Jump to content

Talk:National Union of Students (United Kingdom)

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

Disaffiliation

[edit]

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.

1970's history

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Neil Stewart

[edit]

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?

Representativeness

[edit]

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)[reply]

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) "[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

cfd

[edit]

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

Reverted possible vandalism

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Move page to National Union of Students (United Kingdom)

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. The parens does not necessarily imply a branch but are often used as a disambiguator in various articles. Since 'of the United Kingdom' is apparently not a part of the title of the organization, the current title does not work at all. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC) (NOTE: On review, I see that the article was previously moved with the note that 'of the United Kingdom' is a part of the official name of the NUS. However, a review of the website of the union gives no indication that 'of the United Kingdom' is used or is a part of the title. So my rationale stands. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

National Union of Students of the United Kingdom → National Union of Students (United Kingdom) — The current title suggests that name of the organisation is NUSUK when it is not, and to create more uniformity to general wikipedia. - Abedecian ~ Talk to me and you get cake! 23:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just seen this after debate has closed but regarding 'of the United Kingdom' in the full name - the source for this is the NUS Constitution. This has been changed since the article was then move but the current version states:

1. The National Union shall be an unincorporated association in the name of "The National Union of Students of the United Kingdom" (here after called "the National Union").

Timrollpickering (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tables and lists on the page

[edit]

There are far too unessisary tables making the page very long. It needs either:

  1. Make them collaspisble/merge them and add text about the section and the table
  2. Remove the table and section

As for the long list of names, put in a table and do as above. Abedecian ~ Talk to me and you get cake! 06:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Controversy

[edit]

Is there a reliable source to back up the claim that the claim made by the NUS officers was "incorrect"? They seem to have a valid case and this has never been contested in court. Corrected to a more neutral tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.199.102 (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

flirt!

[edit]

I've just merged this in. There was an AfD in 2005, but I'm pretty sure the process followed there wouldn't stand up to today's policy-based decisions. I couldn't find anything indicating notability according to WP:ORG. -- Trevj (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could do with some references and a year.Mikejamesshaw (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't think the photo satisfies the free content criteria, so I've nominated it for deletion at Commons. The logo on its own (e.g. taken from a website) may possibly be included, along with a non-free use rationale. -- Trevj (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Current & recent issues"

[edit]

Does it make sense for an encyclopedia to call a section this? Or could it be more vague such as "notable controversies" and then subsections by... decade? ms (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that this section exists purely to mitigate the long, long list of controversial issues, without breaking any rules on misrepresenting the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.68.213 (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a sub-heading for disaffiliation? A number of v.prominent universities (among others Oxford & Cambridge) have begun campaigns to initiate disaffiliation proceedings. Moreover, other major institutions such as St. Andrews have already disaffiliated. This is surely a relevant topic worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.14.34 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on National Union of Students (United Kingdom). 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 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Union of Students (United Kingdom). 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 03:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Union of Students (United Kingdom). 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 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

[edit]

As a result of this election result I notice a few non-registered users making unhelpful edits to the article. As a result I have partially protected the page so only confirmed Wikipedia editors can contribute for the next week. The controversy about Ms Bouttia's election should probably be reflected in the article and constructive edits that do this woudl be welcome. Regards, The Land (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The president listed is wrong, the previous president is still in office for another month. They are elected at a conference in April and do not start for a while. This can be seen at [2] Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.223.38 (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of disaffiliations

[edit]

As of today 8 June 2016, four universities have disaffiliated from NUS, mainly as a protest against its new leader, Malia Bouattia: Hull, Lincoln, Loughborough and Newcastle. What effects will this have on the union's budget? --Edelseider (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New section/ disaffiliation efforts.

[edit]

Hello! I'm not very adept at editing wikipedia, but here are a plethora of sources for the new section, if others could help add them it would be on benefit to this outdated article.

It looks like somebody slightly rewrote that section and just dumped a few of those links. We have a serious problem concerning NPOV language in this section. Proficient-moose (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just got round to adding in the links; what do you think is an issue vis-a-vis NPOV? I feel I just stated the facts, frankly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.161.192 (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine and refers to facts for a national drive for disaffiliation. I do not see how this is a NPOV Issue. Keep it posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.218.77 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on National Union of Students (United Kingdom). 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) 06:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Union of Students (United Kingdom). 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) 06:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on National Union of Students (United Kingdom). 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) 10:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI declaration

[edit]

Hey, I just made a small grammar fix, but wanted to declare that I'm the current Vice Chair of NUS' Democratic Procedures Committee. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New information and redrafting

[edit]

This article seems like it could do with a decent bit of work. There are some potential issues around NPOV (see my own COI declared above so I am not touching these at all), there's also new history that isn't included. For example the governance reforms passed in 2019 (which also change the information about membership) could be added to the history section. The 2019 reforms completely changed NUS democracy (removing all existing liberation conferences and replacing them with one unified conference), and the legal structure of the organisation. In 2016 an autonomous trans campaign and conference was created (the conference later merged into the one mentioned above).

I won't edit this article in any non-minor way due to the COI I've already declared, but this might be worth looking at for someone who's interested. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism

[edit]

Do you want to add anything about the current investigations into the NUS over antisemitism allegation? And the UK Gov breaking off contact? Seems like quite a big deal so surprised to see it not in the article - apologies if I am missing it 86.4.245.119 (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's some material in the "Claims of institutional antisemitic behaviour" subsection, though it's quite short, and it's odd that the name of Shaima Dallali isn't mentioned. (Of course, no one has ever done anything about the 1970s antisemitism issues which I raised here 17 years ago -- see the top of the page.) AnonMoos (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Union_of_Students_(United_Kingdom)&oldid=1209335786"