Talk:Swansea University Students' Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Notability 2 Sabbitical Information 3 bias and un-verifiable articles 4 Controversy 5 Picture 6 Charity Status 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Xtreme logo.jpg 8 financial information

[edit] Notability

Hi, this page is to be an entry on Swansea Students union. I now reading thought criteria that adding the constitution was wrong, but this page has much right to exsit as other pages on wiki about student unions. Such examples as Cardiff University Students' Union

I there is any thing else I need to change the page so that it is not deleted please tell meLanfiex 17:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Also to add about the Notability. The Swansea University page make no difference between student run services and union run services, such lack of understanding has caused lack of understanding about what powers the students have. Some Members of the unions staff which are quite happy with the fact that students do not have a say in matters which is quite rightfully theirs to run. Thought article should only be information and not a political agreement and allow students to make up there own choice Lanfiex 18:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• • As you have pointed out, there are other University Students' Union pages on Wikipedia, (which I should have checked before nominating this page for deletion). This page still needs "cleaning up" to bring it up to standard. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia and Good luck! Chesdovi 18:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sabbitical Information

I've added as many Sabbs as I can remember if you know of some more please add them. I've used my paper copies of meeting minutes as a reference, but the current susu site should reference the rest at some point. Also the sabb cloaks as worn at graduation, have many of the really old officers embroidered onto them. Good Luck 91.125.26.50 20:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks I will go and check when term beings --172.188.55.247 01:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• • complaints form previous Sabs about this have been respect and anything past 2007 has been removed. Note that the sabs are legal bound to the union for 7 year after the end of term.They are only bound to the decisions that they made!!! No sab under 7 years will be deleted from the list.

how does copying data from the waterfront and old website count as original research?. I realise that not every on on that list has been collected from a waterfront issue but i will now.--Lanfiex 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• the citation at the bottom pionts to three years of information i will move them up when i have the other 4.--Lanfiex 13:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Copying data from the student newspaper is not original research (although it shouldn't just be copied and pasted), but there was no link between that section and the "citations" section at the bottom. Inline citations of some form are the way to go. Chriswiki 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bias and un-verifiable articles

Re: Sin City you can use http://www.myspace.com/sincityclub as a reference for that and its details. To be honest the biggest scandal about the union is probably thats its part owner of a club using "clubscan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.110.250 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys understand that you did not like my original Edits, but this is an Encyclopaedia Content must be Verifiable. Also I would have happily let the cited parts of controversy disappear if you had brought up evidence to prove that they are not verifiable un-true. Also while I know you want to promote the union, but the first two sections are full of weasel word. --Lanfiex 10:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is terrible grammar on this page. I can't understand half of what is being said. What is 'weasel word'?I would also like to know who the 'some members' are in the quote 'Some Members of the unions staff which are quite happy with the fact that students do not have a say in matters which is quite rightfully theirs to run' as it potentially amounts to libel! SUSU

• • I put "weasel word" because I didn’t that the time to search for it and link it. Hear is the link Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Talk pages have weasel words all over them, this is not considered a problem on talk pages thought but on articles yes. Also if you would like me to put down name of the person who said this "During the summer all students aren’t around, Sabbaticals are elected to make decisions when student can’t take decisions." entertaining quote considering it was based on a decision which hadn’t gone beyond the point of no return, as it was still waiting for building permission (which wasn’t given until after the first possible chance for an SGM). I should also add to my list that SUSU is appling censorship, As you have provide the evidence above (don’t bother deleting this website has history records of each page) I will quite happy quote them inless this is also lible and it will be you who will get sued. Also you still haven’t add those citations, If you don’t I will remove the sections which I can't verify with sources --Lanfiex 00:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • I have removed most of the weasel words and un-verifiable sources, just thinking about how to deal with the others such as "which is party University of the UK". i am deciding if I can find some more claims to back up some of my less attractive claims to reinforce them to prevent them being weasel words. I don’t feel right removing the signs until the other party has seen my changes --Lanfiex 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am still finding it almost impossible to comprehend your answer. The grammar doesn't allow me to understand your reply. Please read what you are saying and make sure it reads well before publishing! It is sometimes totally incomprehensible ' which hadn't wasn't beyond' - what does that mean?!

• Opps it should have read "which hadnt gone beyond" sorry out that. Any thing else I need to edit for you. I do read what I say but I auto-theasuris in my sub-con, So I dont noitce the mistakes. Your going to have to piont out what you dont understand. --Lanfiex 12:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• • This is my attempt to re-write ever thing I have said before this. All of this could consider original research and most of it will never make the article because I have no idea where I can get sources. In addition, even if I find those sources they will have to be available on line. In addition, my other sources could be considered original research because I am extracting data from multiple sources to prove a point.

I started writing this page, because I felt that there was a lack of information to students about what the union was doing. I had started to notice a pattern in closure of service, restriction of information and ignored constitution & motions.

As you asked for it, I have no choice. You ask which union members of staff. As you threaten libel, I can only give the name of those who I have confirmed data. There are others I have talk to and found out but that would come down to my word against them in a libel suit.

Stewart rice has overriding the constitution on the matter of affiliations counting for the last 14 years. The constitution requires he has to ask the candidates for their approval for such an act. He certainly did not ask for their approval this year. I do not have data on any of the other years to know if approval was given. This action prevents the student from having say in the matter.

Next up is Owen Morris (Treasurer). On 12.10.06 at SGM Morris said this

"Owen Morris (Treasurer) - During the summer all students aren’t around, Sabbaticals are elected to make decisions when student can’t take decisions."

If this decision was made after term had finished by doing so he as broken the Motion which makes sure that the student where consulted on this. This action prevents the student from having say in the matter.

Other members of staff are guilty of not providing minutes of their committees to SGMs, as they should in schedule C part 15 of the constitution. This action prevents the student from having say in the matters. Thought I have faith that this may all be resolved on the Next AGM via the addition of all the out standing committee minutes.

I did not put all the sabbatical information up. I am going to have to dig around if I wish to back up previous years. Its seams right thought because students need to know what sabbaticals did and who was responsible for these actions good or bad.

There was also the issue of the bias. Thought it is less so now with the exception controversy. A one points the article written with a heavy bias towards a union PR point of view. Thought I my self had written the article to heavy bias toward the bad side of the union. I had hoped that it could have existed in the middle, but it seam we must both go away and find lots of cites if still wish to continue with our points. As this is an encyclopaedia, it needs to have citation for every thing so that every thing is verifiable.

I have not found any online article listing the closure of the kopy shop and the opening of K2 let alone one with reasons for doing such a thing.

The green room parts are hard work also due to constant edits and the fact no one will take the union minutes as a source.

The next part is the controversy. This has been deleted repeatedly and you have not given a reason for its deletion. All you do is an ad hominem fallacy, attacking my Grammar, but yet no reason for it deletion. I want this part to stay until it can be reports on the allegations are given. Unless you can give me a link to the report either being false or resolved. I will keep bring it back until this has happen.

Finally yet importantly, do not edit my post as if I had said it.--Lanfiex 01:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Stop removing this section. you are Blanking. This section is verifiable. To remove this section you must either prove that the claim has now been resolve. This is section which should not be removed untill evidence is given to it being untrue.--Lanfiex 12:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

An investigation is being held into accounting practices at Swansea University's Student Union in 2007. A Swansea University spokesman said: "The university has received allegations of irregularities in the Student Union. "No evidence was provided to justify the allegations but, as a routine precautionary measure, the university's external auditors have been asked to investigate." [1]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lanfiex (talk • contribs) 19:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

• thank you blanker, you do know that if you continue to remove this section with out verifiable reason this page will be lock. Also do not edit others posts --Lanfiex 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I have discovered that the investigation is still under way. I will keep bring it back until the investigation report is out.

OK, this is getting a little childish here. User:Lanfiex keeps on readding this "controversy" section, only to have it removed by 137.44.1.200 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), at which point Lanfiex reinstates it, the IP deletes it and so on. Rather than throwing the toys out of the pram only to have them put back in again every couple of hours, how about having a sensible discussion about it.

Firstly, is the information actually notable? In an encyclopedia article about the Students' Union is this an important or relevant bit of information?

Next, is it actually a controversy? It appears that an unsubstantiated allegation has been made to the University about the Union finances. If the information is notable, would it be better just put in the 2006/2007 section (which needs rewriting anyway IMHO) at the top rather than a section to itself.

Thirdly, are there any other sources over two paragraphs in the local paper that could confirm this actually happened, or is still happening.

Chriswiki 19:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It is controversy because it a review in to union finances. There is actually a bit more than that what is stated in the article, large amounts of money disappearing. However, it is only in stuff which I cannot find online, every thing else is in the minutes of the last SGM (which are currently not online) and talk form the person who actually made allegation. I know that some one has some planned media coverage, thought it all hinges on the release of the investigation which I’ve been told will finish in a couple of weeks time. I going to ask around and see if i can find another source.

If you want to 2006/2007 be my guest thought I not 100% on the time scale of the Allegations

Also if an investigation in the fraud of a union is not notable well I do not know what is notable on a page about unions. That it has a bar. Most unions have bars. That the welfare officer does campaigns about safe sex? It not that un-common for a welfare officer to do these things. The only thing more notable about the union now on this page is the destruction and rebuild of the union.

Also Can I cite offline sources? --Lanfiex 21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A review into union finances doesn't sound like a controversy, you need to be very careful here about what is Original Research- you can't write stuff in Wikipedia just because you know it, or you went and asked someone.

On the subject of item notability, looking at the article from an outside view (I've never been to Swansea, or the University there), what are the main things I need to know? I'd say what the Union is and where it is are the two major things, followed by who is there or has been associated with it. I'm not really that worried about some unsubstantiated allegations of financial issues (which is all that this is at the moment according to reliable sources). As for the student union having a bar remember that notability doesn't just mean different from the norm- President George W. Bush has a wife, but so did a lot of US Presidents, that doesn't mean that Laura Bush shouldn't be mentioned in his article.

Offline sources are fine, and in many cases (books, scientific papers, newspapers) often preferred by some. However I'd be hesitant to say that the minutes from a meeting of the committee that runs the subject of the article were suitable though, especially on an issue that has already sparked an edit-war. If there's going to be some media coverage in a couple of weeks, maybe that would be the time to put something in. Chriswiki 08:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand. If some thing comes up I will renforce the section. I did find this article in the water front connected to the alligation, but it dosnt mention the investigations. [[2]] I was trying to get a audio recorded minutes but I havent succed in getting to happen just yet.--Lanfiex 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I added a picture hope you guy like it. I can up load a bigger size i was just a bit worried about it slowing peoples computers. If you wish me to upload a bigger picture tell me how big you want it to be.--Lanfiex 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charity Status

Is the charity status of the Students Union really a controversy? Also, the two other finance related points in the controversy section don't seem that contraversial, and if they are whatever makes them contraversial doesn't seem to be mentioned. Anyone object if I just remain the whole section Finances? Chriswiki 09:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not mind the charity status of the students union going into finances. You don’t think that committees, which do not exist signing for audit reports, is legit? You have to be kidding me if you do not think that is controversial. If you want to make to separate sections fine. However, ghost committee stays. --Lanfiex 14:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to remember that this isn't the Swansea University Students' Union website, this is an international encyclopedia. Some unknown person signing off on some of the organisations accounts isn't really all that contraversial to the world outside the Student General Meeting- if it was, surely there would be some coverage at least the local press rather than a footnote in an article in the Unions own paper? Perhaps the external auditors of last years accounts might have mentioned something? The whole thing smacks of original research and personal agenda- there is no reference to a "ghost committee" given at all.

Wikipedia says a controversy is "a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate.", is anyone arguing, disagreeing, or debating this? Chriswiki 14:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is so mind boggling I wonder how you think. Why would a union put well and clearly written article on why they been bad on it own website? Actually I think you find that an unknown person singing off is fraud and if that isn’t controversy to the general public well I don’t really want to know what our society is coming to. "Ghost" is used in legal terms to describe a phantom in finance such as ghost employees http [://www.etheft.com/dghost.html] . sorry if you feel that the term ghost is wrong for a committee which didn’t exist but still did thing I think it perfectly fitting way to sum up the section. The reason it not in the local paper is that, they are waiting on the investigations report on it. I can believe that you brought up "a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate." isn’t that what we are doing now? I took the time to read the pages you created you never have the right to speak to me about notability or self-interest again with out being a hypocritical fool.--Lanfiex 23:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Calm down Lanfiex, there's no need for personal attacks. As for the matter of what we are doing now, we are debating whether or not the item is a controversy, not debating whether or not a ghost finance committee existed and committed fraud. If this ghost finance committee IS a controversy, then we should be able to provide sources with both points of view, i.e. someone saying "I believe there was a finance committee and everything was done correctly" and "I believe that the documents were forged and fraud has been committed". If both references are not provided, then the item is perhaps a "finiancial incident", nothing more.

I'm not expecting the Union to put a "well and clearly written article on why they had been bad on its own website", in fact that would not necessarily be helpful. A reliable source is ideally not written by the subject of the article. Perhaps the auditors, or the fraud office, or the press?

Chriswiki 11:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no investigation despite what it says in the article PWc have explained to the Union itself that it is simple a review. Further I agree with Chriswiki the ghost committee is not controversy. It is funny how this ,makes it into the section and the lack of all the other standing committees doesn't get a mention. I tell you why because certain people have certain agendas and that's all they are interested in. Some ridiculous issues have been put in controversy and I just deleted one because it was completely false and the citation for the Union newspaper was also incorrect in itself. Why do you - Laniflex insist on adding negative things to the Union article what does it add, and how is it constructive to the article.

Can you verify any of PWc words? If audio recording had been at the meeting, you would have been able to hear the controversy. Thought thanks I couldent remember were it had been publicly spoken that the investigation was a review your comments reminded me. Why do you insist on deleting all any thing negative about union? You know my reasons they are listed on this page and I do believe it is constructive to view an organisations faults. If you do not learn the mistakes of history, you are only doomed to repeat them. --Lanfiex 09:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tidied up the whole Controversy section in a way which I hope will satisfy most people. The section starts with a comment about the Charitable status of the organisation, followed by the adverse side of the finances in an effort to promote a Neutral Point of View. I've also removed the sub-headings, I don't think it's necessary to label each paragraph like a tabloid newspaper. There were minor changes to the text in my edit- mainly to match up what was there with the references given, but I have kept each of the incidents/controversies there. I also had a quick look round to see who "Miles Goodman" was as, like most people reading this article, I've never heard of the gentleman (no offence Miles, but I ain't local) and it turns out he's the Welfare Officer. Oh, and I formatted the references using ref tags and Template:Cite web so they appear in the list at the bottom with the others.

Personally, I'm still not sure how relevant a lot of the information is outside the walls of Union House, let alone on an international encyclopedia, but it's still in there at the moment. Chriswiki 08:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Xtreme logo.jpg

Image:Xtreme logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] financial information

Apart from the first paragraph all of it is false and the references are unobtainable. The graph is not based on any information and the link to the news website does not work. This should not be on the wiki so I will delete it. It is a complete fabrication of information that does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.48.197 (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me why they are unobtainable; the accounts of the students union are available to the general public under the Charities act, if you can not receive the accounts. I direct you to the Charities commission for council on the matter. The news article seams to suffered from web rot, I see if the articles can be re-found. The Sabb reports and the SGM audio recordings have disappeared off the Media fire account due to under use. I will reload them for your pleasures but any one reading this in 6 months shall find the same thing. the only file currently loaded is the report find here http://www.mediafire.com/?bt2jjywnmwj. Just because web rot has happened does not mean this is un-true. Thank you for your noticing of web rot I will try and reinstate the links soon. Thought I would be most grateful if you actually provide evidence (Seeing as you are great believer in online proof this should be no problem for you) that these article are unobtainable before you remove the article, as wiki does allow for off line sources . --Lanfiex (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Lanifex, your simply wrong on all accounts. You are miss quoting people and hiding behind a conspiracy theory which you believe exists, why have you not published the results of the investigation if your so concerned also reading your blog, it's quite obvious you dont understand how banking works. IE if everyone takes their money out the bank the bank would go bust. You're trying to find a conspiracy that is not present. Having read the reports and listened to the meeting your taking comments out of context and this further details your lack of knowledge of how the real world is run. Go and look up JFK or Tony Blair, they are the real conspiracies not this student union. If you care about it stop committing libel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.97.86 (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please engage in argument. You hid behind calls of fiction without proof and ad-hominem, plus you don’t even use a user name. I have committed no libel on this page (in less you care to prove damages which would be the first part of libel), but you would have taken me to court had not been for the fact that every thing is provable. You are going to get a wiki ban at this rate as law threats are against the wiki User policy agreement.

Also it will do you no good asking me to publish things I don’t not have any access, despite many requests, I am not even sure of there existence. If you have access to this then please do then publish for all of us to see. --Lanfiex (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have started a talk on the red herring argument about my blog & banking on 86.141.97.86's talk page rather than dilute this page --Lanfiex (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok you've had over a month to find the documents, I am going to take it down, and if you put it back up I'm going to complain to an editor, you have no proof, and thats quite evident, mark it's time to grow up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.170.57 (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it up with an editor if you must, but whats up there at the moment is citable --Lanfiex (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)