Jump to content

Talk:UK Youth Parliament

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

Elections

[edit]

I was just wondering, whether each election deserves it's own page, in a similar style to what they do for local and general elections for each area. Even if one page dealt with the whole of, lets say the north-west for example would you think it a worthwhile cause? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.165.42 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

"Most groups view the UK youth parliament as a highly effective organisation, which commands the attention of members of parliament and government ministers." Oh, really? Ask a random ex-MYP just what exactly he accomplished. While I don't have a source to counter this statement, I can do what we're meant to do with sentences exhibiting such blatant bias: delete it. -- User:Wozocoxonoy 10:59 GMT; 26th Jan '07

"Those elected for UKYP get to hold the much sought-after suffix of MYP in their names. They do much great work and are some of the most powerful under 18s in the country." This last paragraph also seems heavily biased towards the UKYP. Perhaps it should also be consider for deletion? Ross Penman (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Request for Feedback

[edit]

1)I would use the primary sources (eg, their manifesto / website) as citations, not only links, to confirm all the info it can. Although primary sources are sometimes problematic, in this case they are reliable when talking about internal facts (ie manifesto, candidates, terms of office). For GA, it looks insufficiently sourced, but using the primary sources, this should be solvable. Of course, the same facts from newspapers would be even better.

2)The sections seem too small and choppy. I think many could be combined, making the article flow better. Just have to thing of an better overall section title "Regulations" or "Organisation" or something.

3) The lead should act as a summary of the article. Although only a short article, it is quite fact heave, so i would expand the lead so that it contained a one (max. 2) sentence summary of each of the current sections.Yobmod (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

4) For getting GA status, i would like to see more on the reception and the publics perception. It does look a bit like a joke token (sorry!), so have more people criticised its usefulness? Or said it is something just for public school kids? Or is over/under representing some regions? Just something to fill in slow news days on Newsround or Blue Peter? Or have any of the comments already in the article be contested officialy or in editorials anywhere? And expansion of the criticisms would already there: who are they failing to represent? What is wrong with their relationship with devolved nations? I assume it is in the sources, but would be nice to make it clearer for readers here.Yobmod (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meetings

[edit]

Would it be an idea to create a new page for 'Meetings of the UK Youth Parliament'? The section on the page is being added to, but soon there will be further information on Annual Sittings and potential further House of Commons Debates, and it could be useful to give it a page of its own where more depth can be added to explain what the organisation does - particularly following the media interest over last year's first use of the House. The 'Meetings' section could then be brief, with a 'main article here' link, as with 'Member of Youth Parliament'. Brains351 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

This article doesn't appear to be neutral. Phrases like "They do much great work and are some of the most powerful under 18s in the country" are unsourced, and not particularly accurate. Jazzmista (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UK Youth Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

This article currently seems to have a neutral POV (and sections on praise and criticism), so I suggest removing the POV marker. Any views? Tacyarg (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as there are two sections on praise and criticism, which makes the argument more balanced. The things that were previously issues a few years ago, to my knowledge have been edited out. It is written factually rather than an opinion, so I believe that it's POV is neutral and so I would support the marker being removed --Will d601 (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on UK Youth Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UKYP continued existence

[edit]

I question the assumption that the UKYP has dissolved. There has been no official statement to confirm this. This page was just edited under the assumption that UKYP must have dissolved as its parent, the BYC did. Being currently involved with the organisation I would point out that the organisation has halted planned events however the steering group continue to meet as they seek a new organisation to adopt the UKYP. They continue to keep candidates and other affiliated people updated by email. The UKYP itself continues to exist albeit mothballed for the time being. I would then arrgue that the status should not have been updated to defunct in the way that it was. Chuckychild123 (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agreed, a bunch of nonsensical, misguided edits to move everything into the past tense and imply that it's been dissolved.
I've reverted most of this following DCMS' announcement of a new charity grant recipient and tried to clarify that the National Youth Council is the new body in charge of the UKYP platform. Adam Williams (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UK_Youth_Parliament&oldid=1225813811"