Talk:Simon Fraser Student Society

message: 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 ()
** the continued ability for the SFSS Graduate Issues Officer to sit ex-officio on the Senate Graduate Studies Committee ()
** 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. , , , , , , )
* 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)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removal of material

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion