Talk:National Youth Rights Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Youth Rights Association article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the assessment scale.

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I realize that, that's why I have'nt edited it, I was just stating my opinion is all. ~IkonicDeath —Preceding comment was added at 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)