Jump to content

Talk:National Youth Rights Association

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

Slogan

[edit]

The slogan needs to be updated. It is now "Live Free, Start Young."Aimjeff2 (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit the page, go ahead and change that. KPalicz (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

This criticism isn't even real. He *never* said that about NYRA; that quote referred to another organization entirely. Someone screwed up.

Here is the "out of work socialists" passage: I told her that was a slur on poor people. And anyway, Osama bin Laden is a rich twit.

Rhona said that we are so wealthy and materialistic and they are so deprived. "Here I am," she said, "just an ordinary suburban housewife in a semi-detached, and I'm surrounded by all these things I don't need." Privately I was thinking that my moron cousins from Ulster could fix that with breaking and entering. I said, "You're arguing completely beside the point." She was employing a fallacy of relevance, specifically argumentum ad misericordiam. (Although I had to look that up later; what I said on the radio was "So what?")

Rhona accused me of that most grievous of modern sins, especially when committed against a woman by a middle-aged man. "Don't patronize me," she said.

Calls and e-mails were nine to one in Rhona's favor, but one stalwart sent this message: "I suspect why ninety percent of callers are not in favor of PJ's opinions is because they are out of work socialists who have nothing better to do but phone radio stations."

That has nothing to do with NYRA. I am removing the criticism section; its only quote is incorrectly attributed. 76.5.129.179 (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I re-inserted the O'Rourke quote under the criticism section; while it is "name-calling", it is also a thinly-veiled commentary reflecting O'Rourke's negative perspective about the organization and what it represents. - Freechild 02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That criticism is lame. It should not be included. It is an ad-hominem attack, it attacks the person/people making the argument and does not attack the argument itself. Furthermore, who is to say this guy's opinion is enough to include his comments in wikipedia? Lastly, you hear people on the right calling people advocating things on the left 'jobless hippies' about as often as you hear people on the left calling people advocating things on the right 'fundamentalist rednecks'. Both are childish name calling and ad-hominem. --Jon in California 5 September 2007

It really should be removed until their are more instances of criticism. ~IkonicDeath —Preceding comment was added at 07:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IkonicDeath, I do not see the logic inherent in your proposal. The simple fact of the matter is that it is criticism from a notable person in a reliable source. • Freechild'sup? 14:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest having only a single criticism in the section takes away from the article and generally makes it look tacky. Now if there were other criticisms (I'm sure there are) along with it it would not look as bad. I suppose having only one just makes it look unprofessional. ~IkonicDeath —Preceding comment was added at 21:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a volunteer-driven effort, and as such it is inherently "unprofessional". While I agree with this most recent point, it is up to you or other editors to find additional criticism - not to remove legitimately cited material. • Freechild'sup? 21:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, that's why I haven't edited it, I was just stating my opinion is all. ~IkonicDeath —Preceding comment was added at 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to stress that I don't believe the "out of work socialist" comment has anything to do with NYRA whatsoever. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong. If not, I'm going to remove it again. I inferred absolutely nothing about NYRA from this criticism. 76.24.182.188 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belabor the point. The comment was taken in the context of the page, which addressed multiple organizations participating in a particularly event, NYRA being one of the particular organizations called out by the author. • Freechild'sup? 09:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply wrong. Please read the source again. The out of work socialists comment comes at the end of one section, and the mention of NYRA is the fourth paragraph of the next section. They have nothing to do with each other. Read the source, it doesn't refer to organizations at all, but to those who called into a radio show. Again, read the source. It has as much to do with NYRA as the comment that "Osama Bin Laden is a rich twit". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.153.100 (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ListGate

[edit]

Why is ListGate being considered "non-encyclopaedic content"? —MaxHarmony (talk • contribs) 19:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not biased, unverifiable or original research; it is civil, with no personal attacks. The edit in question, located here, is all of those things and more. • Freechild'sup? 00:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the coverage there violated policies. Certainly by now it is reasonable to add coverage again? MaxHarmony (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent copyedit

[edit]

I would like to suggest that members of this organization refrain from editing the article without providing reliable sources for their contributions. I have completed a copy edit of the article and have placed numerous citation missing tags; they shouldn't be removed until reliable sources are identified, or until the text next to them is removed. Additionally, the "Recent activity" section reads like a board report; this is not encyclopedic. For more information about appropriate content please see this article. • Freechild'sup? 02:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

elizabeth whelan

[edit]

the person listed under advisors as dr elizabeth m whelan blah blah of the 'american council on science' is likely to be at least partially misrepresented.

if the nyra list (http://www.youthrights.org/boa.php reference 3) is to be believed then the elizabeth in question in this context is supposed to be the doctor of the 'american council on science'. however two key details are incongruent, a dr elizabeth m whelan is famous for founding the organisation 'american council on science and health' (note the additional "and health" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health), the difference is potentially chinese whispers. additionally the wiki entry for the acsh mentions the middle initial 's' (in the third paragraph of the second section) despite it being listed as 'm' on the acsh site itself.

a wikipedia page on elizabeth whelan was removed in 2005 for being "nonsense", and the possibility of there being two elizabeth whelans may be the cause. otherwise this just needs cleaning up.

i havn't signed in cos i can't remember my password at the moment, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.238.155 (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have references for the origin of children's rights on the Internet

[edit]

Hi. I'm Kenneth Udut, the guy that started the children's rights stuff on the Internet, provided a meeting place that allowed the people who founded a number of the children's rights groups like NYRA to meet together and branch off and form their own groups, etc.

Anyway, I stink at doing academic referencing; I know it's easy but my brain goes Bzzzt! anytime I try.

http://icopiedyou.com/october-17-1991-y-rights-and-childhamp-appeared-in-directory-of-electronic-journals-newsletters-and-academic-discussion-lists/ Here's proof including references to verifiable, authentic sources that verify 1991 as the start of children's rights on the Internet with Y-RIGHTS.

The child@hamp.hampshire.edu was a small experiment - it only gained about 400-500 members and was getting unwieldy to maintain by hand. So I asked around online and Bob Z. stepped up to the plate and gave 19 year old me (I'm 43 now) a LISTSERV and I called it Y-RIGHTS. Ended up getting a few thousand members, lasted a bunch of years. Anyway this isn't a history lesson about Y-RIGHTS. But that 'citation needed' has been bothering me. You can find the reference on the "Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsletters, and Academic Discussion Lists" - one of Google Books has the date wrong as 1992; but the CANADIAN Google books, oddly enough, has the date correct. It's even handwritten in the scan in the margin of one of the first pages. http://books.google.ca/books?id=KmrgAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP9&lpg=PP7&focus=viewport

I don't have the _exact_ start date of either child@hampvms which was first, or Y-RIGHTS, which followed, but I think both are 1991, which _should_ be a good enough verification for the beginnings as 1991.

Maybe somebody can fix it. I never liked editing Wikis and even in school, hated the standard referencing format. Standards are helpful sure, but annoying. Stifles creativity. Anyhow, this is called "Talk", so I'm talking. Would someone mind doing a proper set of referencing? I've gone beyond "original research", I provided verifiable references... I _really_ don't like the whole style of proof used in academic [to me, it's just formalized gossip.. 'well, THIS authoritative source said so, so THEREFORE is _must_ be true!' but whatever. I'm just an middle aged social anarchist who started off as a young social anarchist and will probably get gray and wizardly as one too.

So, someone mind adding the references in whatever format is typically desired in such situations as these? Thanks. -Ken Kenneth Udut, the guy that REALLY THOUGHT something would change by 2015 in children's rights but... mostly hasn't... except for one thing: GenZ is taking it over. The 'net. It's about time. And they'll fix the future. I'll be gray but so what. Changes are happening now to society and hopefully I live to see the day when today's trolling youtube commentators and minecraft and CoD players become hackers and programmers and politicians and teachers and THEY REMEMBER the freedoms they took for granted online, look around at the society that was handed to them by jerks like my generation and the one after me and say, "F this S, it's OUT" and starts fixing the old system that WE were handed and THEY were handed. _sigh_ enough Talk. Someone more acadmically-minded than me - please fix the references. Thanks. The future should get the facts right, whatever the facts are, no matter how miniscule they may be. Errors in history multiply badly, quickly.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Youth Rights Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on National Youth Rights Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Youth_Rights_Association&oldid=1209336583"