Talk:Universal Student Unionism

message: This page is becoming more superfluous, and its inclusion (as compared to other choices of nomenclature) is of itself increasingly POV.
The article on voluntary student unionism is - necessarily - easily the best source of information on the present system. With the introduction - albeit amidst fighting - of a terminology section, it is clear that the issue of PR can be better addressed in the VSU article, too - and no doubt will be once a more reasoned debate gets under way.
That really leaves very little use for this page, especially since (other than a minor spelling edit on 4 September) the page hasn't been modified since early July!
So I raised the question of merging before and only got a short response from Cyberjunkie. But I really do think that this page is not useful, non-NPOV, superceded by the VSU article's material, and not distinct enough to warrant a separate article. I think the time to merge is now...
El T 18:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the VSU page are making this page unncessary

message: It's a month since I wrote my last comment suggesting merging and no one's commented. So unless someone responds in the next few days - even just a sentence to indicate someone has a contrary opinion - I'll do the merge.
:My opinion still stands.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also strongly oppose the merge. Ambi 06:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going to merge if no responses... 

message: Cyberjunkie, as I will present below, CSU is VASTLY more common than USU, which, as I also present below, is only used by partisan hacks. If you must have an article on what VSU is replacing, it needs to be CSU, not USU.
===Superfluity of this article===
But do you need the article at all? No! The presumption is that any idea requires a page for those who oppose the idea. There's nothing wrong with discussing an argument all in the one page, provided:
# Both arguments are presented fairly and with a NPOV; and
# There is no compelling reason to have an article for the opposing view.
For most major issues the second point will be the deciding factor - conscientious objection and conscription are both significant issues that have their own unique story to tell. However, CSU/USU are really just a term to describe what VSU isn't. The fact that student unionism is compulsory should be discussed, but most probably under either the article on students' unions, or (better yet) student unionism in Australia. Having CSU or USU is silly, as demonstrated by (1) the angst it causes, and (2) the fact that it is so rarely updated.
Having said that, I present some damn thorough research into usage of CSU and USU, which I feel is wholly and totally overwhelming as an argument killer. If you want to have a page explaining the opposite of VSU, it has to be CSU. This is why:
===Usage statistics===
As people have done above, it seems a good idea to consider which is the term is broad use. As any linguist can tell you, corpus searches are hugely valuable when it comes to sorting out what is the term in popular use:
* Googlefight: CSU = 10,800 (96.36%), USU = 408 (3.64%)
* ABC (a left-friendly source, I'm sure we can agree): CSU = 60 (100%), USU = 0 (0%)
* Sydney Morning Herald archives: CSU = 114 (98.3%), USU = 2 (1.7%; both by union hacks, I note)
* The Australian: CSU = 10, USU = 0
* Factiva (a paid subscription source): CSU = 1,028 (98.94%), USU = 11 (1.06%) (see next section)
* ALP website: CSU = 1, USU = 0
To emphasise the point, let me draw a little graph:
:
CSU vs USU - Comparative usage	CSU vs USU - Comparative usage
CSU                           	USU
(That's 96% to CSU, 4% to USU.)
===Factiva's articles===
Just to further demonstrate that USU is a strictly partisan term, here are the 11 articles Factiva returned:
# "Athletic supporters" (SMH, 10 August 2005, Samantha Keen): "University sport is under threat from voluntary student unionism, writes Samantha Keen..."
# "Media Release: National Tertiary Education Union" (9 August 2005)
# "Members only", SMH, 13 May 2005, Judith Ireland ("Judith Ireland is an honours student in politics at the University of Sydney")
# "Student unionism is crucial", Mosman & Lower North Shore Daily, 31 March 2005, Emily Sexton ("Committee Secretary, University of Sydney Union")
# "Labor vows to block HECS rises", The Australian, 6 October 2004, Dorothy Illing; mentioned as a direct lift from the Greens Party platform
# "PROMISES, PROMISES, KEEPING THE BASTARDS HONEST< - LABOR< - GREENS< - DEMOCRATS", The West Australian, 10 November 2001, author unknown; mentioned as a direct lift from the Greens Party platform
# "Campaign moves back to home ground - KEEPING THE BASTARDS HONEST", The West Australian, 27 October 2001, Geraldine Capp; mentioned as a direct lift from the Greens Party platform
# "Plan to cut funds to wealthy schools", SMH, 24 October 2001, Claire O'Rourke, mentioned as a direct lift from the Greens Party platform
# "Students to fight move on unionism", Adelaide Advertiser, 16 April 1998, Nicole Lloyd; found only in direct quote from then-NUS South Australia president Ms Olivia Nassaris
# "Student campaigns for voluntary fees", The Evening Post (New Zealand), 20 September 1997, Christine Robertson; found only in paraphrase of then-Victoria Student Association president Alistair Shaw
# "Two student unions win reprieve", Australian Financial Review, 23 November 1993, Andrew White; found in body of article
So yes, over a decade of articles in its database. Only one article - from 1993, no less - uses the term USU without being inherently POV. The ten other uses are all deeply, deeply partisan. Furthermore, both pro- and anti-VSU people have standardised on the CSU label. They have assiduously avoided USU as a term reserved for union spin doctors.
So, the gauntlet is laid down! This article needs to be switched into CSU. (Perhaps after that it will be merged into VSU, but that's something for the CSU discussion.) I'm interested to see what proof can be offered to counter those very, VERY strong usage statistics contained in the research above. Keyboard ready... El T 14:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Research to demonstrate article's bias

message: Just to further demonstrate that USU is a strictly partisan term, here are the 11 articles Factiva returned:
# "Athletic supporters" (SMH, 10 August 2005, Samantha Keen): "University sport is under threat from voluntary student unionism, writes Samantha Keen..."
# "Media Release: National Tertiary Education Union" (9 August 2005)
# "Members only", SMH, 13 May 2005, Judith Ireland ("Judith Ireland is an honours student in politics at the University of Sydney")
# "Student unionism is crucial", Mosman & Lower North Shore Daily, 31 March 2005, Emily Sexton ("Committee Secretary, University of Sydney Union")
# "Labor vows to block HECS rises", The Australian, 6 October 2004, Dorothy Illing; mentioned as a direct lift from the Greens Party platform
# "PROMISES, PROMISES, KEEPING THE BASTARDS HONEST< - LABOR< - GREENS< - DEMOCRATS", The West Australian, 10 November 2001, author unknown; mentioned as a direct lift from the Greens Party platform
# "Campaign moves back to home ground - KEEPING THE BASTARDS HONEST", The West Australian, 27 October 2001, Geraldine Capp; mentioned as a direct lift from the Greens Party platform
# "Plan to cut funds to wealthy schools", SMH, 24 October 2001, Claire O'Rourke, mentioned as a direct lift from the Greens Party platform
# "Students to fight move on unionism", Adelaide Advertiser, 16 April 1998, Nicole Lloyd; found only in direct quote from then-NUS South Australia president Ms Olivia Nassaris
# "Student campaigns for voluntary fees", The Evening Post (New Zealand), 20 September 1997, Christine Robertson; found only in paraphrase of then-Victoria Student Association president Alistair Shaw
# "Two student unions win reprieve", Australian Financial Review, 23 November 1993, Andrew White; found in body of article
So yes, over a decade of articles in its database. Only one article - from 1993, no less - uses the term USU without being inherently POV. The ten other uses are all deeply, deeply partisan. Furthermore, both pro- and anti-VSU people have standardised on the CSU label. They have assiduously avoided USU as a term reserved for union spin doctors.
So, the gauntlet is laid down! This article needs to be switched into CSU. (Perhaps after that it will be merged into VSU, but that's something for the CSU discussion.) I'm interested to see what proof can be offered to counter those very, VERY strong usage statistics contained in the research above. Keyboard ready... El T 14:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Factiva's articles

message: I definitely support the creation of a student unionism in Australia page. It could actually be quite exciting to research such a topic - I know, for example, that either Sydney or Melbourne uni's student paper was considered so lewd in the early 20th century that the university only allowed its continuation on the condition that its contents be "monitored" by professors. And there are issues like being under the watch of ASIO during the 1950s, leading the anti-Vietnam rallies, the involvement of people like Peter Costello and Tony Abbott, the controversies over things like PLO funding and refugee activism, etc etc. I wonder if any of the student unions maintain archives??? I know the ANU Student Association has now archived most (all?) the copies of the student newspaper; perhaps there are others scattered about the place.
:Sounds like a very sensible sugestion. Andreww 00:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it doesn't replace the voluntary student unionism article as well, then this wou7ld be a good idea. Ambi 00:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess would be that Voluntary Student Unionism would be discussed on student unionism in Australia but that voluntary student unionism would still exist and would be linked via a "for more information see the main article on voluntary student unionism" statment (or whatever the correct wording should be). Andreww 01:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The VSU page is necessary because it's describing an argument to change the status quo. If and when VSU is implemented, then student unionism in Australia should certainly be updated to reflect that. It may also be sensible at such a time to remove the VSU article and redirect it to student unionism in Australia, but that argument is still a fair way off. El T 09:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By "voluntary student unionism would still exist" I mean the article found at voluntary student unionism would not be merged into student unionism in Australia. One hopes that the lead section of voluntary student unionism could be used (with some editing) as a POV free section within student unionism in Australia - would you object to this? Andreww 10:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds A-OK to me... El T 03:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Student unionism page

message: As per the previous discussion, I've started creating the student unionism in Australia page. Dig in if you get some time once exams end! El T 08:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move under way