Talk:International Young Democrat Union

Untitled

• The International Young Democrat Union, as chaired by Charlotte Spurkeland, is the recognised affiliated youth wing of the International Democrat Union (a registered organisation). The IDU retains legal and administrative oversight of the IYDU. Attempts to alter the content of the IYDU wikipedia page to deliberately mislead readers into thinking that an unaffiliated organisation are officially sponsored by and part of the IDU are a clear case of vandalism with the intent to misinform. Discussions pertaining to the rights of alternative groups to the officially recognised youth wing of IDU, represented on this page before the revisions by , should be referred to the IDU and an alternative page, without the claim to affiliation, should be established. Mfs104 (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC) mfs104

The IYDU is an independent organization with its own constitution and statutes and the "meeting" being noted as being held in London was an illegal attempt to undermine the democratically elected executive of the IYDU. The information being cited on the IDU website is misleading and deceptive, as the event which took place in London was not an IYDU event as it was not called by the IYDU Executive as per the IYDU Constitution.

The IYDU is recognized as “affiliated” within the IDU family. That is because IYDU has its own Constitution. The IDU Executive can stop recognizing IYDU as affiliated in cases of violations of the IDU rules and regulations. It has no right though to dissolve IYDU, violate the rights of the elected Officers, call a Council Meeting unilaterally, manipulate elections, attempt to elect its own IYDU board or impose constitutional changes, since IYDU is a self constituted Youth Organisation.

The next IYDU Council Meeting will take place in Lisbon, Portugal.

For more information please go to www.iydu.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.129.161 (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, I'm sure you already know that no one can assume legal responsibility for anything written on a Wikipedia page. But if it's false information that's worrying you in the article, be bold and delete it. Baconfry (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Bacon, in case you haven't noticed, there's already been too much boldness on this page. The recent edit war resulted in two users being blocked for 24 hours. When they return, it would be much better for them to discuss the differences here. The time for boldness has passed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Always important to check the edit history for embers. Yeah, forget what I said about boldness. Now is the time to deliberate and debate, like gentlemen. Baconfry (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

References

NPOV on lead

Words like "destructive evil" need to be put in quotes, or if they aren't quoted, removed. Doesn't sound very neutral to me. Baconfry (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Date of foundation

The date when the IYDU was first founded keeps getting changed to 1991. However this is incorrect, the IYDU was founded before the IDU, in 1981. Please refer to the article taken from the 1981 edition of DIE ENTSCHEIDUNG, the magazine of the Junge Union which details the foundation of IYDU.

File:Magazine DIE ENTSCHEIDUNG (Junge Union, Germany), 1981

1981 Magazine Article from the DIE ENTSCHEIDUNG (Junge Union, Germany)

Things are not that simple. IYDU is a separate legal entity. That means it has its own constitution and needs to be treated as such. It supports the work of the IDU, but given it is self constituted, it is recognized by IDU as "affiliated". It is from a legal perspective a separate entity. Member Organisations are accordingly by themselves responsible to solve any disputes. What has happened here, is that an illegal and unconstitutional process was launched recently in London, in which a minority of member organizations participated against the IYDU Constitution. The majority of the members thinks of this process as a coup!! The IDU secretariat backed this process in order to manipulate future developments in the youth. But the whole process is in the end illegal, against the IYDU Constitution and not compatible with the democratic principles. Therefore the vast majority reacted against it. The Portugal Council Meeting in September is ahead and will take place according to the IYDU Constitution.

http://www.iydu.org/about/constitution/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.71.33 (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not take sides between these two positions, and merely summarises reliable sources. The website of one faction is not a reliable source, and there is a policy against original research even when based on reliable sources (eg inferring from the IYDU constitution what is constitutional or which side is right...). Note that talk pages are not message boards - they are a place where users discuss how Wikipedia policy should be implemented. Bastin 09:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Dispute

I think the important place to kick off to resolve most disputes is using reliable sources. Clearly, books and journals haven't yet got to the stage on arbitrating on who the current chairman is. However, they *do* tell us a lot about what the IYDU is - with almost all sources saying it's the youth wing of the IDU. If it's the IDU's youth wing, as reliable sources say, the IDU's position on things like officers - which can usually use primary sources - ought to be taken. Unless I'm overlooking reliable sources that say the IYDU is an independent organisation? Bastin 17:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any independent and reliable sources that say the IYDU is an independent organisation to the IDU. This page lists the IDU as the IYDU's parent organisation. The IDU ( confirms that the IYDU is its youth wing and is clear regarding its own role in the IYDU. However the IDU website lists the IYDU's webpage as and not www.iydu.org (. They also confirm that the last board meeting took place in London in June and a new board was elected . There is clearly an issue relating to a breakaway group, also called IYDU, who are not recognised by the IDU as being their affiliated youth wing. The current page, and the comments above regarding the 'Portugal Council' are a reference to the breakaway, unrecognised, group. I'm not sure that the ins and outs of the breakaway and offical IYDU are helpful to this debate but the organisation clearly recognised as the official youth wing of the IDU(www.iydu-network.org) have published an FAQ on their Facebook page explaining the situation .It does however seem clear that the unaffiliated group should remove their claim to affiliation or establish a second page relating to their organisation and which contains no reference to being the youth wing of the IDU.Mfs104 (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)mfs104 -

Comments made by MFS104 are not independent, nor are the sources MFS104 is citing, given that MFS104 started the 'edit war' and has an individual agenda in respect of the matter (which is highlighted by the other recent pages he has tried to create). There is no breakaway group, as claimed by MFS104. The issue at hand is a constitutional one. Under the IDU bylaws the IYDU is described as an 'affiliated group' . As noted above the IYDU is a separate legal entity with its own constitution. What took place in London, was an unconstitutional attempt to call an election and manipulate election results. The majority of IYDU Members do not support what happened in London. Please see the IYDU FAQs in response to the IDU FAQs MFS104 has cited, for more information

The issue seems to me to be about the accuracy of information on the IYDU page. The IYDU is, on this page, referred to as the official youth organisation of the IDU. The IDU recognise an organisation also named IYDU as their offical youth organisation but it is not the same group. The IDU's official youth organisation is listed on their pages as being IYDU at www.iydu-network.org. The page should reflect this if it claims to be the sanctioned youth affiliate. The issue could be resolved if mention of official affiliation on this page was removed.Mfs104 (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)mfs104

I agree that the IYDU.org website cannot be cited as a reliable source right now. I don't think the IYDU-network.org websie can, either, but the IDU's can for specific purposes (as per convention, office-holders, etc). This article clearly pertains to the organisation that's the IDU's youth wing; I don't honestly see any notability in a breakaway group that claims not to be related to the IDU, as I haven't seen any reliable sources that don't refer to it as the youth wing of the IDU. Bastin 09:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be a huge mistake to disregard the IYDU constitution or to regard it as a not reliable source. In all democracies constitutions or statutes are a safeguard. Problems arise, when they are not respected, as in this case. Since IYDU is a separate body with its own constitution, it needs to be treated as such. This is certainly not the place to solve the internal issue of the iydu, but it seems that through this London meeting the rights of the majority of the IYDU Member Organisations were not respected, as per the IYDU Constitution. This lead to an escalation of the crisis. The IDU leadership needed to respect the constitution. The right process for the IDU leadership would be to set up a new youth, give it another name and recognize it as IDU affiliated. Till then they have no right to alter or dissolve unilaterally an organization which has its own structure and constitution.

You are indeed correct that this is not the place to resolve or discuss the internal dispute within your organisation. It is to discuss how Wikipedia policy should be implemented. Within Wikipedia policy, the term 'reliable source' is a technical term and incredibly important to how we operate. Simply by saying, 'this is the only interpretation of the constitution' (I paraphrase), you are engaging in original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. Bastin 18:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The IYDU.org group is indeed affiliated (but separate) with IDU as most of the organisations that support IYDU.org are also members of IDU. It is not a new group. It would be useful to at least open a new wiki for the new iydu-network group as it is cited in their online pages. The process of solving the conflict is a work in progress but clearly the IYDU.org group is not a breakaway group as it is indeed the original one. IDU does not have a say in the composition of IYDU board or chairmen, only the IYDU Council can do it and as the Council that was active before the illegal London group (whose organisers respectively were not active in IYDU) attended and organised a new Council in Lisbon (september 2014) and elected a new board according to the IYDU constitution, this group should be regarded and respected as the legal one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dassiswas (talk • contribs) 13:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating, just fascinating. However, it's completely irrelevant. You have not cited any Wikipedia policy whatsoever, which, per WP:TALK is the purpose of talk pages. Is it the role of Wikipedia to investigate your little dispute between parties in the IYDU? No. Wikipedia's role is to reflect the position of reliable third-party sources. And, as noted repeatedly above, the notability of the IYDU in those sources is only established by its relationship with the IDU. As such, the position of the IDU is paramount to deciding which organisation is the original IYDU. Obviously, if another source were to say 'There is a dispute', Wikipedia should reflect that, but I haven't seen one. It's clear that the 'Lisbon IYDU' doesn't meet eligible criteria for Wikipedia, while it seems that the 'London IYDU' does. Bastin 23:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Good comment, but you must take in to account that the "reliable third-party source" (ie. IDU webpage) you use is NOT in the position to make the distinction of different IYDU's. As it is, it is just an opinion by an affiliated group. If it were more then the whole constitution of IYDU would simply be arbitrary. Would some of the tension be solved if the 1) any mentions of IDU were to be taken off of the wiki in question and/or 2) A distinct IYDU-network wiki were to be opened for the benefit of the London-group? I know there is a magazine coming out published by a IYDU member organization which clearly states the dispute. Would this help when brought as a reference?Dassiswas (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added several other reliable sources (note: the IDU website was never the sole source). And maybe the constitution of the IYDU is arbitrary - it's not the job of Wikipedia to decide how well organisations' constitutions were drafted or how they're implemented. Wikipedia's job is to reflect reliable sources, so that's what we'll do. I've searched for 'International Young Democrat Union' on Google News and Google Books and added some more sources.

I do not understand the point of your suggestions. Removing reference to the IDU would be a clear breach of WP:NPOV, as virtually every reliable source that refers to the IYDU refers to the IDU - as stated several times above, its Notability is entirely dependent on being the youth wing of the IDU, and it's my belief that, if no reference were made to the IDU, the article would not meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements and would thus not be allowed (but that's hypothetical - who knows?).

I don't think the views of a member organisation can be cited as a reliable source. How do you 'know there is a magazine coming out' that covers this subject, by the way? That seems like a conflict of interest. People aren't prohibited from editing articles in which they have an interest, but if you're so involved that you edit a magazine that covers the same subject, with the POV that you push on Wikipedia, and then you use the magazine to support your view, that clearly undermines NPOV. Bastin 23:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

So the opinion of an affiliated organisation is legit, but not the opinion of an actual member? I sent email to the secretary general about a week ago and asked for current info. He told there were to published a story on the organisation. That's all I know for now.

The constitution of the organisation in this case is elemental for deciding what to consider as a legitimate source. As is stated above there exists a clear conflict between IYDU and IDU and supposedly IDU has performed a political manoeuvre which conflicts the rules of IYDU ("coup"). Following this, IDU itself single handedly claims the legitimacy of a group it calls "IYDU" and which is often referenced as "IYDU-network" meanwhile an other IYDU group points out the illegal acts. How on Earth can one claim that what is said on IDU's site is therefore the legit info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dassiswas (talk • contribs) 19:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Young Democrat Union. 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/20140811072301/http://www.idu.org/news.aspx?id=2415 to http://www.idu.org/news.aspx?id=2415

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)