to the NY Times Sharon is a "seminal document" in the establishment of the conservative movement. Heritage Foundation called it a "succinct summary of the central ideas of modern American conservatism." The focus of the YAF article is too narrow. It would be like merging the Declaration of Independence into the Pennsylvania article.
  2. Fails bullet 3: Nominator's assertion that Sharon is not "particularly large" is irrelevant. PAGEDECIDE clearly states "Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page." The multitude of newly found Reliable Sources at ADF clearly demonstrates that once editors get to work expanding Sharon that it will probably be larger than YAF.
  3. As pointed out to Dr. Fleischman at AFD it is not "irregular and impractical" for a mission statement to have a standalone article. Perhaps he should read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The numerous examples of standalone manifestos include Port Huron Statement, Regina Manifesto, Category:Manifestos.
– Lionel(talk) 10:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the accusation of forum shopping, the closer of the AFD specifically stated that this discussion could continue here, so... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge -- This whole discussion is the result of some kind of vendetta by DrFleischman who, despite the conversation having gone on for weeks by now, has managed to adduce precisely zero reasons for merging Sharon Statement with anything. In fact, the topic is notable. The proposer admits that the topic is notable. The only reason offered for merging is proposer's claim that it's both irregular and impractical for for a political advocacy group to have an article devoted solely to its mission statement, a statement which is both irrelevant and provable untrue. There are many notable manifestos, and all of those are eligible for articles, whether proposer likes it or not. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind reading WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:AGF? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that editors who disagree with you should read WP:AGF is itself a violation of WP:AGF, which you ought to consider reading. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment leaning towards merge. I've just gone to look at the article and found a very misleading statement in the lead that the New York Times called it a seminal statement. This of course is false, Adam Clymer called it that in Evans' obituary. I've rewritten it to attribute it correctly, removed it from the lead where it was being represented as the official opinion of the NYT, but kept the reworded version in legacy. I see that one of the major arguments for keeping the article was "Even the New York Times says it is a "seminal document"". Doug Weller talk 18:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Let's forget the NYT, and look at scholarly sources. E.g.
I could go on, but what's the point? The subject is more than notable, and PAGEDECIDE is not really relevant here. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)c[reply]
the YAF's factional struggles and concerted efforts to secure the Republican presidential nomination for Barry Goldwater This demonstrates my point. The source discusses the Sharon Statement as part of YAF's struggles and efforts, which is why we should cover it in the context of YAF as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the Sharon Statement should be covered "in the context of YAF as well" -- that is, it should be mentioned in the YAF article as well as its own article. The YAF article should mention the role of the Sharon Statement in the founding of YAF, and the fact that since 1960 YAF membership has always been contingent on agreeing with the Sharon Statement. But the material in the Legacy section of the Sharon Statement article belongs where it is -- it doesn't belong in the YAF article. — Lawrence King (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that that section cites only two sources, and both sources discuss the Sharon Statement in the context of the YAF... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge. -- As several folks have shown in this discussion, the Sharon Statement has notability that extends beyond YAF. It was a seminal work by its composer (M. Stanton Evans), whose subsequent career was not primarily YAF-based. It has been cited (as shown above) as an important document of the early conservative movement, regardless of its YAF connections. (William Rusher in The Rise of the Right is another example not mentioned above of a conservative author pointing to the Sharon Statement as a precis of conservatism in general, not YAF in particular.) By contrast, nobody has every pointed to the Port Huron Statement as representative of early 1960s liberalism and/or leftism. Finally, the current Sharon Statement article gives a lot of facts about it that would be off-topic in the YAF article (e.g., the section about the legacy of the statement). — Lawrence King (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Scholarly sourcing for the Sharon Statement supports both notability for a stand-alone article. Scholarly sourcing also demonstrates that the statement had an impact as a manifesto that is independent of its impact on Young Americans for Freedom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STOP-NSA Committee

[edit]

The article states in the 1971-1985 section: A number of YAF projects were started as ad hoc committees and affiliated groups to address specific issues. These groups include Youth for the Voluntary Prayer Amendment, Student's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Young America's Foundation, Free Campus News Service, STOP-NSA Committee [emphasis mine], and the National Student Committee for Victory in Vietnam. Today some of these organizations still exist, and continue "to fight the good fight."

Is the "Stop-NSA Committee" referring to what was then the National Student Association and what is now the United States Student Association? If it's notable enough to be here, I would like to hear what it was the Stop-NSA Committee did and what its purpose was. Rejewskifan (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the entire section is unsourced, and the editor who wrote it in 2011 appears to have quit. You're probably left having to research the issue yourself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed refer to the National Student Association, a loose alliance of political college students that was opposed by both the right and the left (by the right because of its liberal bias, and by the left because it was actually a CIA front-group intended to channel campus activism in "acceptable" directions).
However, the date is wrong. YAF's "Stop-NSA Committee" was created in the late 1960s, not 1971-1985. (See for example the second flyer on this page: the date of "c. 1968" is certainly correct, as the hairstyles and the prominence of SDS put it sometime between 1967 and 1969 inclusive.
In any event, it's not clear that this article needs to mention every ad-hoc advocacy group created by YAF, since the vast majority of them did not function as independent groups but were simply extra "brands" that YAFers could use for their various projects. — Lawrence King (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, sorry I didn't reply earlier, life caught up to me and wikipedia wasn't a part of it for a good bit. My job puts forces me to do a lot of stuff that would be under the category of original research here, so every now and then I do like to check up to see if anyone knows anything beyond what the article says. If I find anything that this committee did that was notable, I'll put it up here in the talk as I have a small suspicion this committee was partially responsible for a few colleges breaking away from NSA/USSA in the late 70s early 80s. Rejewskifan (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content

[edit]
  • Shirley, Craig (2005). Reagan's Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson. ISBN 978-0785260493.. review by Human Events Covers the history of YAF and Conservative movement in mid 70s.
  • Shirley, Craig (2009). Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign That Changed America. Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute. ISBN 978-1-933859-55-2.. online review by Lou Cannon Covers the history of YAF and Conservative movement 1976–1980.

Benjamin (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Young_Americans_for_Freedom&oldid=1269619186"