Talk:Simon Fraser Student Society
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is part of WikiProject Vancouver, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area. To participate, edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |  |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
I made a number of edits to 142.58.181.84's changes:
- The paragraph concerning the health plan stated that the referendum question was 'vague'. This is not NPOV.
- I reworded the rest of the paragraph to make it a bit more clear.
- The paragraph on the Senate Review Committee referred to a level of detail not reflected in the rest of the article. Put simply, the SFSS article had been largely a 'summary' look rather than a 'detail' look. In any event, in the event that this paragraph is re-inserted, I think that the following should be noted:
- the concerns expressed regarding SRC's recommendations ([1])
- the continued ability for the SFSS Graduate Issues Officer to sit ex-officio on the Senate Graduate Studies Committee ([2])
- the SFSS' continued ability to appoint students to sit on a number of SFU committees or to have the SFSS President sit ex-officio on the committee (e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9])
- The paragraph stating "Generally, the student population consider the SFSS lacking the objectiveness and legitimacy to represent the overall interests of SFU students. This view is well reflected by the low voters' turnout in elections and the overall student apathy towards the Student Society." is biased and completely unproven. Low voter turnout does not in and of itself mean disatisfaction - in fact, a case could be made that great disatisfaction would lead to higher voter turnout! Even if SFU students were disatisfied, the statement that non-voting students "consider the SFSS lacking in the objectiveness and legitimacy to represent the overall interests of SFU students" is pure opinion, unsupported by evidence.
Myles22 03:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
---
I object to Myles22's opinion that voter dissatisfaction can lead to higher voter turnout. That in itself is an opinion and is also unsupported by evidence. Voter apathy could also be one cause of low turnout, why did you not mention that?
[edit] Cleanup
There's a lot about this article that doesn't hold up to Wikipedia's standards. I've started a cleanup of the article that I plan to continue. I notice that an anon IP has added a tonne of POV language and biased statements that are obviously anti-SFSS and anti-student union, but rather than revert that outright I'm going to try to reintegrate the removed material and investigate the allegations laid by the anon. If they're uncitable, they'll get pulled.
If anyone else wants to work on this at the same time, please do. I'm going to be poking at it on and off as I find useful sources and think of better ways to word things to read more neutrally, so I'll be at this a while. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added some citations, but I feel that the flow of this article is significantly flawed. The history section could pretty much be placed in the controversy section and it would read well. If the history of the society could be expanded, it would be more beneficial to readers. In addition, a review of the structure of the board of directors, the positions and what their descriptions are would be excellent. I could start working on some of these, but I don't know if I will have enough time to do a lot. Vanessa kelly 08:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
In teh section about controversy last paragraph I am going to have to say that they can speculate all they want on THEIR personal website however wikipedia needs sources and citations so thats why im disputing the neutrality of the article please make sure to read NPOV for more information Dr sean chronic RSX 08:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC) (and UH can people please freaking their comments four tildies easy as pie)
I agree, consider it removed and reworded. Neutrality dispute can come off now, I think 216.232.197.118 22:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] October 25th SGM and impeachment
I just removed information an IP added to the article about the SGM and impeachment resolutions that happened tonight. Thought I was there and so personally know the details of the meeting, and was a supporter (so I'm certainly not "censoring" anything), there are no references for this yet. The minutes aren't published yet, and The Peak won't be publishing the results until Monday. Just like the SFSS has its rules of order, so too does Wikipedia. This includes not publishing anything without references, and this is (until Monday or the minutes are published) inherently unverifiable because there are no references out there.
Please have patience, and this material can be worked into the article come Monday. Thanks for your understanding. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I added the agenda points from the meeting and the fact that quorum was met and maintained and all motions were passed as these are undespuitable facts. I was not signed in because I was having issues with that. As for the possibly biased point I made about attempts to disrupt the meeting, anyone who was there will agree that there were attempts and I expect that the publications relating to this will agree so sources will be added as they come out. I just made the changes now so people can know. - Canadianehme
- I appreciate that it happened and I realise the desire to "let people know" is strong. However, Wikipedia is most explicilty not a soapbox or for promotion of information that people want others to hear. Furthermore, though it is uncontestable fact that these things happened, Wikipedia does not care about what people think are facts, contestable or not. It only cares about verifiability of the information. Until the meeting minutes or the next issue of The Peak are published, this material is unverifiable and so unacceptable in a Wikipedia article. Again, I appreciate that people are passionate and that a significant point in the history of the SFSS happened yesterday. That doesn't mean that we are allowed a "special exemption" from Wikipedia's editorial rules. Sorry.
- On the point of the various motions on the agenda, this is an article about the SFSS, not about the SGM. As such, dumping a whole bunch of text in there that is relevant to the SGM specifically goes against our "no undue weight" neutrality rule. It's also just not what this article is about. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It was not necessary to delete the agenda as that was sourced and factual and since I am weak with HTML and you are a self proclaimed HTML expert and choose to detail what took me some time to format properly, I propose you, Saxifrage, put it back - Canadianehme
- Please re-read what I wrote. The motions on the agenda are not appropriate material for this article. It would perhaps be appropriate for an article called October 25, 2006 Simon Fraser Student Society Special General Meeting, which this article is not titled. Notice that the agenda of the many AGMs of the SFSS do not appear. That crows live on campus is also sourcable and factual, but this would be silly to include in the article about the SFSS.
- Besides, when the minutes or the Peak publish, the details of the agenda will be superfluous. Please be patient—all relevant material will appear in the article in good time. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The Burnaby Now article absolutely does qualify as evidence that the G7 were allegedly impeached. My edits are sound, NPOV, and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Myles22 00:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's great now that a citation is in the article. There was no citation to it or other mention of the Burnaby Now article when I removed that wording before, so I had good reason. Thanks for providing the reference the second time though. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The sections regarding the Impeachment have obviously been written by a biased person who opposed the impeachments. It is unfortunate that you cannot even stick to the facts here. The AGM was the invalid meeting as it purposely called at the same time to confuse students and to disrupt the SGM. The students have spoken, deal with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.74.100 (talk • contribs).
- Actually, I think the section as currently written is pretty fair and manages to not take either side. Of course it doesn't reflect the "truth" of the matter, but it's not Wikipedia's job to figure out what the truth is. Rather, our job is to gather together all the verifiable information on it so that the reader can decide for themself. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Fence sitter's commentary Well, looky here now, I leave SFU for a couple years now and the sfss self-implodes once again from squabbling over internal politics. If you all look at old issues of the Peak, you'll find this is actually a "SFU tradition". Speaking as someone who doesn't have an agenda with regards to all this, I just find it all rather amusing. Achou79 19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
