Talk:University of Melbourne Student Union/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge

UMSU has taken over the function of MUSU. As such, all the student history should be merged into this article. Xtra 13:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Am inclined to agree with the anonymous user Xtra, providing no information is removed. They are quite separate and distinct organisations though. One had a large budget and high turnout in elections, the other a very small budget and 5% turnout. Quite different in some ways. DarrenRay 11:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to support a mergeTheusualsuspect 06:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support a merger of a single article covering the various entities that function as a student union at Melbourne University--A Y Arktos 20:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

UMSU biographical and voting

Keep the information relevant. Biographical information on office bearers should go on individual entries, not in an article about UMSU. Stephen Luntz has never been a returning officer for a MUSU election, although he was an office bearer. Rumours about Sist's pay are just that; please cite a source for your accusations. MUSU was placed into liquidation by the Supreme Court. Reference to the factional alliegance of Darren Ray should go in its own article on Cr Ray, not in an article about UMSU.

Also, MUSU had low turnouts as well. 2001 for example when Darren Ray was elected only had 1500 students vote. 7,000 and 10,000 voted in 2000 and 2002/03, and were exceptions, although MUSU traditionally had high voter turnout when compared to other student unions (ie, b/w 4-5,000 on average).

Detailed information on student unionism at Melbourne Uni can be found here: http://www.unimelb.edu.au/Statutes/s151.pdf (it will be updated in the next month, following the next meeting of Uni Council, to include information on UMSU and the liquidation).Theusualsuspect 02:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note the re-location of the voting details to the "Politics" section.Theusualsuspect 07:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

DarrenRay has put in a dispute to the accuracy. What is disputed or not neutral?

You seem intent on putting biographical information of office bearers into the introduction, when you could create an Office Bearer section. Furthermore, the information you included about voting has been incorporated in the "Politics" section.Theusualsuspect 07:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Some quick biographical material on those running the organisation is appropriate in the introduction I think. If you have a better formatting idea, go ahead. I'm happy with how it was. DarrenRay 07:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Noting the identities of the President is notable in the introduction, but clearly the level of detail you want should go in a seperate OB section, or in the Politics section. I have included you voting details in the Politics section.Theusualsuspect 07:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

structure

DarrenRay: The article's structure needs to be logical. I have created a seperate section for Office Bearers AND put the voting level info you wrote in the relevant section (ie, Politics). Before you revert those changes, can you discuss this on the Talk page?Theusualsuspect 11:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Theusualsuspect, I am told you are Alex White. Please disclose this when editing your own organisation's article in future. DarrenRay 15:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Incentive voting

I think it is interesting and maybe worth mentioning that the new constitution was drafted by the socialists and labor left. That a lot of the clauses that were put in, are things that would specifically benifit those factions. This such as abolishing incentive voting, when history shows that at incentive voting elections, a wider range of students are encouraged to vote, and not just the die hard lefties (and to a lesser extent liberals and labor students) who turn up anyway. Other things which specifically advantage the left are gender quotas and making the structure hundreds of times more complex and rigid than the old constitution. Xtra 23:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you Xtra. DarrenRay 01:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Xtra: You are wrong. The Constitutional working group was evenly split between Unity, the Liberals, independents (centre) and the left (Labor Left, Socialists and Greens). If you are going to get into the makeup of the Working Group, make the breakdown of factions accurate. Furthermore, the Constitution was approved by the University, who made significant alterations. Abolition of compulsory voting was a cost-saving, since it cost up to $80,000, impossible under VSU. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what is in it, a referrendum, run by the University, approved the Constitution. Theusualsuspect 06:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It was not evenly split. It was controlled by the left. And what was the voter turnout at the election. I can guarantee you that less than 50% of students agreed to their new organisation, in fact it was more like one tenth of that. Xtra 06:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The makeup of the group was actually evenly split, but the Libs and Unity refused to participate in alot of the stuff. A friend of mine was one of the independents on the working group, and he mentioned several meetings where the right members would simply refuse to vote on motions or not turn up at all. --bainer (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1052 yes votes out of a student population of 40,000 Xtra 06:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Xtra - I doubt you could guarantee whether a majority of students agreed or disagreed, but we do know that about 90% of students who voted in the referrendum agreed (bear in mind that less than 30,000 are on campus, due to post-graduate, partime, etc (compare 1000 students voting at Melbourne to almost any other student union elections). Regardless, the referrendum was passed and accepted by the University, and that includes the prohibition on giving any kind of incentive to vote. As for the makeup of the WG, unless you have detailed information on the breakdown of factions, I will revert any edit to make that says the left "controlled" the WG.Theusualsuspect 06:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I would, but my link to the relevant pages is now a dead link. Unless you know where alse I can find this information. Xtra 06:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would be on the Uni News website. Otherwise it is unverifiable.Theusualsuspect 06:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

However, I have seen the results of the working group election and from the outset the committee was controlled by a left leaning majority. I also had a copy of meeting minutes. However the Student Union has destroyed all this online information. Xtra 06:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

pay

For the record: UMSU full time pay = $16,000 (all OBs are paid at the same rate). Part time OBs get 60% of this each. In 2005, this was $17,000. Payscales prior to 2005 were in excess of $20,000 for full time (Darren, perhaps you can confirm how much you were paid). In my opinion, this information is not notable. Theusualsuspect 06:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No othjer organisation has such a list on wikipedia. Xtra 07:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the salaries are relevant and should be included. It is clearly notable in the context of massive spending cuts in student organisations, that's the reason why I included it. DarrenRay 08:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

We might all disagree about various facts, biases and so on here but I don't think there can be genuine dispute that the article is a mess. I am happy to contribute to a re-write but only if others are comfortable with that and will also contribute. DarrenRay 08:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual errors

There are too many to individually list. Saying that Parliamentarians were active with UMSU before it existed, or before MUSU existed is just wrong. The article is specifically about UMSU, where it makes reference to the 408 different predecessors it should do so accurately. Because it has been restructured so many times, this will need a real eye for detail.

You can't say that the article is biased and then refuse to list the biases.Theusualsuspect 09:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Darren- you are repeatedly putting in false and misleading information. 2006 honoraria have been set at $16,000. You are also deleting relevant information regarding the liquidation, an event that you were involved in, a clear case of bias and POV. Finally, the information you are trying to put in the introduction has been included in other parts of the article and does not belong in the introduction.Theusualsuspect 20:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Bias

The bias of the article is plain on its face. It is a controversial organisation and probably always will be and those controversies (both sides) ought to be presented in a fair and balanced way. DarrenRay 08:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So long as you continue to whitewash your involvement and the involvement of your factional mates, the article will remain biased, since every contribution you have made is complete POV. Just because you don't agree with the record of events doesn't mean it is biased.Theusualsuspect 09:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I would request that when people complain about blatant bias, that they actually state what the bias is, and where and how it is expressed. Is it a left bias? What does that mean? Specifically, what text is excessively sympathetic to the left? Can you demonstrate that it is actually sympathetic, perhaps by reference to relatively neutral third-party publications?

I won't speak of overall bias, but I note, for example a clearly POV statement in the first paragraph "The organisation conducts poorly attended elections which elect its officials. The turnout can be as little as 5% and are generally no higher than 10%". The wording here contains a subjective term "poorly", and the statement is specifically structured to denigrate the organisation's voting process. As well, the statement has been placed early in the article to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the office bearers. That's really uncalled for, unless backed up by reputable sources that cite debate about that legitimacy. There is probably nothing wrong with including this information, per se, but it would have to be done in a more relevant and neutral way, simply by noting that "in recent years, voter turn out has been 5-10%", preferably with a source.

This is the level of detail I would request that people get to when complaining of bias. Thanks. Stevage 18:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the detail, yours is exactly the kind of discussion needed to resolve these issues.

1. 5-10% turnout is low, that's true, how to describe such poor levels of participation in a way that we can agree is probably the challenge. I'm sure we could work this out. UMSU has elections, many of the other student organisations do not, so that point could be made too.

5-10% is 5-10%. Is that low? Compared to what? Australian federal elections attract 99% participation. France gets 67%. The US barely 50%. Local council elections probably, what, 20%? The European Union 30-70%. Elections for student clubs can be anything. What does the Monash Student Union get? These are the questions that need to be asked when putting in subjective comments like "low".

1. Does a low turnout reflect adversely on officebearers? Not necessarily, it could be the other way in fact. Or it could reflect apathy or a range of different things.

Precisely. If there is some published analysis of what it means, that would be great. *our* speculation is worth 0.

1. Is this article merging with the other one, because if it is I suspect we can end this discussion now, interesting as it is. DarrenRay 00:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed to move all the stuff relevant to MUSU/UMSU into this article, and leave only a brief summary there. If by "the other one", you mean Melbourne University student organisations.Stevage 12:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge Andrew Landeryou

• Oppose I can't even begin to understand why this was proposed. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No argument here. Stevage 12:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Returning officers

The appointment of old lefty hacks (hi guys!) as returning officers for a Student Union is not direly relevant, unless there are credible allegations of impropriety on their part. There were, if my recollection of the newspapers is correct, allegations of impropriety by Labor Right-appointed returning officers at MUSU. I guess that's why some Labor Right wikipedians are well atuned to the political affiliation of ROs :). But if the article is going to discuss returning officers, it must do so in encyclopedic fashion. -- pde

The purpose of a Students Union is...?

I was under the impression that Student Unions exist to represent their members and to provide services. Therefore, if these articles are to go on and on and on and on about the petty politics of the union and give hardly a mention to what the Union actually does they are way off message. Do you think people on the other side of the world (or on the other side of Victoria for that matter) give a damn about which faction is currently on top? Why is there no photo of the SU building? The SU bar? What has the Union achieved for it's members in real terms during its existence? Another example: "First published in 1925, Farrago is the University of Melbourne student newspaper". It gets one paragraph. Nothing notable or fascinating has happened to that newspaper in the 80 years of its existence? Hopefully with some of the key POV warriors blocked (just look at the section "Incentive voting" above - who cares?!) the cruft can be removed from this and related articles and it can get back onto message. --kingboyk 09:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up

It has been noted before that this article needs some serious work. I am going to have a look through it, and I'll start by removing the current officers, since they are clearly not independntly notable, the information is trivial and subject to frequent change, and the list of names (apart form questions of vanity) adds nothing to the understanding of the institution. Every student union has elected officers, to note their existence is surely sufficient. I will leave in those past officers who have their own articles, as appears to be usual with articles on institutions of this type. Just zis Guy you know? 21:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)