WikiProject Universities / Student Affairs	(Rated B-Class)	UniversitiesWikipedia:WikiProject UniversitiesTemplate:WikiProject UniversitiesUniversities articles
University portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges 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.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. This article is supported by Student Affairs task force.

Contents 1 Disaffiliation 2 1970's history 3 Neil Stewart 4 Representativeness 5 cfd 6 Reverted possible vandalism

[edit] Disaffiliation

When did Manchester disaffiliate?

That was an error, it should say UMIST. Although now the two are merging I don't know whats going to happen. --Imran 21:43, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I assume there'll be some kind of vote, but students at UMIST I've spoken to expect the new uni will be affiliated. Warofdreams 16:06, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why do we have a long list of referenda results? This is source material, which is not usually placed on Wikipedia. It is also available elsewhere, and is incomplete (e.g. Sheffield hold a referendum every year, not just in 1998). Keep the discussion on disaffiliation, but can someone give me a good reason for the list remaining here? Warofdreams 15:20, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just included the list as I was writing it for something else anyway and nowhere else seem to have a complete or up-to-date list. --Imran 20:39, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the results to Wikisource. There is a link to them. Warofdreams 12:13, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Bristol has technically not left yet. Under the terms of NUS affiliation, the disaffiliation will take place from January 5 2005. So far all that has happened is that the Students' Union AGM has voted to leave but that is by no means set in stone one way or the other - a referendum may be called which could overturn the decision. This is by no means unique - there have been many occassions over the years when one decision making body of an SU votes to disaffiliate but a subsequent vote of a higher body decides instead to stay affiliated. -- Timrollpickering 11:17, 7 Feb 2004

And technically the vote at the AGM itself wasn't even final but subject to conditions about the University not cutting the block grant by the amount of the NUS affiliation fee. -- Timrollpickering 12:50, 7 Feb 2004

It depends on the constituion of the individual union, under Bristol's constitution (AFAIK) the union will treat disaffiliation as immeadiate (even though technically disaffiliation would technically not occur until the end of the current affiliation period). A referendum would decide to reaffiliate not to not disaffiliate.

[edit] 1970's history

Why is there no mention of the expulsion of Jewish student groups in the 1970's, on the grounds that they opposed UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 of 1975? (See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/165/165we38.htm etc.) This is the incident which brought the NUS its highest degree of international fame over the years (and it was certainly the only time when average Americans were likely to read about the NUS on an ongoing basis in newspapers other than the New York Times). AnonMoos 16:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the link it doesn't explicitly say that this was actually the NUS who expelled Jewish groups. It is quite common for local students' unions to be described as "the local branch of NUS" when they are nothing of the sort - they are merely individual organisational members. NUS does not dictate policy to individual students' unions and equally cannot be held responsible to the action of its affiliates. Timrollpickering 17:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea about the technicalities of the formal organizational chart, but the Jewish student groups were clearly being expelled in accordance with resolutions passed at a national level by the national organization. As I said, it was the NUS's moment of greatest international fame, so it seems odd not to mention it... AnonMoos 20:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Stewart

This article used to list Neil Stewart (NUS President from 1982 to 1984) as Broad Left, and now lists him as NOLS. I'm fairly sure he was both, and I suspect that he was elected in 1982 on the Broad Left ticket, and in 1983 as NOLS, but I can't be certain. Does anyone have any references?

[edit] Representativeness

An anonymous user (from an IP with a history of vandalism) keeps trying to re-add a soapbox paragraph about both the current President's politics and rhetoric about whether or not the NUS is representative of students. Whilst these are very real questions it simply isn't the place of Wikipedia to state them in such a biased form and with no sources whatsoever. The same user keeps trying to add equally POV material to the page on Kat Fletcher, current National President. Timrollpickering 19:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Said anonymous user has posted the following on my talk page but this is the better place to address the points:

" Your edits to the NUS marking contoversy have on the one hand provided a much improved factual background context to my original unpolished contribution, but have on the other had included some dubious edits.

You appear to delete anything that you do not like by calling it "POV". You appear to misunderstand this policy. The idea is not that no part of an article can represent a point of view, it is that an article should represent all points of view.

If I may quote from Wikipedia:Tutorial (Keep in mind): Wikipedia's editorial policy is the "neutral point of view," often abbreviated "NPOV." This policy says that we accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging which is correct. Our aim is to be informative, not persuasive.

Equally Wikipedia:Five pillars states: Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents;

I particularly draw your attention to the words "providing context for any given point of view": I have done this for instance with the Ganesh quote, and with mentioning Kat Fletcher's marxist background but you have deleted both, again. This is not reasonable. Both are very clearly relevant on a page about the NUS.

If points do not fit perfectly under the given section title, and you have to slightly change the section title, do so, but this is no justification for deletion of material relevant to the page subject.

As far as deletion goes, I draw your attention to rule number 10 of the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset:

10. Particularly, don't revert good faith edits.

Note the word "particularly". You are far to keen to delete. Readers can judge the quality of given arguments, but not if you delete them.

Now from your point of view as an elected representative of a large student union, you may not like the idea that there is criticism of the NUS. If you feel anyting I argue with is unreasonable, you should try to argue against it. If you can, you need not delete, if you can't, you should not delete.

Questions raised by an issue are not a point of view, though answers may be. Again if you can argue them, do so, if not, you should not delete.

Your edit to NUS 19:40, 27 May 2006 included a deletion on the grounds that the text "belongs in a polemic or analysis, not an encyclopedia". Your apparent assertion that an encyclopedia is no place for analysis is frankly bizzare. Furthermore, a neutral point of view, I remind you, is acheived by representing all points of view (which if presented alone might be "polemic") not by deletion of some points of view.

I notice you changed "The National Union of Students (NUS) is the main organisation claiming to represent students' unions in..." back to "The National Union of Students (NUS) is the main representative body for the students' unions ..." To say that it claims to represent is a fact. To say that it is representative is an opinion. It seems you are the one not being neutral here. If by "representative body for" you mean "a federation of" then say that, don't use the a word with an idea of representation which under the circumstances is under question.

Finally, whether or not I choose to use a login is irrelevant, and does not justify either deletions or labelling as POV.

129.12.200.49 14:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC) "

To answer the various points:

First off the Ganesh quote from 2002 does not belong in a section on events in 2006 so I moved it to a new section on criticism.

Secondly the paragraph about Kat Fletcher's past political links is not an encyclopedic description but a polemical paragraph hence its deletion. The points about the wider make-up of decision making and electing bodies are better handled in a NPOV fashion in the section on criticisms, not in the manner you keep inserting into the boycott section.

As for my position frankly if you need to resort to personal abuse you're on dodgy ground. As it happens I am strongly critical of both the boycott and the NUS stance - see my blog where I have been quite critical myself (in fact if you want sources for the criticisms you could do worse than start there or on educationet) as well as the motion my own students' union passed against the boycott (which I tabled) so the alleged motive is laughable.

As for the description at the start, that has been there for months and is used on many similar pages - see for instance National Union of Students of Australia, National Unions of Students in Europe, Union of Students in Ireland and so forth or, given the location of your IP, University of Kent Students' Union, all of which use similar terms rather than a weasely "claims to be".

You are interpreting "NPOV" as "my right to spout off all opinions" and that the article should be a running debate. Can you point to other Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects that are like that? Timrollpickering 14:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

All wikipedia articles on controversial issues attempy to offer different viewpoints, and in current events, document a running debate. All wikipedia articles are supposed to express all opinions, you calling it 'spoutting off' will not change that.

I think it clear that your replies do not satisfactorily answer my concerns and justify your deletions, although could justify some rephrasing if it were reasonable and preserved the points. If you don't like the style, perhaps slightly rephrasing the points or questions would lead to a better article. Kat Fletcher's past is clearly relevant information, and in no way unencylopedic (how do you think it is?), your deletion seems very POV. The Ganesh quote is clearly relevant as well. However these both fit nicely into your suggested "criticism" section, IF it is juxtaposed with the boycott debate to which it does relate. This is also a good place to put the points about the wider make-up of decision making and electing bodies, as you suggest.

As for "an IP with a history of vandalism", the IP is used by thousands of people, so there has been occasional vandalism (vandalism has been a tiny proprtion of this IPs edits), I would however invite anyone to look at the IP history and see the quality of most contributions.

Finally I am not sure what you refer to as personal abuse, but presumably my pointing out that you have a point of view. I think describing this as "personal abuse" is a little exagerrated, everyone has a point of view. I do think your editing on this page has been too deletion-orientated and does not give credit to points which you do not personally hold to, but this is simply a comment on editing style. I hope if you read again you will see that there is no personal abuse or attack intended whatsoever.129.12.200.49 16:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The points about people's past and structures aren't relevant especially in the way you've put them. Nor have they been sourced. Where Fletcher was ideologically in 2002 is as irrelevant as the fact that her leaving speech in 2006 referenced a former member of an organisation with far right links. One might as well detail where every single member of the NEC has been (or at least those who voted in the majority).

The boycott may have brought to the forefront concerns about the representativeness but they should be covered in a section on this, not in a current affairs section (putting a "See below" with a link is the way to tie them together, not constantly moving ancient criticisms into a section on current matters to make a point).

As for your IP's history, it would help if you did post via a login - it only takes a few second to create - as this is a controversial matter. Timrollpickering 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cfd

There is a cfd to a closely related category here. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted possible vandalism

Rerverted this edit due to other vandalism from same anon account. Unable to confirm official-elect info from NUS web site.[1] --John Nagle (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The info is correct (they were elected last Saturday) but the NUS website is often slow on this area. I'll see if I can find an online source and readd it in a better format. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)