Talk:Simon Fraser Student Society

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?

achou79

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)

Neutrality

In the 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 that's why I'm 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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

There is some hearsay (nothing official enough to be cited in the article), that this particular implosion was helped from outside. The three BC student unions that tried to reform the CFS from inside were Douglas College, SFU, and Kwantlen. Immediately after the failed reform bids, pro-CFS slates were elected. During those political terms, each of the three were plunged into financial scandals that intimately involved CFS members outside of the local unions. There no clear evidence of interference, but as the old saying goes, once is coincidence, twice is accident, and trice is sabotage. It's sadly suggestive, is all. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of material

I removed material that wasn't cited. Blogs and stuff that is personally hosted isn't acceptable as a source. See also WP:V and WP:CITE. GreenJoe 19:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The exact members of the executive and Board aren't notable and were removed from the article. --GreenJoe 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire, privately-hosted material is acceptable. Most of the material on the Internet is "privately hosted", so that is not a criterion that Wikipedia uses. WP:V depends on publisher, not on the host. When that material is a reproduction of official memos, it is especially irrelevant where the material is hosted. You are perhaps thinking of the section of WP:V on "Self-published sources", but that applies to material produced by the (self-publishing) publisher, not reproductions of material published elsewhere. Could you please restore the paragraph beginning "In response, the seven..."? I do agree that the Craigslist material should have been deleted. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The memos are original research, and were hosted on student webspace that will disappear when they graduate. GreenJoe 15:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR does not apply to sources, since it is concerned with "unpublished" things at minimum and a citable source is by definition published. The fact that the sources may disappear does not make them invalid either—that eventuality is taken into account by the policy, and having an access-date attached to a citation is what the policy requires to deal with that. Could you please revert your deletion? — Saxifrage ✎ 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history, one of the citations was a forum, which isn't an acceptable source. This is presuming that I accept the memos, which I don't. Student newspaper article about it, sure, but memos are original research IMHO. As for the board of directors, we don't need to know who each director or executive is. It's an unmaintainable list that isn't notable. Forums or blogs aren't acceptable sources. That is or was in there. And finally was Craigslist which isn't appropriate. I won't do a blanket revert. Sorry. GreenJoe 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm only concerned with the memos, since that's the only deletion that is unsupportable by the policy you cite. If you don't like the memos as a source, you are welcome to discuss them but not to delete them and the material they support. Yes, a partial revert of the deletion is appropriate, thank you. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since it has been almost a week now, I will take that as a lack of objection to a restoration of the deleted material. After some consideration, I have restored the entire paragraph beginning "In response...", since I'm sure I can find sources for the President's statements and the fact of the freezing of the bank account to replace the unacceptable forum citation. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A minute of digging (searching for "frozen" on The Peak's site) and several minutes of formatting, and the section in contention is now well-sourced. Thank you for bringing the need for better citation in this paragraph to my attention. In the future, deleting parts of articles is not necessary in order to find better citable sources. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SFULOGO.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)