Talk:Students for Liberty

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Students for Liberty article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Politics: Libertarianism

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as High-importance).

Organizations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

CPAC controversy

I moved the CPAC controversy lower on the page since it occurred over a year ago and reflects less on the organization as a whole compared to conferences, events, leadership programs, etc. Hakenny (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I've made significant recent changes to the article in an attempt to make it more clear, concise, and less promotional. These changes have included removing a long list of webinars that SFL has hosted. The list, which had not been updated in over a year, was cumbersome and did not feature any references that did not point directly to the SFL website. I also removed specific listings of books that SFL has given away over the years. These are not books that SFL has written or published, so I see no reason why they would need to be listed out on SFL's page, with ISBNs, etc. The article still needs more work, as the majority of references point to the SFL website. I think it makes sense for this article to move in the direction of being a top-level overview of SFL's mission and activities, rather than a clunky, exhaustive listing of every conference SFL has hosted, book they have given away, webinar they have hosted, etc. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The well known books point to the strong preferences and bias of the organization. --Abel (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the organization can be painted as libertarian-leaning without needing to include full citations of books they have given away–I think including the authors of those books serves the purpose of showing the organization's ideological affiliation. Another question: is the detailed finance section necessary? It doesn't seem to be standard practice for the Wikipedia pages of non-profit organizations to include detailed funding information. Perhaps just a yearly budget number to show growth would be sufficient, rather than detailed year-to-year expenditure information? Safehaven86 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, listing a few authors should be enough. I don't know if the financial data meets a standard, but I got the table idea by copying the level of detail included in a Good Article about another not for profit organization. --Abel (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

It would be much better if we could replace every citation that currently points to something published by Students For Liberty with a citation that instead points to something published by another organization. Any and all help with doing that would be greatly appreciated. --Abel (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. All of the SFL citations make this page read like a regurgitation of SFL's own website. The Wikipedia page should ideally be a summary that draws on outside sources. Update: there were originally 101 references on this page a couple of days ago, but I have cleaned up a number of duplicate/inapplicable sources and there are now 51 references, 18 of which point directly to SFL's own website. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huge improvement. --Abel (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced more. Not sure where we could get financial data as the group is not yet listed with Charity Navigator. Tried US Internal Revenue Service, but all they give is a confirmation that this organization is a valid charity according to their records. --Abel (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Students for Liberty Mike Cline (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Students For Liberty → Students for Liberty –

caps —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They spell it 'Students For Liberty' at http://www.studentsforliberty.org. Is there a rule in WP:MOS that would call for overriding the organization's choice of capitalization? EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I see that the organization itself is inconsistent on using 'For' versus 'for'. Though I don't see the MOS as expressing itself clearly on this, it looks awkward to have the 'For' capitalized. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response WP:CAPS and MOS:TM. E.g. from the latter "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official.'" —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy supports move (MOS:TM). Please implement move. --Abel (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessement

Went looking for another student political group with a higher rating to use as a model for what should be in this article. The Federalist Society is a B class article, yet has a lot less to it than this one does. Texas College Republicans is also a B class article, but should probably be rated at start. Couldn't find anything in WP:GA? or WP:SS about how the article should include influence or contributions. Where can I go for guidance? --Abel (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas article was over rated to be sure, and has been redone. The quality assessment criteria is set forth on the various Project assessment scales. While I can't find an article layout guideline, you might look at the different Featured Articles that some of the Projects list. In any event, the process is interesting and inconsistent. For example, Liberal Party (Utah) was once a FA. But it wasn't simply dropped to a GA, it is now a C class article. --S. Rich (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still can't find anything about how the article should include influence and contributions to support the C rating. This article is suitably referenced with inline citations. This article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies (it contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics could be considered missing) This article has a defined structure. This article is reasonably well-written (the prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but is certainly not "brilliant"). This article contains supporting materials where appropriate (illustrations are encouraged, an infobox etc.) This article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way (broad audience in mind).--Abel (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ames and Levine

Ames and Levine don't argue that "patriotism is more important than leaked revealing images and concerns of doctors over possible increased risk of cancer." That line is blatantly biased, unsourced horseshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.220.78 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Ames and Levine piece linked to in this article, and they don't mention anything about patriotism or cancer. Other people may have made the assertion/assumption that Ames and Levine were arguing what is stated above, but that's not the same thing as the authors actually arguing it. And the article only has a passing mention of Students for Liberty, which is the article's subject. I will make some edits to address these issues. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using descriptions like "Bullshit removed" is always going to encourage people to consider what you are doing vandalism. Using descriptions like "remove superfluous detail about an article that mentions Students for Liberty one time" is going to encourage people to take what you are doing seriously. --Abel (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and citations

This article appears to be excessively sourced to primary and non-RS references. There also appear to be excessive numbers of citations for simple statements, for example 11 notes after the word "lectures" in the lede. Many of the 11 are non-RS from a quick examination. Clean-up is needed. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move? (2)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: request canceled. Favonian (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Requested move/dated|Students For Liberty}} - Although it seems that the f in for should not be capitalized, as that is how most organizations' names and title capitalization would have it, the organization's official name has a capital F. User:Michipedian 22:12, 13 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Although it seems that the f in for should not be capitalized, as that is how most organizations' names and title capitalization would have it, the organization's official name has a capital F. See: http://studentsforliberty.org/ . User:Michipedian 22:12, 13 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd like to cancel this move request, per MOS:TM. Michipedian (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Students for Liberty. 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Students for Liberty. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://studentsforliberty.org/about/reports/2009-2010-annual-report/finances/

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: 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Students for Liberty. 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/20110411130023/http://studentsforliberty.org/news/full-episode-of-the-stossel-show/ to http://studentsforliberty.org/news/full-episode-of-the-stossel-show/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.headcount.org/interview-alexander-mccobin-of-students-for-liberty/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/02/22/fear-and-loathing-at-cpac/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/19/182318/406
Corrected formatting/usage for http://reason.com/blog/2009/02/13/students-for-liberty
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/03/30/weeks-show-students-who-get-it
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730045815/http://philosophy.georgetown.edu/people/graduatestudents/AlexanderMcCobin/ to http://philosophy.georgetown.edu/people/graduatestudents/AlexanderMcCobin/

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) 03:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

link

John Stossel "This Week's Show: Students Who Get It!", [13], Fox Business, March 30, 2011

This link is broken.

Also, here's another similar reference, from 2012.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7T0YtUUL1s

Benjamin (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]