Talk:Young Fine Gael

Co-Opt / Re-Shuffle

Added the co-opt and re-shuffle that took place for Frankie Mulqueen to be given a new position on the exec. All the best, Kevin. --194.46.229.69 (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

can someone please insert the YFG logo as i cant! :( Wild ride 14:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a logo and a picture of party founder. Is that alright? I also added the links to some of the largest branches. Connected to the UCC link, I have written quite a bit about that University branch.UCC YFG. 104066481 22:08, 09 May 2006 (UTC)

UCD YFG - Branch Histories

Okay i removed the UCD History stuff it ruined the page and created a page for it [University College Dublin YFG]]. If people want to add their branch histories please creat new pages and keep this clean! Thank You --Wild ride 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

University College Cork YFG and University College Dublin YFG are posted on Wikipedia: Articles for Deletion - listings are here and here.

For my part, I've suggested merging into this page (rather than flat out deletion).

zoney ♣ talk 08:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

New Logo

I have placed the new YFG logo up on the page. The image is in the public domain and I'm sure is subject to fair use. I had to replace the old logo anyway. --104066481 (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliability

Please note the [1] is the main source for a vast majority of material herein discussed. Please note that this is a reliable source and is maintained by the national executive of Young Fine Gael.

--104066481 (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added references for much of the materials on the wiki article, and most are based off of commentary from the RTE website. I presume that this makes the article more reliable. --104066481 (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Abortion

I have no problem with the article mentioning the organisations stance on this topic. However, the claim is uncited the Journal.ie article is old and the Indo one makes no reference to YFG at all. Finnegas (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ideology

The edits were made by a left wing troll impersonating DecMeenagh and the account is now banned. In addition, no sources were provided so I'm going to revert the article to its original form. Finnegas (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I've no idea who DecMeenagh is or who might be impersonating him, but the account is "blocked as a precaution", not banned. In addition, his edits were correct. And you've provided no sources. A party or grouping that has voted to take no stance on an issue such as the forthcoming abortion rights referendum cannot be described as "liberal conservative". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, now that's mature... /sigh. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Controversies

There was a number of problems with this paragraph, 1. A paragraph repeating an allegation, potentially defamatory, that a party member had stolen party funds. This was was from 2013 and was only referenced to a student newspaper at a university hardly a reliable source. 2. The Lara Kunsenberg incident was not a conterversory. Political opponents criticise their opponents stances all the time. 3. The organisation voting against entering government is not a conterversory and is referenced already in the page. 4. The YAF Conference. I removed the name of an individual who wasn't in a leadership role in the organisation and their exact title, the only other changes give the readers some context as what the conference was about. To conclude just because details or events were worthy of including in an newspaper article at the time doesn't mean they are sufficiently noteworthy to include in the page let alone the Controversies section. Finnegas (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Finnegas and thanks for taking this here, and moderating and explaining the edits. 1) is reasonable, and this old item now arguably falls below the standard both to appear, and indeed the reference is borderline (though sometimes internal and student newspapers can be a limited secondary sort of source, and sometimes the only place a point is captured). 2) is a fair point, should have come out, and 3) should definitely be mentioned, but probably not in this section, indeed. Overall, I think this section is better now - but should someone try to remove it, as a different editor attempted, that will be reverted, as some controversies are normal and relevant (but many do indeed "age out"). SeoR (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at it with my reviewer glasses on, what is an issue is that the article is light on what should be there overall - so the controversies can seem heavy. But the problem is really that it lacks proper coverage of history, strategy and positions, governance, finance, a decent "notable alumni" section, etc. I hope someone can beef it up a bit, and would look forward to being able to rate it higher on the quality scale. SeoR (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your point about Student Newspapers being a potentially useful source in some scenarios, but not when the allegation is as serious as this. Finnegas (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, some controversies do "age out". But while I try to always WP:AGF. when someone removes referenced content with no edit summary, then reverts after restoration, again with no edit summary, the first conclusion I jump to isn't "oh, they're improving the article." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)