Talk:University of New South Wales Student Guild

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was going to put in a reason for why I was reverting the most recent change, but I accidentally saved it without doing so. Basically, the section about the Left regaining control of the Guild was stripped away and replaced with an "update" about Labor Students gaining control of the Guild in 2005, without any mention of 2004. After saying that the Right controlled it until 2003, and not mentioning 2004, it's likely to confuse anyone into thinking that the right continued its dominance in 2004, which is incorrect. Furthermore, there is no reason why it should be separated into an "update" for an event that happened months ago. Braue 10:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guild politics

Some of the statements regarding Student Unity and guild elections from 2002-2006 are written with mild POV and need examining -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 05:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

>I agree, I have replaced the sentences "In 2003, a broad alliance of progressive students consisting of Labour Left and the remnants of the Broadleft contested the elections and won a clear majority of the votes. However, in dubious circumstances the Presidential candidate, Gulfam Ahmed, was excluded and many cried foul over the corrupt." with "The election results of 2003 were stongly contested, with allegations of corruption made regarding the electoral practices adopted by Student Unity" If someone wants to spell out the specific nature of the allegations, please do so with an eye to history - which bits would be important in 10 years? --Missjeanie 01:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted attempt to intimidate wikipedia writers with legal threats.

>>>Also, the right did control in 2004. Is Courtney Roche something other than SU? - Sam

I have rewritten the stuff on Guild elections based on Tharunka reports - but hopefully with Tharunka's POV taken out. Ideas for expanding and refining this text are most appreciated. Joestella 11:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

>>>>hi, the stuff in #Student Power about falsyfying budgets, meeting minutes, and the editors "famously" flying themselves to "I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Chogm" is written with heavy-POV-- i've ammended it to reflect the fact that its main reference, is an article by the same author, published during the year which they edited Tharunka. if you want to fling shit at the Left, do so with proper sources and something other than highly dubious, unfounded hearsay Nickipee 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tharunka reported accurately on the allegations, but neither the newspaper nor the Wikipedia page considered them proven. Nickipee is, I assume, Nick Salzberg, a member of Student Power and a 2001 Tharunka editor. Correct? Joestella 05:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

>>hi, love and cuddles to you. i've reverted the following changes:

• allegation that SP was a NOLS-led ticket....it contained people who identified as anarchists (does the word scare you or something, since you keep deleting it?), greenies, independent queer activists and people who supported the NBL. they handed out the leaflets and wore the tshirts to get the ticket elected alongside the NOLS kids- if you have a beef with that, kindly provide some sources which disprove that, or leave the section alone.
  
• added hyperlinks to 2001 war in afghanistan, radical left, Student Conferences, the city of Brisbane, collectives and activism, to your original written text. these links improve your original text, not detract from it- please clarify any beef or intimation this is POV content.
  
• you'll note i've left your reference to your own article, from the year you were editor, stating your own personal unproven allegation, intact-i'd kindly ask you to work by consensus, and aim for NPOV and respect edits. cheers. Nickipee 02:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

<<In response to Nickipee>>

• Student Power was NOLS-led with NBL support. While you may be an anarchist, it is just impossible to suggest that there was an explicit anarchist participation in that ticket. Jean, Nick (is that you?), Josh, Bronwyn, etc did not all belong to the same political group. The insistent insertion of anarchists is misleading as to the nature of the student power ticket. That is the problem. It ends up looking like an ad for anarchist participation in student politics rather than a summary of what happened with SP.

• I do feel that there is a fair bit of NPOV stuff happening with the way that SP ran the office. The "allegations" that Joe Stella put in are actual fact. The budget was in deficit. A few kids (yourself included?) did fly to Brisbane for a protest that never happened. This was an enormous electoral issue and you can't delete it under the pretense that it is merely shit flung at the left. To try to recharactise this as a funding of activism is heavily POV. Perhaps a compromise would lie in wording like "the Student Power administration was decimated electorally for running at a large deficit. Claims that it was merely funding "activist" departments for the first time in a while were ignored by an unsympathetic electorate who responded to the message put forward by Students First who promised accountability, a focus on student issues and student events." I'm not suggesting that as text, just trying to find the POV compromise.

     >>reply to above:

• the way in which the budget was run is a political debate, in which it's best to openly admit your bias. i personally feel that the expenses incurred were totally justified, considering the incremental decimation of operating budgets and stipends during the 'everybody/uni/speakout' days. but i can live without that being in the article. i'm fine for the criticism to be in there about the way the left spent money, but you can't infer fraud and embezzlement, without proper proof. i think the article as it stands now is fine, but if you feel strongly, please improve it. btw, the afghan war and imperialism were and are student issues, as were VSU and free education. again, i'm OK with the criticism about sending students up there, as long as context is given for why we supported it.

• there were all sorts of leftists in that ticket, NBL-supporting and otherwise. i know of at least 2 OBs that year who will quietly tell you over a beer they were anarchists (and they don't include myself, who goes on record as a lower-case marxist). it is one of the political links that got that ticket elected, and how we campaigned with feeder tickets. you'll note the text mentions several factions/tendencies, of which @narchy is only one. Nickipee 15:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Why doesn't somebody go into the Guild and write out all the past presidents and update the page. I will help with factions if that is done (though the Guild wasn't really factionalised until the 1980s.

[edit] Re-write of UNSW

Over the next few months I will be conducting a major re-write of the UNSW page. I will be planning it on my sub page, here: User:Witty lama/Sandbox. Feel free to comment and add things as you see fit. Cheers, Witty lama 16:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)