Talk:Young Americans for Freedom

Problems with the article: NPOV

[Cab88:] The following excerpts from the article represent areas that I feel need to be improved or rewritten for neutrality:

[Lawrence King:] I have responded inline to your comments. If you agree that these changes address the issues you raised, I'll remove the NPOV tag.

YAF faced opposition from far-right groups like George Lincoln Rockwell and his American Nazi Party because of the presence of Jews in YAF, and YAF's close relationship with Marvin Liebman.

It should explain who Mr. Liebman was/is.

Liebman is explained earlier on the page, and he has a link to his own page. Someone made the second reference to Liebman a link as well (which was once considered bad Wiki form, but happens all the time). Is this sufficient? I don't see that it makes sense to explain who he is every time he's mentioned on the page.

First of all, you have to be totally ignorant of the political spectrum to actually suggest that the Nazi Party was or is "far-right". You have to have a political spectrum that goes from one extreme to another. The reality is that collectivism is far left and anarchy is the far-right. Any movement to the right from collectivism means less government. Was the Soviet Union less govt. than Nazi Germany. The answer is, yes. But it's only a small movement to the right. Both communism and Nazism are left-wing idealogies. Jtpaladin 22:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

However, despite the stereotypes of "uncool conservatives" in later media depictions of this era, most male YAF members in 1970 had long hair and beards just like the left-leaning students.

References for this?

Hmmm, where to start? This is living history, really. I have seen old California newspapers, school newspapers, etc. I changed this from "most" to "many", is that good?

No, it's not. Cite it or remove it. Jtpaladin 22:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A significant fraction -- probably a majority -- of YAF members during this era supported legalization of marijuana and opposed the draft.

Statements like "probably a majority" are not really proper for Wikipedia. Can we be more specific? Otherwise the probebly part must go.

Reference is Rusher's book. But thinking carefully about this, Rusher himself can't have known how many there were. So I like the change you made.

Again, no citation. I feel my knife coming out. Jtpaladin 22:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

When the Nixon Administration completely abandoned conservative principles in favor of wage controls, price controls, abandonment of the gold standard, and overtures to Red China, YAF was the first conservative organization to publicly repudiate the administration.

This has NPOV issues. It seems to imply that Nixon had abandoned all conservative Ideals during his administration something I would disagree with. Also It seems to imply that YAF's conservative viewpoint as the only valid conservitive viewpoint. If you want to state that such policies where felt to be an abandenedment of conservice ideals by YAF and that led them to oppose Nixon then that would be NPOV.

I like your revision. I changed the language a tiny bit.

Nixon had betrayed core conservative principles and I assure you that there isn't a YAFer alive that likes Nixon. Jtpaladin 22:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In 1980, YAF experienced a split that would ultimately reflect the changing landscape of conservative activism. The Texas chapter, led by student activist Steven Munisteri, broke off after a dispute with the national organization.

What was the dispute about? Such info should be included.

I moved this to its own page, Young Conservatives of Texas. If the person who wrote this information is around, hopefully he'll clarify it.

This cut YAF off from the young pro-America demonstrators who would normally have been its recruits for the next generation of activism.

What does "young pro-America demonstrators" refer to? Is it saying that left-wing/liberal demonstrators of the era where not pro-American? Not NPOV and shoud be fixed.

Agreed. Fixed this.

This era ended with an unpleasant financial scandal which led to YAF losing most of its assets.

What was the scandel about? Not very NPOV to leave out such details.

I agree that it would be a better article if this were detailed, but is it really an NPOV issue? This point of view is neutral. Would you be willing to agree that we can remove the NPOV tag even if the scandal is not explained? I think this would be a level of detail unneeded here. It would also risk libel issues (there were people who actually stole money, but it was agreed not to press charges, and therefore there are legal reasons to not discuss it in detail).

It still needs citation. Again, cut it or cite it. Jtpaladin 22:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

During that time, conservative activism on college campuses was actually greater than liberal activism.

Needs references to back this claim up. --Cab88 07:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I can back it up with four things off the top of my head:

(1) Twenty years ago, I read a book that charted different kinds of activism on campus. It had a detailed graph of activism levels. (For example, many folks know that there was left-wing campus activism in the 1930's, but did you know there was a wave of it from 1901-1909 as well? There were even anti-military demonstrations at U.C. Berkeley. This might be why Arthur Schlesinger came up with his silly theory about "American history goes in 30 year cycles." Anyway, I digress.) This book showed that from the mid-50s until around 1962 was one of the rare times that conservative activism on campus was greater than liberal activism. Unfortunately, this book is at the UCLA library and I'm nowhere near there now.

(2) The huge amount of folks that showed up at YAF's rallies at Madison Square Gardens in the early 1960's, when there were no huge liberal youth meetings of that magnitude that I am aware of.

(3) The fact that SDS, at its 1962 convention, imitated the Sharon Statement in its Port Huron Statement. This suggests that they saw themselves as reacting against the conservative youth movement.

(4) The fact that in 1961, M. Stanton Evans wrote a book called Revolt on the Campus discussing campus trends, and he predicted that the 1960's was going to be a decade of huge campus activism, given all the young people who were supporting free-market economics and anti-communism and Goldwater. In hindsight this prediction is bizarrely funny, but I think it's a strong sign of how things looked (at least on the surface?) in 1961.

Is this sufficient? Does some of this belong on the main page?

Note: I decided to just go ahead and make a few improvements to the article based on some of the issues I raised above, such as the use of probably and the Nixon issue. --Cab88

Let me know if I've addressed your comments properly! Lawrence King 11:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be debate as to whether the lansing ordiance that YAF protested protected 'homosexuals' or 'LGBT persons'. The article cited states that the ordiance would protect gays, lesbians and transgendered persons, not just 'homosexuals' Jlippi 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the article: Quality

Jbamb removed the "npov" tag, but added a "must improve quality" tag.

Why? This page isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but surely it already exceeds in quality nearly any article on a comparable organization. But I'm probably biased since I spent a lot of time on this article, so I might be missing something that's totally obvious.

Did you have something specific in mind?

Lawrence King 00:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Five weeks with no response -- so I'm removing the tag. Lawrence King 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

What is the objection to using the image from MSU YAF? It shows several YAF activities and is relevent for this article. Jcmiller 19:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

YCT and YAF

How is mentioning YCT, and then linking to the wiki article on YCT, not appropriate for an article on YAF? YCT arose directly out of the Texas branch of YAF breaking off because of a number of issues, among them, autonomy. Was it the way in which the mention was written that made it inappropriate? I feel that the mention is appropriate because it is fairly significant for an entire branch of the organization to leave... Davemo 15:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify, I understand that you moved the information to the wikipedia entry on YCT, but now, unless the reader knows specifically to read about YCT, they wouldn't know about this split at all which, again, I think is fairly significant. Davemo 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Young Conservatives of Texas already has a paragraph in the YAF article, complete with a link. If you feel this paragraph is too short or inaccurate, by all means you should improve it.

I reverted your edits [1] because:

1. You deleted the graphic of the YAF seal, and the graphic of the protest. In other words, you removed both pictures from this article.

2. You added an NPOV tag without a corresponding entry on the Talk page explaining why you thought the article violated NPOV.

3. You deleted three paragraphs about the relationship between traditionalists and libertarians in YAF.

4. You added a lengthy discussion of YCT. This even included quotes from its founder about its purpose, goals, and ideology. While I agree that YCT has a place in the understanding of YAF's history, certainly SDS, the College Republicans, Students for America, and many other groups do as well. It is out of proportion to have a sizeable digression into YCT on a page of this length.

5. Your changes were badly formatted, and needed some editing: notice, for example, how you use the term "the State" to mean "Texas", and notice the dotted line around the badly formatted part on your revised version of the page: [2]

6. You deleted the two Categories and the 'sv' name translation from the page.

If your changes had only required light editing, someone such as myself would have done the copyediting. But with so many changes -- especially numbers 1, 2, and 6 which are unambiguously harmful to the article -- it made more sense to just revert it. - Lawrence King 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't realize until this moment what you did. You did not edit the page. You actually reverted it to its state as of 13:27, 14 November 2005. Here is a comparison of the page on that date and your edits of two days ago: [3]

Now I am guessing that you did this by mistake. You might not realize that in Wikipedia, if you look at an old version of the page and edit it, you will throw away all the edits since then. Maybe this was a mistake on your part. - Lawrence King 22:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies for the mistake. I looked at an old version of the page and turned a mention of YCT into a link, causing the changes you mentioned. Davemo 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Good division point in last few years?

I added an extra division to the "History" section, so that the subsections now read:

• 2.1 National conservative activism, 1960–1965
• 2.2 Reaction to radical activism, 1965–1971
• 2.3 Advocacy politics, 1971–1985
• 2.4 Campus activism, 1985–1990
• 2.5 Advocacy politics, 1991–present
• 2.6 YAF in the present day

But I'm wondering if perhaps the fifth and sixth sections can be separated chronologically. In other words, can we divide the 1990's YAF from the YAF of today in any logical manner? If so, what would be the year dividing these two periods?

This is always a tricky question, because YAF is fairly decentralized, and it's possible for YAF to entirely collapse in one region while it's going strong somewhere else, or for YAF to be completely rebooted in one state while it is continuous in another state. If the national organization and aim of YAF has been pretty consistent from 1992 to 2006, then we certainly shouldn't divide these sections as I suggest. But if there has been a "reboot" of some nature that is more extensive than just one or two states, I think the division would work.

Do any of you think that this division makes sense? If so, what would be the best year to use as symbolizing the division? - Lawrence King 00:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

YAF considered for hate group status

I read a news article today stating that YAF is now being considered for hate group status and the head of YAF has resigned and issued an apology and codemnation of the groups recent actions against affermative action. I won't edit the article until I can find a good source, but this is something to keep an eye on.

edit: http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=683&Itemid=99999999

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.176.148.175 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, any edits to this Wikipedia article will have to be very careful with language. The newspaper article you linked to uses the terms "hate group" and "hate group status", but it doesn't define these terms. Since these terms are intrinsically difficult to define without violating WP:POV, any references to these terms in the Wikipedia article will have to be of the format "Person X (or Organization X) has labelled Young Americans for Freedom as a 'hate group'", or something like that.

Furthermore, this news article, even in the headline, refers to YAF as an "MSU student group", and even goes so far as to say that MSU YAF is "affiliated with" [sic.] the national Young Americans for Freedom. In this context, it sounds as if the SPLC is labelling MSU YAF (and only MSU YAF?) as a "hate group". This is another distinction to make. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence, I agree with you. It's utter idiocy to think that YAF is a hate group. The only hate YAF has is for enemies of the U.S. and those traitors who work for its' destruction. Jtpaladin 22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Joanna Varnavas' status

And one more clarification: you wrote that "the head of YAF has resigned and issued an apology", but the news article mentions only the spokesperson for MSU YAF, Joanna Varnavas, resigned. The chairman of MSU YAF is not stated to have resigned, and there is no suggestion that YAF's national office is at all affected (or even aware of the controversy). — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any documentation for that? I searched for her name on the internet and found the following articles: [4] [5] [6] All of them associate her with MSU YAF, not national YAF. The first of the three articles, about her resignation, is especially clear. On the other hand, this profile is less clear: [7] — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This article calls her the spokeswoman for YAF, but then goes on to say that it is unclear whether or not MSU YAF is affiliated with the national organization [8] Jlippi 15:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing this page

Sounds to me like this is your pet page and you want to bury (literally and figuratively) the fact that YAF members are known to walk around campuses with signs that say "STOP FAGGOTRY." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.176.148.175 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 December 2006

This has nothing to do with burial. You are free to edit the YAF page and include the information from the artice you cited. The page you are reading now is not the YAF encyclopedia article; it's the discussion page.

But you need to be accurate. When Congressman Foley resigned because of the congressional page scandal, would it be right for Wikipedia to say "President Bush resigned"? No, because he didn't. Similarly, if a member of MSU YAF resigned, you can't say that "the head of YAF has resigned", because the person who resigned is not the head of YAF. It's that simple. If your edits are accurate, I certainly won't be deleting them.

Also -- Regarding the placement of this section on this Talk page: this isn't buried. Look at the top of this page and you'll see "YAF Considered for Hate Group Status", right up there at the top, in the table of contents. Talk pages are arranged chronologically in Wikipedia. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is another article online that talks more about the hate group status by the same journalist. It includes reference to a YAF sign that says 'end faggotry and 'straight power'. http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=21542 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlippi (talk • contribs) 11:04, 13 December 2006

I am unsure what you are asking at this point. Are you asking permission to edit this article? You don't need permission to edit any Wikipedia article. Are you asking me to add this information? I would be glad to do that. I do believe that this incident is newsworthy and important. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have added information to the main article about these incidents. They can be found easily in the table of contents at the top of the Young Americans for Freedom page. Feel free to edit them if you feel they are inaccurate or incomplete. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day": bad information?

The Wikipedia article says that MOrgan Brooke Wilkins is part of Kentucky YAF. It then says Wilkins made international headlines after organizing an event marketed as "catching an illegal immigrant."

The two sources cited are these: [9] [10]

But these articles refer to an event at Michigan State, not in Kentucky.

Moreover, this news article, not cited on the Wikipedia page, says the event was cancelled: [11]

Can anyone clarify? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The event was indeed cancelled at MSU[12] after the president of MSU officially condemned it[13]. It did occur at University of Michigan [14] Jlippi 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Updates

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_06/cover.html provides a great deal of source information. YAF's main era was also the early 1970s, basically until the end of the Vietnam War.

Sussexhouse 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article you cite refers to Schneider's book, which is one of the five books listed in the bibliography that focus significantly on YAF. If you read Schneider's entire book, or any of the other books, it is quite clear that YAF up to 1964 was much larger than it ever was after that. In the early 1960's, YAF rallies twice filled Madison Square Gardens. But in the late 60's and early 70's, even though there were thousands of YAF members on colleges across the nation opposing SDS and other left-wing students, they were dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands -- perhaps even more than a million -- left-wing students protesting against the war and for various "liberation" causes. Even at relatively conservative schools like USC (whose late 60's / early 70's YAF launched the careers of many California Republican leaders) the YAF members just showed up at left-wing rallies to form a small counter-protest group. They were not initiating their own rallies.

And the paragraph you have recently revised it now reads:

YAF's greatest direct influence was felt in the 1960s and early 1970s. During that time, conservative activism on campuses was greater than liberal activism.

Certainly conservative activism was not greater than liberal activism on college campuses in the late 1960's and early 1970's.

I have revised the paragraph as follows. Will this work as a compromise?

YAF's had a great deal of influence in the early 1960's. During that time, conservative activism on campuses was greater than liberal activism. YAF remained a powerful force on college campuses throughout the late 1960's and early 1970's, until the end of the Vietnam War.

What I really should do, if I had the time, is to go through the books by Andrews, Rusher, and Schneider and add footnotes to the entire article. A lot of the information in this article is derived from those books, but it was put together two years ago, when footnotes were almost unknown in Wikipedia..... — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a reference to the rise of the College Republicans in the late 1970s and early 1980s, compared to YAF. I won't argue the liberals were very active during the Vietnam War, but so was YAF - it was the main countering force to SDS. YAF was huge until the mid-1990s - but it's coming back, judging by all these recent news reports. ALSO, please run your posts through grammar checkers.

Sussexhouse 20:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sussexhouse, you are right. When I was a major player in YAF during the mid to late 1980's, we single-handedly took back the initiative and nearly controlled the student council on a liberal dominated campus. We held rallies and speaker events throughout that period of time. We published a newsletter that was the envy of the entire YAF organization. I had access to a massive Xerox machine that could produce hundreds of copies in short order. The left-wing group on campus couldn't spell-check let alone write coherent articles. As I mention down below, I authored the national YAF platform in the 1980's. We protested Abbie Hoffman when he came on campus. And, actually, he came out and gave us a "thumbs up" for doing what he used to do during his college days on campus. We also tangled with the SDS group on campus. They were made up of the biggest bunch of crazies I've ever seen. From hardcore communists to left-wing conspiracy nuts. One guy I talked with from that group believed that the space shuttle was blown up on purpose by the U.S. govt. and that the reason we have nuclear missiles is because they are a phallic symbol. Yes, he was quite nuts. Nevertheless, the '80's were a golden age for YAF in a way that not even the 1960's ever were for that campus. Jtpaladin 23:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Errors & non-cited info

I edited some info out that is in error of YAF. But I left in the following:

"So when the anti-war protests in major American cities were confronted with even larger pro-war demonstrations, many YAF members were on the anti-war side -- albeit for very different reasons than the left. This cut YAF off from the young demonstrators supporting the war, even though these people would normally have been a source of recruits for YAF's next generation of activism."

I would like a source for this otherwise it should also be cut.

Considering that I was one of the founding members of YAF on my campus back in the 1980's and I personally wrote the YAF national platform during that period of time, I do know a little something about this organization. Some of the info in this article is simply wrong. My YAF group supported the first Gulf War and we supported the troops by holding signs outside of the local naval base, along with many other people. So, I don't know of any YAF groups that were anti-war. But, if there were, they need to be mentioned and the source cited. Otherwise I will return with a knife and edit that statement out.

Also, here's this:

"This event led the Southern Poverty Law Center to consider whether to classify the MSU chapter a hate group."

Who cares what a left-wing group thinks of YAF? It's utterly ridiculous to include that info. It needs to go bye-bye because it is a POV comment by a group that is naturally opposed to the conservative politics of YAF. Let's also include comments from the communist party about YAF. Right?

There's more but let's start with these issues. Jtpaladin 22:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Strom Thurmond

I reinstated the information on Strom Thurmond and YAF circa 1960-65 which was removed without explanation by Jtpaladin. The Thurmond/YAF information was footnoted and comes from a standard (and recently published) history textbook. If there is a specific reason to remove it--i.e. if it is incorrect--then please post an explanation here. Otherwise I feel it is clearly relevant. While YAF may have separated themselves from George Wallace (although no citation is provided for this claim) the fact that they gave a "Freedom Award" to Strom Thurmond in 1962 at the height of the civil rights movement is obviously revealing of their political attitude at this particular time since Thurmond remained one of the leading segregationists in the country (famously attempting to filibuster the Civil Rights Act two years later). Removing the information about the award to Thurmond suggests that YAF had no truck with segregationists during this critical time when in fact they did. As I said I'm open to (cited) information that suggests otherwise.--Bigtimepeace 16:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, YAF did support Thurmond, and he was a major speaker during at least one of the Madison Square Garden rallies organized by YAF. However, in the early 1960's Thurmond was not simply equated with "segregation" like he is today. He tended to stand for a number of conservative issues, including states'-rights.

Of course, it is also true that Thurmond was a devoted segregationist and (by any reasonable definition) a racist. Thus, he stands in stark contrast to Goldwater, who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights bill on the grounds that two of its clauses were unconstitutional, but who had always advocated colorblind policies on the state level in Arizona. Even so, it's worth noting that when Goldwater won the Republican nomination in June 1964, Thurmond switched from the Democratic to Republican party. (A lot of southern conservatives would make the same switch in the 1970's and 1980's, but in 1964 this was a very rare thing.)

In any event, I think ideally your paragraph should be rewritten to distinguish between opposition to racism and support for the Civil Rights Movement. There certainly were a significant number of people who supported equality but believed that it should not be imposed by government. And not all of them were in YAF (for example, William Faulkner!) Of course, many of the pro-Civil Rights people claimed that this stance was just "covert racism", but that claim is contestable and therefore Wikipedia needs to be neutral on that question. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Strom Thurmond was widely known to be a racist and a well-known segregationist in 1964; it was the issue which defined him as a conservative leader. I'm sure you are aware that Thurmond ran for President in 1948 on the pro-segregation Dixiecrat ticket. He won even four states in the deep south. If YAF awarded Thurmond in 1962, they did so with the full knowledge of what he stood for and what he advocated. See, http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?off=0&year=1948 Ankles 23:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lawrence for the confirmation on the YAF support for Thurmond. I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind in terms of distinguishing "between opposition to racism and support for the Civil Rights Movement" but I'm open to a rewrite along those lines if you or someone else wants to try it. Obviously Thurmond was associated with other issues in the 1960s (although the whole notion of states rights that you mention was extremely intertwined with support for segregation at that time, which is not to say that they were the same thing) however he was clearly most identifiable as a supporter of segregation. The fact that YAF chose to honor him while being well aware of this does, I think, say something about their attitude toward civil rights for African Americans (i.e., a group that was highly committed to racial equality would have never honored someone like Thurmond in 1962--it would be akin to an anti-war group honoring George W. Bush today). So as I said I obviously welcome any edit someone would want to make to that particular paragraph. However I feel the Thurmond info should stay there and that it should be framed in such a way that it is clear to a reader that Thurmond was a leading segregationist at this time in history and that any sort of support of him by an organization would tend to implicitly identify that organization with segregation (just as, for example, support for Planned Parenthood today would tend to identify someone with the pro-choice position on abortion, even though abortion is not Planned Parenthood's only issue).--Bigtimepeace 21:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Lasting Influence

I altered the following paragraph in the section which originally read:

"YAF had a great deal of influence in the 1960s. During that time, conservative activism on campuses was greater than liberal activism. A powerful force throughout the end of the Vietnam War, the organization is gaining ground today with conservative students distancing themselves from the College Republicans."

The only source provided is an article in the American Conservative Magazine (footnote 32). While the article clearly establishes that YAF was important in the 1960s and into the 70s, it does not say or even suggest that conservatism activism was greater than liberal activism, not does it say anything about YAF gaining ground today (the article actually laments the fact that the well-read conservative activist which one found during YAF's heyday has been replaced by folks who simply get their info from Hannity or Coulter--so if anything it makes the opposite point).

I find it highly plausible that, in the first few years of the 60s, conservative campus activism was more prominent that liberal activism. The opening salvo of what became the left student movement was arguably the 1964 Free Speech Movement at Berkeley (though interestingly conservatives were involved in that as well). However if you consider civil rights activity "liberal activism" (and probably this makes sense) it's quite possible that protests by African American students in the South were at a par with activities by conservative students. Nonetheless, I have essentially left the more-conservative-than-liberal claim in, but with a "probably" qualifier that ideally would not be there. I added a needs citation tag and am hoping someone can provide a citable source for this information, or else a source that suggests it should not be there. Lawrence King had mentioned at the top of this talk page four reasons why he believes conservative activism was more prominent, and while it's a good circumstantial case, I'd like to see some more direct evidence. What I did change here was the claim that conservative campus activism surpassed liberal activism throughout all of the 1960s (which is how it was originally written). By the late 1960s this was almost certainly not the case, and indeed an earlier section of the article notes that "Liberalism and radicalism dominated campuses from the mid-1960s until the early 1970s..." If conservative activism was stronger at some point--and again let's find definitive evidence of this--it needs to be clear that this was only in the early years of the 1960s.

As to YAF gaining ground at the expense of the College Republicans today, maybe this is true but you need to provide a source for it. As I said the article from the American Conservative Magazine which is cited actually suggests the opposite, namely that the College Reps are dominant and YAF has faded away. The real focus of the article is on how certain readings of classic conservative texts might lead one to be opposed to GWB and/or the war in Iraq.--Bigtimepeace 18:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your edits are an improvement. I will see if I can find the source for the "conservative activism was larger than liberal activism" statistic in the early 1960's. It was a book from the UCLA library that charted the levels of liberal, conservative, and religious activism on college campuses from the 1890's until the book was written (1970's). You make a good point about civil rights activism, except that before 1964 most civil rights activism didn't talke place on college campuses. In any event, if this could be adequately sourced, I think it puts things in an important context. The image of YAF from 1965 to 1971 is one of a "rear guard" action -- a small number of valiant (or misguided, depending on your POV) conservative students who stood up against the prevailing liberalism of their fellow students. This is quite accurate, but is totally unlike the world that YAF inhabited in the early 1960's when the Goldwater movement had a great deal of strength among people in their 20's and 30's. John Andrews' book is the best source for the history of YAF from 1960 to 1964; it's long and meticulously researched. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User 64.7.161.51 changed the wording in the opening sentences of this section and re-instated the sentence about YAF gaining new members recently in the form of disgruntled former College Republicans. In changing the wording this user said s/he was removing vandalism (a claim which is made far, far too carelessly by some editors on this page). In fact the user just disagreed with my edit (which was clearly meant to be constructive), though I'm not exactly sure how and why. I've reverted back to my version, though the only thing I really care about is that the sentence about College Republicans losing members to YAF stays out until some kind of source can be provided. It's quite possible it's true, but without a source this article should not make that claim (which obviously sounds like something today's YAF members would say). I've posted a couple of other points about the recent edits at User talk:64.7.161.51.--Bigtimepeace 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am changing your recent entries for several reasons:

1) There is grammar issues and I question the NPOV of your side, considering your screen name. I do not know your obsession with this entry considering nobody has ever raised questions about these aspects in the past.

2) There is a growing movement of well-informed conservatives going towards groups like YAF, ISI and others because the College Republicans do not represent their own conservative beliefs.

Sussexhouse 16:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems odd for you to say that "nobody has ever raised questions about this in the past", given that this part of the "Lasting Influence" section has been the subject of an edit war for two months now, involving half a dozen different Wikipedia editors.

Moreover, "Bigtimepeace" has edited the Lasting Influence section exactly three times (or really, two, since two of his edits were done on the same day so they were really part of one change). So what makes you think he has an "obsession with this entry"?

You can accuse someone of violating NPOV if their edits are biased, but you can't accuse them based solely on what their own beliefs are. Even if you have correctly deduced all of Bigtimepeace's beliefs from his login name (which would be quite a feat), that doesn't make his edits POV. Otherwise, all Christians and all non-Christians would be forbidden from editing the entry on Jesus, because their beliefs would meant they can't write NPOV articles.

Indeed, I think it's pretty clear which editors of the YAF article are themselves members of YAF today, but that doesn't make their edits good or bad. What they write sometimes makes their edits good or bad.

I don't know Bigtimepeace (nor am I able to guess his political positions). But I certainly agree with several of his points, such as the fact that you yourself have used accusations of "vandalism" and "POV" very incorrectly. You are free to change what someone else has written on Wikipedia, but you don't have to accuse them of biased writing when you do so. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 09:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with someone editing an entry without verifying sources that can be accessed with driving to a major library hours away from my house. And then to say, "Well, I believe this is a 'fact' but I will find a source later" is absurd and the type of reckless editing that is giving Wikipedia a bad name.

67.59.37.204 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. POV violations because of screen name. That's a new one on me. Perhaps I will change my name to "ObjectiveOswald" or something else alliterative that would not create suspicions. (I'll leave to the side the question of how having the word "peace" in one's internet handle implies an anti-conservative or anti-YAF stance.) Obviously, as Lawrence King said, it is ridiculous and very un-wikipedian to question someone's objectivity because of their screen name and I hope that Sussexhouse really tries to refrain from doing this in the future. I'm still unsure about what the grammar problems were in my "bigtimepeaceful"--and therefore non-objective--edits, but regardless I don't really have a problem with Sussexhouse's revisions because, shockingly, I am not obsessed with this article. The part about College Republicans defecting to YAF which I deleted did not creep back in (though again if there is a source for this info I think it is relevant and interesting and should therefore be in the article) and that was my main concern since it was an unsourced claim.

I still think there should be a bit more subtlety in the "lasting influence" section whereby the relative strength of YAF in the 60s and 70s is evaluated (both in comparison to liberal campus movements but also with respect to changes over time from the early 60's to the late 60's and early 70's). It might also be better to only have the sentences about influential political figures who were former YAF members in this section and put the bit about how influential YAF was in the 60's and 70's in an earlier section. In any case, the current version is quite serviceable and perhaps one of us can add some further detail in the future.

I'm unsure what the previous poster, 67.59.37.204, is referring to in their comment.--Bigtimepeace 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hate Group Status

Wikipedia editors need to watch this page, as there is reports one YAF chapter will be called a "hate group" by a civil rights organization in a report to be released in April. Editors need to ensure a NPOV.

64.134.202.40 02:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

After a couple of anonymous users re-posted information about the hate group status and SPLC I added additional information and a citation. I think the information is relevant as I've argued elsewhere on this page, but I tried to give as much space to the response to the charge of YAF's MSU chapter being a "hate group" as I did to the charge itself. Thus I included Kyle Bristow's characterization of SPLC as "extremely left wing" and the statement of an MSU spokesperson that implied that ending university recognition of the YAF group would constitute a threat to the "free marketplace of ideas." This section will have to be reworked if and when the story develops--and I know several will argue it has no place here--but I've taken a stab at an initial formulation which balances the fact that SPLC's charge against the group is notable in the context of this article with the fact that the YAF chapter (and apparently MSU) firmly reject SPLC stepping into campus affairs in such a fashion. As for me, I'll step back for awhile and let other interested parties play around with this section.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we are going to have to keep watching this entry. There is renewed vandalism, this time labeling the Central Michigan University a "hate group" with no solid evidence or indication this is the case.

Sussexhouse 15:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sussexhouse, as a couple of us have pointed us, it is not "vandalism" if someone disagrees with you as to how to edit the article. Though you are obviously well within your right by removing the material about the CMU chapter which you did not like, the user who put it there was certainly not vandalizing the article. That user's edits didn't say that the CMU chapter was any old generalized "hate group" as you imply, but that the CMU student senate labeled YAF a hate group. The section was thoroughly cited, including the article here which says "The Student Government Association's Senate has deemed the Young Americans for Freedom a hate group." Did you even check the citations before removing the material and claiming there is "no solid evidence or indication this is the case?" I guess not.

One can certainly debate whether the CMU information is notable enough (though I don't see why it would not be since the CMU chapter has been referenced in most past versions, and now some concrete events have occurred surrounding it) but what I know for sure is that editors should not impugn the work of other editors with the "vandalism" tag just because they do not care for it. Please stop doing this. It's important that we assume good faith.

I think the material should be reinstated, but will wait to see what others think.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There was some vandalism, as there were edits with unsourced and libelous claims. But more importantly, before any reference to CMU appears within this article, we need to carefully consider all source material. If you look at newspaper reports from Central Michigan Life (the campus student newspaper) and even liberal campus bloggers, the whole student government hate group resolution has been condemned because they don't have the authority to do it, there's no evidence the campus YAF chapter is/was a hate group and most importantly, the measure hasn't cleared the entire student government.

Sussexhouse 17:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're still missing my point. Unsourced claims are not the same thing as vandalism--they are unsourced claims (of which there are many in this article incidentally). Even something which is potentially libelous (and I don't know what you are referring to) is not necessarily vandalism (though it would have to be removed obviously). When you remove material you do not like, you ought not say "this is vandalism" (i.e. something put in maliciously) when it clearly is not. In your previous comment you list some good reasons why you think the CMU material does not belong in the article, which is what you should have done in the first place. Now other editors who might disagree can respond to your specific rationale for non-inclusion, rather than having to deal with phony charges that they are vandals. Such charges simply escalate tension and make it more difficult to come to consensus about what to include and how to say it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The Southern Poverty Law Center recently did a story on YAF in their Intelligence Report. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=869

Here is a suggested paragraph to go into the article

"In its Winter 2007 Intelligence Report the Southern Poverty Law Center did an article on the MSU Chapter of Young Americans for Freedom. The article claimed that skinhead Preston Wiginton had worked with Young Americans for Freedom at Michigan State University to bring British National Party Chairman Nick Griffin to speak."

Also, on it's Hate Watch blog the Southern Poverty Law Center had its 1st Annual Smaskdown Awards, where gave Kyle Bristow the "Most Annoying Snot-Nosed College Kid Award" http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/12/21/the-last-word-hatewatch%e2%80%99s-1st-annual-smackdown-awards/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.211.208 (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2007 [15]

 Not done I don't see what this adds anything to the article. It already mentions the Southern Poverty Law Center and Nick Griffin. Gimmetrow 07:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit time

I think I gave enough time for someone to give citations for this article is cleaned up. Here we go:

CORRECTED: The Nazis are "left-wing" not "right-wing".

REMOVED: "Nonetheless, at least some level of hostility to the American Civil Rights Movement is suggested by the fact that YAF honored Strom Thurmond--Senator and staunch segregationist from South Carolina--with its Freedom Award in 1962."

REASON: Simply by honoring Thurmond's contributions does not automatically suggest any level of hostility towards the Civil Rights movement. Anyone with a basic understanding of Philosophy 101 can reason through that.

REMOVED: "...except on two major issues: a significant number during this era supported legalization of marijuana and opposed the draft." REASON: No citation and as a former YAF high-level official, I would know.

REMOVED: "This faction within YAF was expelled following the tumultuous 1969 National Convention." REASON: No citation. "Purges" of all kinds happened during YAF's history but no such purge ever happened.

ADDED: I added the word "merely" in the sentence "Rather than merely staging campus demonstrations, they focused on influencing national politics by lobbying and occasionally staging and publicizing small demonstrations." REASON: The sentence initially gives the impression that YAF stopped all campus demonstrations. The sentence was not well written. It is now.

REMOVED: This era ended with an unpleasant financial scandal which led to YAF losing most of its assets. REASON: No citation.

CORRECTED: "After a financial collapse,..." REASON: No such "financial collapse" happened.

REMOVED: "So when the anti-war protests in major American cities were confronted with even larger pro-war demonstrations, many YAF members were on the anti-war side -- albeit for very different reasons than the left. This cut YAF off from the young demonstrators supporting the war, even though these people would normally have been a source of recruits for YAF's next generation of activism. This disconnect, along with the organizational and financial problems that prevented any effective national YAF mobilization, resulted in a rapid shrinkage of the organization in 1991." REASON: No citation and it did not happen.

REMOVED: "The Southern Poverty Law Center has reportedly taken issue with the MSU chapter, and news reports indicate it will be classified a "hate group" when the organization releases its listing of hate groups in April 2007. " REASON: Irrelevant. The SPLC is a far left-wing group that is not an appropriate organization to ask for their feelings about YAF. Jtpaladin 12:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but much as you might like it not to be the case, the American Nazi Party is most certainly a far-right group. You might have some esoteric argument in mind as to why they are actually on the left--and don't tell me that the German Nazi party called themselves "socialists" as that doesn't mean they are necessarily on the left--but the fact is that the vast majority of political scientists would disagree with you. If the American Nazi Party was really far left, why did they disagree with the CPUSA and other left wing groups on nearly every issue? Why did they rail against communism? Why did they oppose racial integration, a traditionally left wing issue? Wikipedia is not the place for your partisan revision of the political spectrum.

Essentially all of your edits seem to be focused on purging out anything negative about YAF. I have reinstated two portions you deleted and will leave it to others to decide if there were problems with any of your other edits. I put back the information about YAF giving the Freedom Award to Strom Thurmond. Despite your odd comment about Philosophy 101, one can pretty much infer that giving an award to Strom Thurmond at the height of the Civil Rights Movement does not exactly connote support for the movement--quite the contrary. I assume your argument is not that YAF was down in Mississippi fighting for the right to vote for everyone regardless of race because, of course, they were not. Nonetheless, in reinstating this Strom Thurmond bit I removed the language about hostility toward the Civil Rights Movement and hope this meets with your approval. People reading the article can draw their own conclusions about what support for Thurmond in the early 60's meant. But this passage is highly relevant and it is cited (from a book actually). It is quite misleading to say that YAF shied away from segregationists like Wallace without including the fact that they honored a segregationist in 1962. To take out such info seems simply like an attempt at whitewashing the organization's history.

You also removed the SPLC's criticism of YAF. First of all you edited carelessly here, only removing one paragraph but leaving in another reference to "SPLC" such that it made no sense. I have reinstated what you removed as it seems relevant to a discussion of the MSU chapter. And you may think SPLC is "far-left" but many others do not. Actually they criticize groups you might consider far left such as the Nation of Islam. NOI was on SPLC's list of hate groups as of 2005. This is included in the Wikipedia article on the NOI as you can see here. So it seems to be okay to mention that organizations have been given hate group status by SPLC. You'll have to explain why it's okay to include that info in the NOI article but not the YAF one. Or you'll at least have to be consistent and edit all articles that include a mention of any analysis by SPLC whatsoever--since you apparently think anything the group says is completely worthless--and remove the offending material. Otherwise I think the criticism of the MSU chapter should stay. The very fact that this is the first time SPLC will have levied such criticism against a campus organization is quite relevant.--Bigtimepeace 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The removal of the SLPC info was appropriate because here is a left-wing group attacking a right-wing group. What did you expect them to say? Let's get commentary from the Sparticus League in here as well. If you think the SPLC is NOT left-wing, you are dreaming. Leave that garbage out because it is POV. Jtpaladin 01:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The medal for Strom Thurmond was not based on his civil rights record. If you can show otherwise, put the info back in. Otherwise, it is POV. Jtpaladin 01:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Nazis are "left-wing". It's time you took a course in political spectrum analysis because if you think communism and Nazis are idealogical opposites, you're living in a magical world of denial. Antime you want to have a debate on this matter, feel free to accept my challenge at my email address. I'll explain to you why you are simply wrong. Jtpaladin 01:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to meet you more than half way here so please bear that effort in mind--hopefully we can come to some consensus. I'll leave the SPLC stuff out for now, in part because at some point in the future there presumably will be an official announcement from that group about the MSU chapter at which point we can discuss whether the hate group info warrants inclusion. Also I don't really care that much. Nonetheless, you ought not be so sure of your characterization of SPLC as left-wing. Wikipedia's article about the group does not characterize it as such. Also, criticism of a right-wing group by a left-wing group (or vice-versa) is clearly not disallowed here at Wikipedia. If you want an example, look here where you will find criticism of SPLC by Front Page Magazine (clearly a right wing group). Editing political articles can obviously be quite heated, so it's best to avoid formulations such as "If you think the SPLC is NOT left-wing, you are dreaming." I would call them liberal, but certainly not left wing, and certainly credible enough for inclusion in an article. You also might respond to my point about SPLC criticism in the Nation of Islam article, to which you do not apparently object.

If you post your e-mail address on my talk page (or get it to me some other way--I don't know how that works) and if I have the time I will cheerfully debate with you about the political spectrum. However I think you are just as "simply wrong" as you do for me so I doubt we'd get anywhere. I think a good compromise is to simply remove any reference to the American Nazi Party as either left-wing or right-wing (see my recent edit). Thus the sentence as I've edited it now reads "YAF faced opposition from groups like the American Nazi Party because of the presence of Jews in the organization and its close relationship with Marvin Liebman." Does that work for you? It seems to best conform to NPOV without too heavily diluting the meaning or creating a dispute about the political spectrum.

So all I have done that I would expect you to disagree with is reinstate the fact that YAF gave an award to Strom Thurmond. They did give an award to Thurmond (editor Lawrence King has seconded this point in previous talk page comments) and you have not suggested otherwise. The sentence pointing this out does not say that the award was given to Thurmond because of his civil rights record so I'm at a loss as to understand why it violates NPOV. Your comment:

"The medal for Strom Thurmond was not based on his civil rights record. If you can show otherwise, put the info back in. Otherwise, it is POV."

suggests that the Thurmond/YAF connection could be included only if I demonstrated that the award was given because YAF loved Thurmond's civil rights record. Such an assertion (and I take it that is what you are asserting) would be quite illogical. In the context of a paragraph on YAF that says it had little or no truck with segregationists the fact that the group praised Strom Thurmond in 1962 is highly relevant for highly obvious reasons. Even if the award was for him having a unique first name (and of course it was not), I still think it would be relevant to this article. For an overtly political organization to give any sort of award to Strom Thurmond in 1962 certainly says something about said organization's beliefs and provides a good counterpoint in this section to YAF's supposed non-support for George Wallace (which, like much of the rest of the article, is not cited, but which you apparently have no problem with). I think you are basically the only editor that has expressed a problem with this quite minor Strom Thurmond detail and I think you ought to consider that fact.

So out of these three issues I hope you will have no problem with my comments on the first two and will think twice before removing the Thurmond tidbit. You ought to ask yourself whether or not something which is a fact (and which is clearly relevant in the context in which it is presented) is really a POV violation or whether you simply do not like the fact and therefore want to get rid of it. Again, my hope is that we can come to some consensus on these points.--Bigtimepeace 09:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Central Michigan University

We are going to add information to this article describing the group's activities at Central Michigan University. If YAF members wish to provide their input into how this information should be presented in a neutral POV, that's welcome. What you cannot do is simply delete factual information because it makes you unhappy or uncomfortable. Ankles 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a member of YAF, but I am concerned that some people are using Wikipedia to post material that is not credible. It is worth noting that the CMU chapter has not been declared a hate group. The student Senate passed a resolution (after it failed the first time), but that resolution has not been adopted by the other chamber and the student body leadership have made it clear they don't support it and won't sign it. Furthermore, this unilateral resolution was condemned by the campus newspaper and dozens and dozens of students; including many liberals at CMU. There has been evidence to indicate they are a hate group. Additionally, I don't believe YAF ever released a statement taking back any allegations, if any were made. I saw the one you posted, but from what I can tell (based on consulting the CMU YAF website), he is not a member of that group. It appears like a statement from someone who administrates a blog without the permission or control of the chapter. Sussexhouse 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. Look at the sources I cited. The member in question is Jason Gillman Jr., the 2nd VP of the CMU chapter of YAF. The information is valid, and factual. Ankles 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added another source showing that YAF attempted to frame members of the Gay Straight Alliance for the chalkings. Ankles 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Added for the record:

Video and text on this page show that Jason Gillman, Jr. of the Michigan National Guard is a member of YAF: http://media.www.cm-life.com/media/storage/paper906/news/2007/03/30/News/Emotions.High.At.Rally-2814036.shtml

This article is written by Jason Gillman and provides further evidence that he is an active member of the group: http://www.thecentralmonitor.com/wordpress/2007/04/02/support-the-troops-friends-dont-let-friends-talk-like-imbiciles

Gillman's article links approvingly to video containing defamatory and false statements about CMU's College Democrats.

Sussexhouse appears to be an interested party. This is his YouTube account, with favorites linking to the YAF YouTube account: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=sussexhouse

The YAF YouTube account: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=thecentralmonitor

"The Central Monitor" is YAF's CMU branch website, and it is registered to Jason Gillman and "CMU YAF":

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/6962/yafisgillmanif2.png --

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/2537/yafpage1df3.png --

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/8809/yafpage2gr7.png

Look up this information on whois.com: http://whois.domaintools.com/thecentralmonitor.com

Ankles 22:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, some of the sourced material is no longer online. Additionally, I found numerous newspaper articles from Central Michigan Life (Article 1 Article 2) and WNEM TV (Story) indicating no real proof that YAF had done it, and there is also an article from The Saginaw News (Article) that doesn't even allege or make any reference to Young Americans for Freedom.

64.7.161.184 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Since my original post a couple minutes ago, I have found these additional sources:

- Central Michigan Life op-ed Link

64.7.161.184 16:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree after looking at a couple of the articles posted above that these hate group charges against the CMU chapter should be kept out for now. They seem to be completely unsubstantiated, and only a small number (8 or 9 I think) of members of the student senate actually voted for the hate group charge. The other information put in by user Ankles about charges and counter charges between the YAF chapter and the campus Gay/Straight Alliance group do not seem nearly notable enough for this article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kyle Bristow/MSU

I don't understand how this is revalant to Young Americans for Freedom. This was one person, his own personal beliefs and not the actual organization. 64.7.188.177 16:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

National YAF is alive and well. YAF groups have been organized in large part because of the national organization. Look at YAF's new web page (www.yaf.com). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.152.91 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

MSU's YAF chapter is the most notable one in present day, while most of YAF in general is historical. Rock8591 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

The group that Bristow was a part of was not affiliated with the national organization. A new, nationally recognized chapter began in the fall of 2018 with no association with Bristow 14:01, 1, January 2018 (EST)

National YAF

Proof exists that National exists and is alive and well.

See www.yaf.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.152.91 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Reason for My Edits

There is no proof that national yaf exists anymore. The website is not updated anymore and the mailing address is occupied by other organizations (google it). In addition, there has been no activity from the national group other than a supposed ad that is talked about on Bristow's blog. However, that alone does not constitute sufficient proof. I can find no record of financial statements or anything else to suggest that national yaf exists anymore. Therefore, I have made sufficient changes to this page. In addition, I have removed the claim that YAF is the largest and most active conservative youth organzation. Those are purely speculative and YAF has produced no numbers in which that claim may be grounded.

I invite others to join this discussion and produce any evidence to the contrary. My opinion on the whole matter is that YAF does not exist anymore and its only a small number of student organizations that are using its name (Bristow's obviously being the most prominent). I have hears rumors that a Campus Services Coordinator at the Leadership Institute has obtained the rights to YAF's name, but those were rumors and I have avoided posting them on the article.

I must also note that if you attempt to prove National YAF still exists, don't cite the "YAF Is Reborn" article on Human Events. It only discusses a small protest and has nothing to do with National YAF. Adamwb 21:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You can not assume facts without proper sourcing. Just because an organization shares a mailing address with a business doesn't mean the organization has went defunct. It could simply mean the director or secretariat uses his business or source of employment as the organization's corporate address.

Additionally, you are inserting hearsay and idle speculation without any backing. Furthermore, your point of view is not neutral and is not in compliance with Wikipedia standards and regulations. 64.25.200.19 00:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you can conclude that Adamwb's view is not neutral--you need to assume good faith with him. However I do agree that YAF's status at this point is ambivalent--there is no proof/source that demonstrates that it is defunct. Thus Adamwb's edits about the DC mailing address constitute original research and cannot stay. If a reliable source is found which says the national office has ceased to exist then we can and should include that, but barring that I think the current version is fine.

To 64.25.200.19 (who, incidentally, I would encourage to register an account) you did not explain why you added NPOV tags to the article (accusing another editor of not being neutral does not mean you infer that the whole article is non-neutral--Adamwb wrote little or none of the current content) and I personally see no reason to have them so I am removing them. The article could certainly use work, but I really do not think NPOV is much of a problem at this point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that Adamwb has an agenda; he wants to make it appear as if there is no YAF. He is not a neutral point of view editor. 64.25.200.19 02:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Prior to my edits, this YAF page was full of references to some resurgence of the national organization and YAF coming back. Of course, there was no evidence to back this up. The only citation seemed to come from an article on Human Events where some employees of the Leadership Institute in Virginia discussed standing on a street corner with anti-illegal immigration signs. That article shows in no way that YAF has been "reborn" or anything of that sort. I find it important that there is no evidence to suggest a national organization still exists. The website is clearly left over from another time and there is no activity coming from a national body. Historically, YAF's national body was highly involved in activities.

Since YAF has a long history of being a prominent conservative youth organization. I think it's important to note that today it exists as a loose network of independent student organizations on college campuses.

However, someone from a Michigan IP address keeps reverting my edits and vandalizing the article. My last edit cleaned up any NPOV violations and removed frivilous information. This needs to stop and I will report it to a Wikipedia moderator if it continues. Adamwb 18:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot keep editing this page to suit your biased political agenda. This entry has been flagged and there is a dispute, you cannot delete it and remove these flags until the matter is resolved by neutral editors. There is no evidence to indicate your conclusions. All YAF chapters belong to the national organization based on every source that has been presented and until you have a credible source -- other than speculation -- it cannot be included.

64.25.200.19 21:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Biased political agenda? You must be kidding. Why would I care if it exists or not? I have no connection to YAF or its opposition.

However, I think this is a significant issue and it should receive attention on the YAF page. After all, YAF has a long history of a strong national organization. But where is this national body today? There has been no conclusive evidence to suggest that a national organization exists anymore. Where are its financial statements? Where are its press releases? There is nothing out there. Prominent organizations just don't go into hiding like this.

When you find proof that it exists (solid proof not suggestive proof), then feel free to revert my edits. Until then, I can only conclude you have an interest in establishing that it does exist and your edits are POV. Adamwb 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You also use non-NPOV sources, such a political blog (YAF Watch) that attacks Young Americans for Freedom. Political organizations are not required to file financial statements if they don't spend over a certain amount of money each year. There is no evidence to indicate the national YAF organization does not exist. Someone is paying for the outdated website. 64.25.200.19 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Using YAF Watch to talk about Preston Wiginton is acceptable considering nothing they posted was incorrect. It should be noted on YAF's Wikipedia page that the MSU chapter brought in a known skinhead to MC the Nick Griffin event. As for the National YAF issue, there is again no evidence it exists. None. There is also no indication that the website is paid for by the organization. There is no recent record of any activity whatsoever coming out the national body. This should be an indicator that it has shut down considering the national YAF has traditionally been active.

Feel free to again revert the YAF page and let it claim the organization exists. However, only do so once you find some financial statements, press releases, etc. There is nothing out there to suggest this organization exists anymore. Adamwb 03:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Using YAF Watch would be like using the KKK Web site as a source for Martin Luther King, Jr. You cannot vandalize articles and fabricate information. The onus is on you to prove the facts wrong with actual credible sources. 64.25.200.19 04:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They took pictures of MSU-YAF chairman Kyle Bristow standing next to Preston Wiginton. They also have a photo of Wiginton and David Duke smiling into the camera. That certainly does not constitute fabricated information. In fact, nothing on that particular YAF Watch post is fabricated. The source is quite credible. By the way, that was a horribly analogy you used.

You need to quit reverting this article and the changes I've made. I'm beginning to think you're involved with one of the Michigan YAF chapters (since that's where your IP address is from). Adamwb 05:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed some of the attempted edits as well as the continued controversial edits. These claims by Adamwb regarding the status of Young Americans for Freedom, as a national entity, are unverified. While you claim there are no financial statements or other corporate governance documents available, that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Until there is independent verification from a NPOV source, it cannot be included or considered for inclusion in this article. Additionally, I do not find this blog, Yaf WATCH, a credible source. It is not an accredited media outlet. It is one-sided and is not an independent source. If there is a newspaper report from a credible source that meets Wikipedia guidelines, then we can discuss inclusion. Furthermore, I would like to remind users of Wikipedia guidelines on editing articles that have been labeled as controversial, in dispute or other flags. There has to be a review, discussion and consensus before you can vandalize an article with your false claims. 64.7.187.207 02:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI: "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS) 64.7.187.207 02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected

The edit warring over this article has reached an unnaceptable level and I have protected it from editing. Please discuss the contentious matters here and attempt to reach an agreement as to how the article should read. You can request unprotection at requests for page protection once you have reached a consensus. If you are having difficulty reaching agreement, Wikipedia's dispute resolution process may be of use. WjBscribe 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please revert to the previous edit. Just before this was protected, someone vandalized the article again with the unsourced POV information 64.7.187.216 15:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works. By definition when there is an edit war leading to protection one or more parties will believe the article has been protected on the "wrong" version. Admins (and I'm not one) will not revert back to your preferred version as they would then be taking sides in a content dispute. And both you (the anon user) and Adamwb need to stop throwing around charges of vandalism. It is uncivil and obviously is not helping you come to a compromise, in fact it is hindering that effort.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay if we are talking about the sections on Michigan State University, then the latest event by YAF has been documented as having 50-75 protestors (estimates varied by two cited sources), and Nick Griffin has indeed been charged with antisemitism and racism (this isnt saying he is, just that he has been accused), so these two pieces of info shouldnt really be a problem for anyone.

If we are talking about Preston Wiginton then why should we not include him. Firstly the YAFwatche's website accuses him of being a white supremacist (so maybe not say he is as such but say he has been accused of this). If that is not a good source, then the videos of the event that are posted on YAF's blog should be adaquete evidence, he is clearly seen in the videos fielding questions for Nick Griffin and in one of the videos he answers questions from the audience, so we can conclude without doubt that he was there and was indeed the Master of Ceremonies for the event. So this should pose no problem to people. Insanelyquiet 05:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Photos and video are not acceptable sources per Wikipedia standards, and YAF Watch is a personal, POV blog that also does not meet standards. 64.109.159.111 15:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is another source, stating that Preston was there. http://www.michiganmessenger.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=329#cooliris Insanelyquiet 23:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to {{editprotected}} request: sounds to me like you're asking an administrator to endorse one or the other page version in this dispute, and that's not something that's likely to happen. This needs to be openly debated, not solved with blunt instruments; consensus and dispute resolution are important. At this point, I'd encourage all of you to assume good faith and work to reach some sort of reasonable compromise. Again, consider making use of Wikipedia's robust dispute resolution process. Feel free to submit any further editprotected requests once you believe a consensus has been reached. Thanks for your time, and good luck. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Michigan Messenger story mentioned by Insanelyquiet is not an acceptable source. The author, Todd Heywood, owns the YAF Watch blog and his personal opinions of the Young Americans for Freedom organization are quite known. He is not an accredited, respected journalist and these blogs are nothing more than personal mediums for his POV propaganda. 64.25.200.19 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is another source, http://www.mediamouse.org/features/102707racis.php

How come you cant get past your bias and accept the fact he was there. 35.13.250.206 18:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't take issue with a mention in the article that the Michigan State University chapter of Young Americans for Freedom hosted the British National Party leader, Nick Griffin, sparking protests and controversy. However, it was one event and we have to ensure that it doesn't dominate the entry on the national organization. Perhaps it would be best to create a new entry for the MSU chapter, which seems to be the subject of the criticism and controversy. The article has to be balanced and weighted, it cannot be all about one school chapter. 64.25.200.19 21:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, if we can expand the MSU section into an entire entry that would be fine by me. Insanelyquiet 05:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Preston Wiginton, here's an article by the International Herald Tribune that identifies him as a "white supremacist." Nobody can claim that IHT is a biased source. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/04/europe/EU-GEN-Russia-Nationalist-Holiday.php# This article should definitely be used as a source.

As for making MSU-YAF its own entry, I think that's overestimating it's significance. In addition, MSU-YAF is clearly the most active organization carrying the YAF name. Therefore it definitely belongs on this page. I think splitting the YAF page into different eras of influence and activism (as it is now) is the best and most accurate way to handle things, especially since there are distinct differences throughout the years. That keeps things coherent and readable. However, since MSU-YAF has received a lot of attention for extremely controversial events and speakers, we should have a section titled "Recent Criticism" or something similar. Therefore, a reader will see information on the status of YAF throughout the years, and then they can read about current criticism including the white supremacist and others at MSU as well as a few other controversies that involve other YAF chapters. It might also be appropriate to include some common counter-claims in a following paragraph to ensure the page remains NPOV and gives a full account of events.

However, I do think that the "lasting influence" section should be removed unless the claims can be backed up by sources. Adamwb 07:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is whether or not this guy was at the event. Why wouldn't the legitimate media report on his presence? I have only seen links to personal, POV blogs and outlets. I read the Lansing State Journal coverage and there was no mention of white nationalists at the recent MSU Young Americans for Freedom event. And I disagree that the MSU chapter is the most active in the national YAF organization. It seems like the University of Michigan, Central Michigan University, Penn State University and the California chapters are exteremly active with some of them having political action committeees and endorsing candidates for office.

Again, Wikipedia has standards and regulations on balance and we cannot have an article about a national organization and have 50% of it devoted to one of its many chapters. Furthermore, I will still object to any implication that the national YAF organization no longer exists as Adamwb likes to claim. 64.25.200.19 13:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple things, firstly it is a bit unclear if the MSU chapter is indeed the most active. There are other YAF chapter's that are also very active but I think the MSU chapter has been the most controversial chapter in recent memory... protests are formed at every one of their events and they have been labeled a hate group by the SLPC.

Yeah maybe making MSU its own article would over estimate its signifigance, but I do think at least the section of MSU should be expanded.

I'm all for putting in counter claims about YAF's events at MSU, but the problem is that most sources I have seen that would counter claims made of YAF being hatefuly, racist etc. are POV blogs, specifially the MSU YAF blog which the anon user says we cant use as a source.

Thirdly, the mainsteam media did not have a presence at this event only the State News and Lansing State Journal were present at the event from "mainstream" news outlets. There was a much broader amount of presence there at the event from "independent" news outlets and bloggers etc. Two news outlets (LSJ, and StateNews) cannot possibly be expected to cover every possible point and aspect of the event so it isnt a surprise that Preston wasnt mentioned in their articles. Insanelyquiet 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the media cannot be expected to cover every single aspect of an event held by a student organization at Michigan State University. However, I thought I remembered seeing Wiginton mentioned in another news article. Either way, the IHT article clearly establishes that he's a white supremacist. IHT is a well-respected NPOV source.

To the anonymous user 64.25.200.19, the MSU chapter is by far the most active. It has held numerous events each month. I cannot find press releases or records of activity from the other YAF organizations that equal anything coming out of MSU. This is not to say the others have not been active, only that they are not nearly as active as MSU-YAF. Therefore, MSU-YAF does deserve a portion of this article. However, this would not cause MSU-YAF to take up 50% of the article as you're claiming. There's already a substantial amount of information there and this would take up a small portion.

Furthermore, I have to disagree with you again on the national status. Here's where I'm coming from in case you missed it. Traditionally YAF has been a highly active NATIONAL organization. The national body itself has always been involved in some sort of activity or cause. There's even a book about it. However, this level of activity has all but disappeared since the late 1990s. This is a sharp departure from the previous decades. Throughout this decade, it appears the national body has done nothing. There are no press releases. No media articles. No events. Nothing. Organizations don't just go into hiding. If the Southern Poverty Law Center suddenly did nothing for nearly a decade and produced no financial statements, press releases, etc., people would probably claim it doesn't exist anymore. That's how it is with Young Americans for Freedom. I know this doesn't prove anything, but in reverse there is no way to show that it's an incorrect claim. The fact is that neither side, yes or no, can make a substantial claim. Therefore, I think this deserves some attention on the YAF article. Perhaps we could note that there is a debate as to whether the national organization still exists and include both claims? Or we could say there is uncertainty as to whether the organization still exists or not. We should not claim that it does or it doesn't, as we cannot prove either way, so we should note this degree of uncertainty that exists. Perhaps this could be briefly mentioned in the introduction and then expanded in a section titled "Controversy over national status" or "debate over national status." I'm open to any other ideas, but this deserves attention. Adamwb 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are clear when it comes to sources. There is no evidence to suggest there is no national YAF organzation. You admitted Adamwb that you couldn't find press releases from the MSU chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, so who is to say you couldn't find press releases for the national organization? I came across this website, http://thecampusright.com/2007/10/18/can-we-expect-more-yaf-chapters-in-michigan-and-the-us/, which details the activity of Young Americans for Freedom and makes reference to the national organization. 64.25.200.19 13:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said I couldn't find press releases for MSU-YAF. Those are posted on Kyle Bristow's blog at www.spartanspectator.com. What I said is that there is no record of any activity coming out of this 'national-YAF.' Historically the national body has been highly active. However, since the very late part of the 1990s, all activity seems to have died off. There are no press releases, no financial statements, no records of anything substantial going on. Organizations don't just go into hiding. If the national body for the College Democrats disappeared for nearly ten years, and produced no record of anything, people would assume it shut down or something. It's the same for YAF. This is noteworthy and the article needs to reflect it. As I said above, the introduction should note the uncertainty over national status and there should be a section discussing it. This could be called "Controversy over national status" or something like "debate over national status." That link you produced, which is a blog ran by employees at the Leadership Institute, can be used in this new section to reference one side of the controversy. By itself, it's not conclusive enough to prove anything. Adamwb 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Adam, if you want to have a section called "Controversy over national status" you need to provide sources which describe that controversy. So far the only controversy I see is on the talk page, but that cannot go into the article even in summary form. You absolutely cannot point out the fact that the web site for the national org has not been updated (or that there have been no press releases, etc. etc.) and then use that information to suggest that the national org is defunct or dying. To do so would violate our policies on original research (which are non-negotiable) as you would be doing your own research and not using reliable sources. What you need to find are sources that note the lack of activity in the national org, or that suggest it no longer exists or has greatly reduced its activity. If you can find such sources then your claims can be put in the article. If you cannot then they cannot. Likewise we cannot speculate about the continued existence of the national org without reliable sources saying it does not exist. The blog link provided by 64.25.200.19 does not remotely verify the continued existence of the national org.

Since at this point we seem to have little or no information about the national organization from secondary sources it seems to me that we can say little or nothing about it. Find some reliable sources which discuss it (and stop the unfruitful speculation above--it's not really getting us anywhere) and we can include that info in the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace is right. Adamwb is trying to include unsourced, POV information. I looked at the national Young Americans for Freedom website and it indicates a copyright date of 2007. The link I provided is as credible as YAF Watch or any other sources that Adamwb has suggested be included in this article. In the mean time, WE NEED to revert the article back to undue these changes that Adamwb made that are in violation of Wikipedia's original research regulations. 64.25.200.19 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Once the dispute is resolved we can ask for unprotection. What specifically do you think needs to be changed in the article? I assume the sentence in the intro about being active up until the 1990s, but is there anything else? Please list out all your concerns here and if we agree about what to do about them we can probably get the article unprotected.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It needs to go back to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Americans_for_Freedom&oldid=168645012

64.25.200.19 21:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked you what specific things you want to change--I'm not going to look through and compare all of the changes. And simply reverting back to an earlier version is certainly not going to end the revert wars--that's what creates the revert wars. Please detail what specifically you object to in the current version. I notice that in your old version there is toned-down language about Nick Griffin, but I see no reason why we need to change what is there now. There are several reliable sources cited for the event, though the wording could probably be changed a bit. The Nick Griffin issue has nothing to do with national org issue discussed above, which is why I want you to list out all of the changes you are seeking so we know what we are talking about, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

64.25.200.19, any web designer knows that dates are often controlled by a script that automatically updates itself. Otherwise it would be quite a chore to manage even the simplest site. That definitely doesn't constitute activity.

Bigtimepeace, I really do understand what you're saying about the national status. However, there has to be sufficient evidence to even claim that the organization still exists or to say things like "largest/most active conservative student organization." When I found this article, there was all sorts of wording giving the impression of a large, active, and prominent national organization. I'm willing to compromise by removing claims that the organization is defunct and/or dying, but at the same time there cannot be wording to give the impression that the organization exists. Nothing whatsoever, because there is insufficient evidence to suggest so. I'm unsure at this point how the article should be worded, but it would have to be more along the lines of looking back on notable YAF activities. We could reference the activities of individual campus chapters, but we must be careful to avoid wording that suggests anything more.

Overall, I'm more than willing to compromise on this stuff. We just have to remember that while we can't prove the national organization doesn't exist, we also can't prove without a doubt that it does. This leaves us with a problem. We have two choices: 1) note the uncertainty over the national status or 2) remove any mention or inference that it does exist. I hope I explained this well but we cannot allow the article to pick one side or the other if it's to remain accurate.

Additionally, mention of the MSU-YAF should be included since it's received the most attention of any YAF. Although, I am willing at this time to support the creation of its own separate page. That may be the best way to keep this article accurate. Adamwb 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for ending dispute

I've just gone back to an older version [16] of the article and found the following section which was deleted at some point, I think perhaps by Adam:

YAF's national status

While many YAF chapters have formed or been revived on campuses across the country, it is unclear if the national organization, which is based in Falls Church, Virginia[25], has dissolved as there has been little activity in the headquarters since the death of President Reagan in 2004.

The current national YAF officers include chairman Erik Johnson, vice-chairman Chad Morgan, secretary Brian Park and treasurer Gabrielle Avedian. The organization also has an advisory board with over 35 members, including M. Stanton Evans; Ron Robinson; Vice President Dick Cheney; Senators Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott; former Senator George Allen; former Attorney General John Ashcroft and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. [26]

Despite questions over the national status, several chapters are reforming and associating themselves with other national conservative groups. [27]

This was in place for quite some time I believe and I'm not sure why it was removed. One of the footnotes takes you here where you can see a letter supposedly written from the national office in April of this year. I see Adam had mentioned this earlier as not sufficient proof that the national org still exists. I agree that it is not, but I do think we should mention it.

The old section above seems to do a decent job discussing the ambiguity of the national org though we could improve it. It points out that the national YAF status is unclear, and alludes to the fact that the web site has not been updated since Reagan's death (we should just talk about the web site (which is verifiable), not activity at the headquarters). It also alludes to the April 2007 letter but does not cite it explicitly in the article text which we should do. I propose that we put an altered version of this section back into the article. Here's my proposal:

YAF's national status

The current status of the national YAF organization, which is based in Falls Church, Virginia[25], is unclear as the main page of the web site has apparently not been updated since President Ronald Reagan's death.

In April of 2007 the conservative "Spartan Spectator" blog published what they claimed was a letter from the national YAF office supporting the Michigan State chapter in their dispute with Southern Poverty Law Center. According to the letter, the national YAF officers at that time included chairman Erik Johnson, vice-chairman Chad Morgan, secretary Brian Park and treasurer Gabrielle Avedian. The organization also had an advisory board with over 35 members including Vice President Dick Cheney and Senators Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott. [26]

Despite questions over the national status, several chapters are reforming and associating themselves with other national conservative groups. [27]

Obviously wikilinks and proper footnotes (which I can't access since the article is protected) would be added in. I included some relevant context and did some trimming in the advisory board members mentioned. I think this is better than what we have now and propose that if others agree we request unprotection and move something along these lines back into the article. We'll have to edit a couple of other sections in order to avoid repetition or contradiction, but I think this does a decent job of laying out the issues as to national status. Hopefully we can find better sources that shed more light on the matter in the near future. Thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with "In April of 2007 the conservative "Spartan Spectator" blog published what they claimed was a letter from the national YAF office supporting the Michigan State chapter in their dispute with Southern Poverty Law Center."

The letter was a full-page advertisement in the State News; the student newspaper at Michigan State University. Additionally, the inclusion of "the conservative 'Spartan Spectator' blog" has a negative connotation. 141.209.168.237 18:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How does that phrase has a negative connotation? It's a blog, it's called the Spartan Spectator, and the top of the blog says that it is for "conservatives." I think it's a perfectly accurate and neutral description.

I understand that the letter supposedly appeared in a newspaper, but the blog published the letter before it appeared so I had no way to verify that it actually did. Is there a link to the ad in the State News? If so we can say it appeared there and use the State News as a source which is better, but I cannot take it on faith that the ad showed up just because a blog said it was going to. We need better evidence, otherwise we should cite the blog. Also, are you the same person who has been debating this above under a different IP, or someone else? It would be nice if everyone participating in this discussion would create accounts for themselves--if more and more single-purpose anon IPs start showing up arguing the same thing I will view their contributions with increasing skepticism. You'll be taken more seriously if you create an account--that's just a reality of Wikipedia.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a computer of my own, I go to the library and use different computers. We don't actually know what a book says without verification either, yet we quote books on here as sources even though they aren't online. Why not look at the newspaper for that date? I'm sure it's in an archive. 141.209.34.122 20:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need your own computer to create an account, and once you create an account you can login from anywhere, so your lack of a computer is not really an issue. I do take it though that User 141 and the IP user above are the same person which was my question.

The issue with the ad in the State News is quite different from a book source. If a book is cited on Wikipedia it is cited with page number, author, publisher, etc. Even if I do not have the book I could theoretically check the sourcer at a library. In this case though we do not know when, or even if, the ad in question was published. If we had a date and a page number then we could cite it but right now we do not. Again, just because a blog said the ad was going to be published, we absolutely cannot assume that it was. I'd say the odds are good it was published, but we need verification of that, which means someone needs to let us know what day it was published and on what page.

I do not find the ad in the State News online archives, which is not surprising since ads are usually not archived on news web sites. I live in New York and thus do not have access to physical copies of a Michigan student paper. If the anonymous user is in Michigan perhaps they can look at old papers from April of this year and verify that the ad was printed. Quite frankly it's really not a big deal to me, and it's certainly not my job to track this thing down. If it's important to you to cite the newspaper ad and not the blog claiming there would be an ad, then please track down the original source yourself.

Aside from this issue, are you okay with the language I proposed above? If you are an if Adam agrees I could ask for unprotection.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no connection with this subject, or thoughts on it. I only have 1 remark. I think you are all doing a good job of resolving your dispute in a civil manner. At first it was getting out of hand, but you have been doing a very good job lately working together to reach consensus. --businessman332211 05:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have found two VERY IMPORTANT SOURCES. One is verification of the full-page advertisement placed in the MSU State News by National Young Americans for Freedom, which also quotes the organization's chairman and proves there is a national organization: http://statenews.com/index.php/article/2007/11/outspoken_campus_group_keeps_quiet_about_funding. The second source also verifies the national organization: http://www.yaf.org/faq/index.cfm#YAF.

Please advise so we can reach agreement. 64.25.200.19 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two more sources (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007711140424, http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071113/NEWS05/711130339/1001/NEWS) that reference the national Young Americans for Freedom organization.

CAN WE REACH AGREEMENT? I don't think we can include questions about the national organization based on the recent newspaper stories. 64.25.200.19 18:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} As nobody is replying, I am going to ask this article be unprotected with the following consensus edit:

• You want WP:RFPP for unprotection requests. --Haemo (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

YAF's national status

The current status of the national YAF organization, which is based in Falls Church, Virginia[25], is unclear as the main page of the web site has apparently not been updated since President Ronald Reagan's death.

In April 2007, the national YAF office took out a newspaper advertisement supporting the Michigan State University chapter in their dispute with Southern Poverty Law Center. According to the letter, the national YAF officers at that time included chairman Erik Johnson, vice-chairman Chad Morgan, secretary Brian Park and treasurer Gabrielle Avedian. The organization also listed an advisory board with over 35 members including Vice President Dick Cheney and Senators Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott. [26]

Despite questions over the national status, several chapters are reforming and associating themselves with other national conservative groups. [27]

64.25.200.19 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I came upon an interesting article yesterday. Apparently the Southern Poverty Law Center has been investigating YAF and had found that YAF groups today retain the name but are not part of a national organization.

Here's a quote:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=1499

YAF remained active nationwide through the 1980s, but is now essentially moribund. The YAF national headquarters webpage consists of a notice of sadness at the "recent news" of Ronald Reagan's death, which occurred in June 2004. Now, "Young Americans for Freedom" is basically just a brand name for radical right-wing student activism, taking form as a loose and decentralized network of campus chapters, each one appearing to act independently.

In fact, the YAF brand is being co-opted and promoted by the Leadership Institute, a hard-line conservative nonprofit organization based in Arlington, Va., that is dedicated, according to its mission statement, to "identifying, recruiting, training and placing conservatives within the public policy process in the U.S. and abroad."

I think this is something important that should be taken into account when finalizing the YAF page. The SPLC is a well-respected and internationally known organization. Adamwb (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is absolute bull. National YAF does indeed exist. Look at the updated web page (www.yaf.com). The chapters may act independently, but they are required to be linked to National YAF through chapter affiliation agreements.

Also, the SPLC is only well respected by the far left, generally. Many conservative groups consider them horribly biased with a goal of falsely tar and feathering conservatives as evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.67.106 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the SPLC is internationally respected for its commitment to ending racism/hate and promoting civil rights. It has a rich history of accomplishing much towards those goals. It's a well-funded organization with a large presence. That some "conservatives" (as if that term really means much as far as identification) may disagree with the SPLC doesn't render it biased or a bad source.

Also, that national YAF website is hardly convincing. It looks like the effort of a rag-tag bunch of people seeking to capitalize on YAF's past history. Any legitimate non-profit will produce financial documents (990 forms, etc). Yet, YAF has none available. They simply don't exist because it's not an organization anymore. I can find tax forms for any legitimate organization out there.

There's also nothing on that YAF website other than a few news postings (about Buckley's death and CPAC). There is no indication that the "organization" does anything, employs anyone, issues press releases, or anything that would indicate it's a real organization. These claims of "national YAF" being a legitimate organization are as credible as Kyle Bristow's claims that Dick Cheney and Dan Quayle are on YAF's advisory board.

In one of my previous comments, I cited an SPLC report which stated that the Leadership Institute is "co-opting" and "promoting" the YAF-brand. It should not be surprising that the recent comments arguing against me here happened to come from Virginia, from an ISP located near the Leadership Institute's location (IP was 71.242.67.106).

Until unquestionable proof of YAF's existence as a legitmate, legal organization are produced, it still remains that "national YAF" is not a real organization. Adamwb (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

national YAF still active?

[August 2009] The national YAF web site seems to have no news after 2008. For a comparison, see Talk:Social Democrats USA, where the web site stopped changing several years ago, allegedly after the site owner's death. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Gold standard"

A small point, but I don't think Nixon took the US off the gold standard; I think this happened in 1933. Quaesivit 01:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I looked it up and it was done in 1933 but there were still remnents of the Gold standard that lingered till the Nixon Presidency, when the article is no longer protected, this will be addressed. Insanelyquiet 05:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Category adjustment request

{{editprotected}} Cgingold (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Y sub-categorization completed. SkierRMH (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yaf logo.jpg

Image:Yaf logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

YAF Chapters Updates

Updates to YAF Chapters
Today Updated the section of this wikipedia page by entering 2 new chapters; American University and Liberty University. My goal is to acquire the names of all of the universities in Virginia and the District of Columbia that have functioning YAF chapters.
My source for these Chapter additions, and most likely, future chapter updates comes directly from the Leadership Institute, not a web service or any other type of print media.

--William Zimmerman (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

File:Goldwater Rally in Madison Square Garden.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Goldwater Rally in Madison Square Garden.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

POV in history section

Parts of the 'history' section of this article are still not in line with WP:NPOV, and are biased towards YAF's point of view. In particular, the 'Campus activism, 1985–1990' subsection could do with a rewrite. It includes lines like The conservative decade also brings a new resurgence of left-wing intolerance on college campuses. Radical left-wing administrators, faculty, and students go on the rampage in their attempts to silence conservative student organizations and publications. - hardly a neutral assessment. It also rather subjectively refers to the United States as 'our nation' and to anti-communist militia movements as 'Freedom Fighters'. Is anyone willing to take a try at fixing these issues? Robofish (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

this is one of the worst, most biased entries in wikipedia

this entry is little more than a puff-propaganda piece for YAF -- all of the comments and citations on the group's influence and activities come directly from the group itself or its supporters and/or alumni -- i am adding this comment to the TALK page because there is not a "Did you find what you were looking for?" section/feedback-loop included with this article... here is the problem: if one wants to read YAF's version of its history and influence, one should go to the YAF site itself, not wikipedia -- wikipedia has an obligation to ensure that NPOV information is incuded in its articles, and all such information -- much of it well sourced -- has been repeatedly excised from this article, leaving a the type of useless propaganda piece i'd expect to find on oonservapedia, not on wikipedia... until someone can tell me why such information has been routinely excised from this article, i am loathe to make corrections/additions, as all such attepts at providing balance and an actual NPOV to this article have been mercilessly reverted in the past... this is a noticable trend when it comes to articles dealing with "conservative" and "right-wing" topics on wikipedia -- trolls posing as NPOV fetishists are seriously undermining the quality and reputation of wikipedia by stripping out legitimate information from articles pertaining to politics, culture, and -- increasingly -- history... "i only use wikipedia for science and technology articles" is an increasingly heard refrain these days by persons of all philosophical stripes... either wikipedia should strengthen its commitment to NPOV or it will suffer the defection of those who have labored in its vineyards only to have their grapes malliciously trampled upon by culture-warriors with a definite POV... all i want is balance and neutrality -- this article is a stark example of editor-condoned one-sided censorship in the guise of preserving NPOV... oedipus (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me let you in on a little secret one only grasps after a few months on Wikipedia: the only editors "condoning" such censorship (or charged with enforcing NPOV rules) are you, me and anyone else who can edit (if this is semi-protected, that means any registered editor after five days). If you disagree with the current style and content of the YAF article (as I tend to do myself), you have to undertake at least some of the grunt work of reverting bad deletions and deleting bad insertions or rewording text back to Neutral POV. There will be nasty edit wars and Talk Page debates going on angrily for what seems like forever; if it gets really crazy, you may have to appeal to the NPOV noticeboard (hopefully never to Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents). It depends how much effort you want to put into the effort. ¶ But let me offer two points of consolation: (1) similar things happen at the other end of the spectrum, between leftist groups and their left-wing or right-wing critics, and (2) sometimes this kind of problem can end up getting resolved quite amicably and professionally (by amateurs) when a small group of NPOV-believing editors with opposing personal political beliefs gets together to pull good, sound sources for every assertion or quotation, balance the commentary in a mutually-satisfactory form, and suppress the chaff. Examples I've worked on are Fairness Doctrine and Glass–Steagall Act. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

@Shakescene: thanks for the words of encouragement; i strongly believe in NPOV, and have been through both edit wars and harmonious collaborations, and will be back to try and add some balance (which is all i want) -- speaking of balance, i wonder if you have any comments on an RfC i proposed on the Talk:Traditional_marriage page, especially explanation of oedipus' RfC and traditional marriage RfC. oedipus (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic response: All that over a redirect ???? Looks to me like a prime candidate, even before it's fully-ripened, for WP:Lamest edit wars. Going over the talk and edit history of YAF looks as if it'd strain my patience and capacities to the limit by itself. Cf: Talk:The Bronx/Name and Talk:Social Democrats, USA. Good luck. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

yeah -- didn't think my request was so controversial... by the way, the heat of my comment on the article was mostly fueled by the time it took to listen (with a Screen_reader, which means no skipping or skim reading) to most of the talk history pages, not to mention the history pages for the article itself, and by what i found there... oh, and thanks for the pointers -- as f. scott wrote in The Crack-Up: "One should be able to see that things are hopeless, and yet be determined to make them otherwise." oedipus (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Young Americans for Freedom. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928002428/http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061121/NEWS01/611210331/1382 to http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061121/NEWS01/611210331/1382

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Walkout

In the sixties, some of them burned draft cards in the middle of a YAL conference and staged a walkout.

There was a radical caucus that broke away after the walkout. Then there was a lot of cross pollination between those people and anarchist outcasts from SDS.

Benjamin (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources required

An IP editor keeps adding content about the Society for Individual Liberty, the California Libertarian Alliance , the New Jersey Libertarian Alliance, and the Libertarian Republican Alliance and various YAFers who founded them, without sources. All content must be verifiable, meaning it must be supportable with reliable sources. This is especially true of information about living people. Please provide sources for this content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ideology

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)

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)

New Source

see [17] Doug Weller talk 19:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Sharon Statement

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)

I agree. Rjensen (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

Would you mind reading WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:AGF? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• Comment -- Let's forget the NYT, and look at scholarly sources. E.g.
  • Resisting the Temptation to Give Up: James Baldwin, Robert Adams, and the Disavowal of the American Way of Life Leah Mirakhor African American Review Vol. 46, No. 4 -- In his chapter "Conservative Freedom" in The Story of American Freedom, Eric Foner explains how the consumerism that Canclini delineates is part of the epistemological understanding of American freedom in postwar and cold-war America. Foner identifies the conservative movement of the 1960s (catapulted by milestones such as Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign, William Buckley's Conscience of the Conservative, and the Sharon Statement -- Not only does this author call it a milestone, but shows the signifance of Foner's detailed discussion of it.
  • A review of The Other Side of the Sixties: Young Americans for Freedom and the Rise of Conservative Politics from The American Historical Review Vol. 103, No. 5, Dec., 1998, which reveals that that book has an entire chapter on the Sharon Statement: In successive chapters, Andrew discusses the origins of the "New Right," the Sharon Statement, and the YAF's factional struggles and concerted efforts to secure the Republican presidential nomination for Barry Goldwater.

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

STOP-NSA Committee

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removed content

• 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)