Talk:Yale Political Union/Archive 1

Archive 1

Debate Halls

I have changed the entries of the Conservative Party and the Tory Party with regard to their places of debate. The Conservative Party is the only party with its own debate hall because the Tory Party does not own or have a long-term lease on the English Market. The English Market is a store; the Tory Party simply pays money to occupy some of the space on debate nights. Thus, to say that the Tory Party has its own debate hall at the English Market would be like saying that the Liberal Party has its own debate hall in the Saybrook Athenaeum room simply because they book it from week to week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerxes904 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing Battle

There seems to be a back-and-forth editing battle on this page about whether the Independent or Conservative party carries the mantle of the old Conservative Party.

Recently, user 128.36.66.192 has taken to trying to impose one particular version of the history of the Conservative Party on the article. This version is at odds with the Conservative Party's (i.e., the actual students at Yale who are in the Conservative Party) understanding of its own origins. This user is therefore urged to acknowledge the correct version.

Similarly, however, user 67.15.185.40 has taken to trying to impose one particular version of the Union and the Independent Party on the article. This version is at odds with the Independent Party's (i.e., the actual students at Yale who are in the Independent Party) understanding of its own history. This user is therefore urged to acknowledge the correct version. Furthermore, he is asked to respect the moving of the old list of Presidents to another article to save space. Finally, given his location in or around Houston, TX, he is asked to respect those students currently at Yale.

User 67.15.185.40 should stop changing everything other people write (including my past comments on this _discussion_ board). The Conservative Party at Yale today readily admits that it was organized in 1996 if asked about its history. I talked with some of them about this over the weekend. It should be noted that the version of history user 67.15.185.40 keeps posting is at odds with every with Yale Political Union records, the Independent Party's understanding of its own history, the Party of the Right's understanding of its history, and the current undergraduate Conservative Party's explanation of its own history. 128.36.66.192 23:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have marked this page as being Totally Disputed due to the wide discrepancy in the versions of the article offered by 67.15.185.40, on the one hand, and by the various other users on the other hand in the ongoing revert war. 67.15.185.40 is committed to a version which none of the other users seems to accept, has been unwilling to discuss his point of view or explain why he insists on reverting even seemingly agreeable changes (like moving the full list of Presidents to a separate article), and always reverts to an identical version of the article. On the other hand, other users seem not only more engaged in trying to discuss the disagreement, but have also offered various different wordings to try to accomodate 67.15.185.40's point of view. To be clear, it is not just a point of view that is at stake here, but actual facts about the history of the Organization and the Parties that make it up. If the reversion war does not end or the users do not begin an earnest dialog about the disputed facts and point of view of the article, I will request that it be completely protected from further editing. Bojangles04 08:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User 128.36.66.192 was first to post inaccuracies which were subsequently corrected; it is unfortunate to see the insistence of 128.36.66.192 to post these discrepencies and, furthermore, to allege that members of the Conservative Party acknowledge their founding in 1996 (which is, in itself, an innaccuracy). Any revisions that have altered content outside the scope of the Conservative Party are merely accidental; future revisions, should these be necessary, will pay particular attention to ensuring that this accurate material is preserved. [Posted by 67.15.185.40]

What NPOV Means: Some users who have been recently editing this article seem not to understand the substance of a neutral point of view (NPOV). "Historically accurate" does not fit the bill for NPOV when the factual claims being made are disputed, particularly when they are as widely disputed as the claims (on both sides) in the IP/CP dispute. Those who continue to edit this article should keep this in mind, and to maintain NPOV the most prudent course of action seems to be to include only the most essential facts which are agreed upon and avoid the areas of controversy. Bojangles04 06:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

YPU Presidents

Someone should attempt a list of all YPU presidents, especially since there have been some famous historic ones.

How about just a mention of the few prominent ones, Kerry, Bundy, etc. It seems ridiculous to have what is becoming a lengthy list of unknowns who happened to preside over a student group for one semester. meyerlondon

How about a separate article that includes the list, since the list is actually unwieldly and mostly uninteresting except for those who are still actively involved with the Union?

The separate article has now been created at Presidents of the Yale Political Union, and the list in the main article has been reduced to only the most prominent ones, but one user (67.15.185.40) may continue to revert the list and destroy the link, so watch out for that. 128.36.66.192 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC_________

that separate article has been deleted by a disgruntled Wiki editor (fired by Jimbo). Since that content no longer existed, and it is of rare and historical value to YPU members and alumns, I have reinserted it at the end of the main YPU article.

The Conservative Party has been founded in 1890, not in 1996. It is truly disheartening to see POR members now repeating on Wikipedia the same lies that they used to propagate in my time at Yale, to the point that most Yalies probably believe their alternate version of history. I understand that, from their perspective, bending the truth for a higher cause is acceptable, but perhaps the POR should now reconsider whether admitting the true history of the Conservative Party would really threaten their status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.38.96 (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Conservative Party

The primary argument in the editing dispute seems to center around the history of the Conservative Party and how its history relates to other Parties in the Union. To try to obtain an actually neutral point of view (NPOV) for this article, I have changed the section about the Conservative Party's history to include only the single fact that everyone agrees on, i.e. that in its current incarnation it was recognized as a Party in 1996, while also acknowledging the existence of a dispute. I hope that anyone who makes further changes to this section will explain the changes and the necessity of the changes qua the NPOV policy on this talk page, lest the article need to be submitted for full protection from further editing. Bojangles04 08:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Disputes

Whether the Party of the Right or the Conservative Party is older: According to this article the POR has been around since 1952, that would make it now (in 2006), 54 years old. Even if we grant the Conservative Party's claim that it is the successor of the old Conservative Party that existed from 1934-1977 (43 years), it would have a total of 53 years of existence in the Union (those first 43 plus the 10 since 1996 when it 'reappeared'). So actually, the Party of the Right would seem to be the oldest Party on the Right either way. The only way to substantiate the CP's claim to be older than the POR is to either count the years it claims to have existed at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries before the YPU existed, which has the weird result of making the Conservative Party older than the Union, or to allow it to count all of those years of nonexistence, which ignores the key fact that there was no Conservative Party for almost two decades. Given especially that neither of these claims would be accepted by a majority of the Union, whereas the argument that the POR is 54 years old and the CP is at most 53 years old would be acceptable to most people, it seems that changing the article to state that the POR is the second oldest party on the Right is in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Bojangles04 14:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Description of John Kerry's Term as Union President: Kerry's accomplishment of being reelected is not something that only a few Presidents have done: every President from 1936 to 1941 held two terms, the President in 1944 held two terms, the three Presidents immediately following Kerry held two terms (J. Harvie Wilkinson, John Townsend, and John O'Leary), Ralph Gerson held two terms (1969-1970), Peter Norman was reelected after finishing out the impeached Perlstein's term (1997-1998), and most recently Steve Christoforou held two terms (2003-2004). This puts Kerry in the company of more than a dozen other Presidents. That does not qualify as a few. Furthermore, reelection, as we saw recently in 2003-2004, is not conditional upon or indicative of widespread Union support and, indeed, is often the result of unusual political circumstances, as it was in 2003-2004 and in Kerry's time. Making the claim either that Kerry's reelection was something only a 'few' Presidents have managed or that this is somehow indicative of widespread support is therefore in violation of the NPOV policy. Bojangles04 15:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Formation of the Independent Party: Union records show that the 1976-1977 academic year began with five Parties (Progressive, Liberal, Conservative, Tory Independent, and of the Right) and ended with five Parties (Progressive, Liberal, Independent, Tory Independent, and of the Right). That is a purely factual claim. 'Splinter group' (as several revisions of this article have referred to the Independent Party in the spring of 1977) is a very loaded term that implies that the group that renamed/founded the Independent Party was small compared to the rest of the body of the old Conservative Party and that its position (that of renaming the Party/founding a new Party) was out of the mainstream of the opinion of the Party at the time. Given that the Independent Party was christened in the Spring of 1977 and that Union records show that there was no Conservative Party in the Union at the end of that term, the claim that the Independent Party was 'founded' by a 'splinter group', rather than renamed by the vast majority of the Party, seems unsubstantiated and unsupportable from a neutral POV. Until factual evidence can be produced to support such claims, they should not continue to appear in this article because they violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Bojangles04 15:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Disputes Continued

Whether the PotR or the Conservative Party is older: Traditionally, the age of an institution is not based on how long it has been active but how far in the past it was created. For example, the Delian League is older, by most reckonings, than the United States, yet the US has been around longer than the Delian league. By this logic, the Conservative Party is older than the PotR. Furthermore, since the first incarnation of the Conservative Party existed from 1890 until the end of WWI, as by the way, did the first incarnations of the Liberal Party and the Radical Party, the Conservative Party is older than the PotR either way you look at it.

Point granted, in as much as founding date does better determine age than anything else. However, the point remains that while the Conservative Party claims to be somehow continuous with the earlier Conservative Parties of the Yale Union and YPU, not everyone in the Union recognizes this claim, and thus making it is in violation of the neutral POV policy. It would seem that the most fair way to rectify this for everyone involved (and in keeping with the NPOV policy) is to take out any reference to either Party being the older. Bojangles04 05:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

These changes are acceptable and I agree that they fulfill the NPOV policy.

I might grant that NOBODY in the Union, from ANY of the other parties recognizes this CP claim, other than a couple of diehard Conservative Party Founders and their acolytes. Those of us who were around from 1977 through 1996, when there was NO CONSERVATIVE PARTY, are continually stunned that the CP claims that they are the real CP. From what we KNOW, there was no "rump of CP members who refused to accept the name change of the IP, and kept alive the torch." Rather, anyone in the old CP/now IP who didn't like the name change, either left the Union altogether, or quickly joined either the Tories or the PoR."

The above writer seems to have ignored the fact that a compromise was reached in which all references to age were removed. I find it wholly unacceptable that s/he should seek to subvert an accord that was reached between the opposing camps. I hope that s/he will be more respectful in the future.

The Formation of the Independent Party: I believe that Mr. Bojangles will accept the notion that the Parties can exist as debating societies even if the PU doesn't exist. The Parties certainly do not need formal recognition from the YPU to function in the way that the Parties are supposed to, namely, as independent debating societies. The recently formed Party of the Left serves as an excellent example. They have not yet joined the YPU but they nevertheless exist as a distinct and viable organization. Everyone admits that the chunk of the Conservative Party that broke off to make the IP was a large majority, which is why the Conservative Party fell into a period of abeyance shortly thereafter. However, that does not mean that the IP is the Conservative Party. The person who most recently revised this article has provided more details. Simply put, the IP has no more legitimate claim to the mantle of the Conservative Party than the PotR. I hope that this clears everything up.

This doesn't clear anything up. It does not in any way respond to my claims about the term 'splinter group' or about the neutrality of the statement that the Independent Party was created by a name change. The facts remain that the vast majority of the membership of the old Conservative Party believed they had effected a name change and that there were not enough people left in the 'abeyant' Conservative Party to keep it viable in the Union or even on campus for almost two decades. The claim that the IP was created by a name change seems to be factual, and the article as I had revised it included a paragraph admitting that there was a dispute between the IP and the current CP as to which carried the mantle of the old Conservative Party. Bojangles04 05:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The revised language within the body of the article is acceptable. Referring readers to the separate pages of each Party, where the particular histories are able to receive a fuller exposition, is also an improvement. I am glad to see that an accord has been reached.

An accord HAS NOT BEEN REACHED. Whoever the boho is who keeps doing the CP revisionism has yet again put strong non-neutral POV language (that contradicts the understanding of 90% of YPU members) into this article. Proclaming that the "IP was born from the original CP" once again makes the IP look like a splinter group. Geez, this mythology spread by those folks who started the CP in 1996 seems to have really taken hold in less than a decade. I now understand how religions are formed!!! ::

I would like to remind the above user that it was Bojangles04 who conceived of the phrase "born out of" as a reasonable compromise. We would all appreciate it, therefore, if this truce were maintained and that the discourse remains civil.

removed dispute tag

The person who was confused about the speaker's first name emailed info-en@wikimedia.org to explain. (It was a simple mistake, no ulterior motive.) She's not disputing it any more, so I've removed the dispute tag. (Ref: OTRS 2006051510013867 ) FreplySpang (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed

The following was removed. I have placed it here so that it can be considered without the possible revert war on the article page, see below. CoolGuy 16:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Tory Party developed from a failed coup d'etat in the Party of the Right in the Spring of 1969. Factional rivalry and personal animosities arose during the period of the late 1960s counter-culture and the War in Vietnam between traditionalists and libertarians within the Party of the Right. In late Spring 1969, a traditionalist secretary-treasurer held a rump caucus attended by nine supporters at which he declared the chair "vacant," and proceeded to hold a mock election. The traditionalist insurgents then attempted to gain Political Union recognition as the Party of the Right, but were rebuffed. A year later (September 1970), ten individual members were deemed by a newly elected traditionalist chairman to have implicity "resigned" by virtue of their participation in the Tory Secession meeting (as the failed coup d'etat had come to be called by those involved). That chairman's action was looked upon by many within the Party of the Right as a violation of due process, members rights, and a purge. The December 1970 election turned upon the issue of what was called by one side the "Glorious Purge" and featured the largest number of ballots cast in any Party of the Right election. The Executive Committee ruled the libertarian pro-purge candidate the winner, after excluding the ballots of the ten involuntarily resigned Tory secessionists. (Had they been counted toward the result, the traditionalist anti-purge candidate would have been the winner.) The same Executive Committee "purged" an additional 25 Party of the Right members for failing to recognize the libertarian's election. The faction made up of those purged (nearly all traditionalists) proceeded to organize themselves as the Tory Independent Party (while claimng to be the true Party of the Right), and were able to secure Politial Union recognition in late December 1970 (with the cooperation of their adversaries, who were eager to be rid of them). The following year, another traditionalist Party of the Right chairman ruled against both purges, restored everyone's membership, and recognized both candidates in the December 1970 election as Executive Committee members and former chairmen. A small irredentist group embittered by the factional struggles declined to return to the Pary of the Right. Thus originated the Tory Independent Party. The character of the Tory Party has naturally evolved over time, and later defined itself in other ways beyond mere reflexive hostility toward the Party of the Right. The Tory Party generally remains a society of philosophical conservatives, tending toward Burkean traditionalism, an English aesthetic, and "reasoned conservatism." The Tory Party's attitude toward the Union has often been reserved, but they have recently begun to take more interest in the Union's affairs.

Conservative Party

It's a strange world where the Conservative Party depends on "Firm Torso" to insist on an entirely fabricated version of the party's history. Good grief. I suppose the Conservative Party has also always been allied with Eurasia against Eastasia?

NPOV Deletion

"One of the most puzzling aspects of the modern Union is the ongoing debate over the founding date of the Conservative Party. While one might expect this question to be a simple matter, considering the number of Union alumni who personally recall the establishment of the Conservative Party in 1996 by a disgruntled member of the Party of the Right (and who observe that no Conservative Party existed between the late 1970s and the mid-1990s), the current Conservative Party members appear to disagree, asserting founding dates ranging from 1934 to the late nineteenth century. This assertion flies in the face of the Union's historical record, but has proven remarkably persistent."

Where is the NPOV issue? Everyone who was in the Union in or around 1996 thinks the Conservative Party is a new organization. Everyone who's been in the Union since then thinks the Conservative Party is a new organization, except for some of those members who happened to be in this new Conservative Party. No "Conservative Party" existed for a period of roughly 20 years after it changed its name. Members of the Conservative Party do assert wildly varying versions of their party's history. All objective observers agree on these facts, regardless of their "point of view," but the Conservative Party membership differs. It is not unfair to call this "puzzling."

I am sure that alumni of the old Conservative Party are delighted that there is a group called "the Conservative Party" at Yale. That does not make it the same organization. To say that an undergraduate club was "in abeyance" until someone came along to found a new club of the same name is nothing more than Orwellian nonsense.

William Buckley gives last speech at YPU

Should this be added to the article? [1]. JoshuaZ 21:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it might be appropriate to add a section of 'notable recent guests,' in which I I've included this info. because, frankly, although this is notable, there are fairly important folks speaking pretty often--it would be misleading to give Buckley his own section.

Party of the Left

A link to the website of the Party of the Left, which is petitioning to join the YPU, was deleted without explanation from the table of links. If someone believes that this link is not relevant, please explain your reasoning here rather than entering into an editing war.

PoL size?

"Though party size and membership varies greatly over the decades, currently the Independent Party is the largest Party in the Union, maintaining more than a third of the voting membership of the Union in recent semesters. The Party of the Left, Liberal Party, and Party of the Right follow, at a little over a third of the size of the Independent Party. The other three parties are all roughly the same size."

I was under the impression that the PoL has grown to be noticeably larger than my party and the Liberal Party. I could be wrong, though. Paul, I'm sure you know better than I do and can sort this out if it's outdated! AdamSolomon 20:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Right you are, adam; thanks for bringing that to my attention. Vivisel 16:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

revamp, priorities

So! I think the time has come to consider a major reconstruction of this article. Most of the history is A) Unverifiable B) Non-notable and C) Poorly-written.

The Union has had many brushes with the national sphere over the years, by no means limited to its famous alumni. I think a history section should surely include the evolution of the Union internally, but it is inexcusable that it does not include its encounters with external fame. Some thoughts on the incidents that should be covered:

Ted Kennedy's speech, interrupted by Black Panthers, on the first ever earth day in 1970 The Shockley-Innis debate (80s) The George Wallace disinvitation (60s)

Other things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivisel (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Given the very frequent editing and reediting (for both legitimate disagreement and malicious intent) of the various parties' individual descriptions, I am requesting that the YPU article be placed under semi-protection.

-JjO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.196.71 (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Denoting Parties of Alumni

I just made a few minor reverts on the article, but one of the reverts I made was re-including the designation of some famous alumni as members of the Conservatives. Given that there seems to be some disagreement about the use of the label Conservative Party, does this technically correct denotation of the name of the party they were involved with violate NPOV? And if so, should we just strike all party labels after alumni, given the number this encompasses? -User:Umdunno 08:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been a back and forth on whether the that pre-1977 members of the Conservative Party are members of the Independent Party or the current Conservative Party. It is a matter of fact that the current Conservative Party recognizes rights and privileges of pre-1977 members and officers of the Conservative Party. No one disputes this. The Independent Party on the other hand adopted a new constitution and does not recognize pre-1977 as evidenced by their website: http://independentparty.sites.yale.edu/alumni, which lists all their Chairmen starting with 1977. I don't know why members of other parties continue to make this claim to pre-1977 alumni on behalf of the Independent Party. I will continue to revert back to proper designations reflecting the above set of facts.20:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)206.217.86.194 (talk)

Washington DC Field Trip Document

Greetings any YPU member. Two years ago I was responsible for a short clause in the article referring to the late 1980s Washington trip. This was the section: "By the end of 1986, active membership rolls comprised over 1200 members, nearly 1/4 of the entire student body at Yale, and the YPU successfully launched a Model Congress, a magazine, an annual three-day visit to Washington DC (for meetings with Cabinet Members, Supreme Court Justices, IMF and World Bank heads, foreign Ambassadors and even the Director of the National Gallery of Art), and an on-topic debate team (which sent two union members overseas to the world debate championships)." -- A wikipedian named Paul with the screen name Vivisel corresponded asking if I had a copy of the Wash trip itinerary which I promised to find. Two years later I have finally located it, however 'Paul' aka 'Vivisel" seems no longer to be active. If he has a new wikipedian name or if another YPU documentarian would like a copy of this document for YPU records, just leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. BoolaBoola2 (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Officers Info box

There has been a number of edits to the Offices list, I have changed it to reflect the information as shown on the YDU website. Please do not change or add anything to this list unless you have a reliable source to confirm it. Codf1977 (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 128.36.151.85, 29 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The semi-protection of this page isn't a reaction to "vandalism" of any kind. A bunch of current members simply wanted to update the officers who were elected this weekend, and our webmaster hasn't had time to update our website. The person who asked for semi-protection (Codf1977) made an invalid request. Pages become protected when they're being vandalized, not when information is being updated to reflect reality. You can look at the edit history and see that nothing was being vandalized. Moreover, you can compare the edits that Codf1977 kept changing back against the newly-updated YPU officer list and see that the changes were correct in the first place. There's no need for semi-protection and it would be greatly appreciated if this restriction were removed.

128.36.151.85 (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My request was not for protection from "vandalism" as you put it (see here) and if you look at the page history it was protected because "IPs adding unsourced/unverified information". The issue is that the IP's were adding information that was not sourced dispite requests not to - again see page history and this talk page. Please remember that the threshold for inclusion in a WP artical is not truth but verifiability and none of the information that was being added could be verified. If you or anyone can provide a source for the information it can be changed. Codf1977 (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Point is moot as the website has been updated and I have updated the article to reflect it. Codf1977 (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have removed the protection, as the information has been added and had a source. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reprotected the page for 3 days, as information which is not in the quoted source is being added. If the website is updated to reflect this information before the protection expires, let me know and I will lift the protection again. Again, we must have RS for this information, and at the moment there isn't any. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This dispute is really ridiculous and the non-YPU affiliated editors involved in the controversy should really calm down a bit. I have reinstated all of the college/party affiliation information as well as class years. I have also added sources for that information. All of that information may be verified by examining past Teller Reports (official, approved documents of the Union) posted on the YPU website. Class year and college affiliation may also be verified using the Yale Phonebook online by searching for the officers by name and cross-referencing against the email addresses provided on the Union website in the cases of people who share names with other Yale-affiliated persons. I hope that the additional sourcing provided will be deemed to be adequate and that this kind of problem can be avoided in the future. I also think that my consolidation of the references into a single position (attached to the phrase "Elected Officers of the Yale Political Union" is a great improvement. Thanks! Bojangles04 (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

On further consideration I have repeated the sourcing for the "Party Chairmen" and "Appointed Officers" sections of the Infobox, but I think that listing it once per section should be sufficient rather than repeating identical sources for each officer in each section. Bojangles04 (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Elected Officers, Party Chairmen & Appointed Officers Infobox

I am proposing removal of the Elected Officers, Party Chairmen & Appointed Officers listed in the info box for the following reasons :

• The information changes at least 3 times a year.
• The only reliable source for this information is a primary one namely the the Union's own website.
• The information is Fancruft and contains intricate detail (such as year a student might graduate, college/party affiliation) that is only of interest to specific audience namely members of the Yale Political Union, and maybe other students at Yale.
• There is no indication anyone has ever been notable only for holding one of the elected positions.

Since WP is not a facebook or a substitute for the Union's own website, I think this should be removed and it . Codf1977 (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability established through Yale Daily News in reference to "notable recent guests" section

user Codf1977 has deleted references to visits by notable guests to the Yale Political Union sourced through the Yale Daily News on the grounds that the "Yale Daily News is the "Student newspaper of Yale University" and not independent so cant demonstrate if visit is notable." Though the YDN and the YPU are both organizations at Yale, that does not mean they are linked - I recommend that those in doubt on this point read the respective Wikipedia pages of the two organizations. Both are independently managed, not run by the University, by each other, or by any other third party. The assertion that the YDN is not independent is akin to saying that NY Times articles cannot establish facts about the New York Stock Exchange because both are affiliated with the city of New York. According to Wikipedia:RS "mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable." Unless a user can provide a reason not to consider the Yale Daily News a mainstream news source (and please note that the paper has played a leading role in coverage of Yale-related national stories, like the Annie Le murder case), or to consider a specific article cited unreliable, the YDN should be considered a reliable source. As to its independence, Wikipedia:Independent_sources suggests that an "independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective." YDN coverage of the YPU seems to meet this criterion - I suggest those in doubt read the YDN articles cited as evidence for the notable guest visits. Finally, the question of whether the visits themselves are notable is irrelevant. No one is trying to create an article about, say, Antonin Scalia's visit to the YPU and Wikipedia:Notability clearly states "notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content." The information about guests is included in this article to provide a sense of what sort of guests the YPU has - and thus as functions as part of a description of the organization and provides valuable information to those who want to know what it does. If the YPU itself is notable, which I don't think has been challenged, then this section is a worthwhile part of it.71.134.50.143 (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that you make that Yale Daily News is independent of the YPU is wrong, both are made up of students of Yale is there is a reasonable chance that each has members in common. Most of the links to YDN articles are dead - reporting on visitors to YDU is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia unless it has been noticed and reported on by reiliable sources totally unrelated to Yale. By all means list the information on the YDU website but not here. Codf1977 (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right that the links are dead and need to be updated (a quick google search demonstrates that the articles in question still exist, the YDN just seems to have changed its url format). But your assertion that the YDN is not an independent source is wrong. Though there may be overlap in membership, YDN reporters who report on the YPU are, as would be the policy of any reputable news agency, not members of the latter organization. The notion that any "members in common" between a news organization and an organization on which it reports makes its reporting not independent is flatly false. I would expect that most mainstream news outlets have employees who are members of large national political organizations (like the ACLU, NRA, Sierra Club, etc). That doesn't mean that the news organization as a whole is not independent of said political organizations - in particular, as long as they maintain a responsible policy of ensuring reporters who write about said organizations are independent of them, as the YDN does in reference to the YPU. You have provided no justification in Wikipedia policies for the notion that the YDN is not an independent source or a reliable source, you simply assert it. Why are organizations made up of "students at Yale" inherently not independent of each other, per Wikipedia policies, when organizations made up of people who share other characteristics in common are? Both the New York Times and the White House are staffed by citizens of the United States, are they not independent? Surely the United States commands more allegiance than Yale University - if Americans can be trusted to report on their government, Yalies can be trusted to report on their university. If the issue is size of the shared population, at what size does independence become impossible? Yale has a population of 10,000 students and thousands more staff (and when alumni, who can be members of the YPU, are included, the population multiplies by several times). Can news sources from Tuvalu not be trusted to provide independent information about that country since its population is only about 12,000?

If your contention is that reporting in the YDN about events at Yale is insufficient to establish notability, I agree, but again, per Wikipedia:Notability, notability is not a requirement for content to be included in an article, only for an article to be written. If you have some reason you think this content is inherently not valuable to the article, feel free to present it (though, since you suggest if other sources can be found, the info could be included, I'm guessing you don't). I'm not reverting now, because I don't want to go to the trouble of fixing all the links (someone more committed to the article than me should), but I'm interested in seeing specific reasons, relevant to Wikipedia customs, for considering the YDN not to be an independent source.71.134.50.143 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)