Talk:Labour Students

Untitled

Tim - you can safely know that it is not me making changes to this page - I always edit Wikipedia whilst signed in - I see that there seems to be an argument whether "Owain James" was a member of the organisation that the page is about. I don't know anything about this - do you have any proof of the fact and then we can stop this from becoming a battle of one person's word against another (admitedly anonymous) person's word. Thanks! Tompagenet 13:44, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay the arguments about Owain James and Labour Students have been going on since at least 2000 in not before. There are really two points at dispute:

a) Were Owain James's bids for the NUS Presidency (2000 and 2001) backed by Labour Students?

b) Was Owain a member of Labour Students?

One of the complicating factors is that a group in NUS has emerged who are known as the "Organised Independents" (abbrv: OIs) who generally ally to Labour Students. Owain was one of the key members of this. When the election for Owain's successor came along in 2002, the OIs fell out with Labour Students and stood against them, but in 2000 and 2001 things were different.

In answer to a), it was quite clear at the time to all involved in NUS in any way that Owain was backed by Labour Students - when he stood for re-election in 2001 I witnessed with my own eyes that the people backing him were also backing open Labour Students candidates for other positions. Furthermore no Labour Student stood against him in either election despite having previously held the post for nearly two decades (though in 1998 their candidate scraped home by only 15 votes and arguably only the benefit of being an incumbant saved him in 1999). It was clear then and since that Owain was run because Labour Students believed it was the only way to prevent losing the Presidency to the Left. (Given the way the OIs subsequently tried to go it alone, Labour have been more reluctant to try this more recently.)

b) is the trickier one to provide proof on because Owain spent a lot of time denying he was a Labour Student, as did a lot in Labour Students. I am reliably informed by members of Labour Students at the time that Owain was a member at the ground level - by no means the only ground roots member to be in a different faction at the top (a lot of the Student Broad Left similarly are)).

Timrollpickering 11:27, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Destroyed by Trots?

The article states- In the 1960s, the National Association of Labour Student Organisations, the Labour Party's student organisation, was (except in Scotland) taken over and destroyed by Trotskyists. This left the party without a national student body.

In what way was it 'destroyed'? Did they dissolve it, get it dissolved by their views, run it into bankruptcy, or drive so many members out it collapsed? This needs expanding I think to ensure NPOV. Paulleake 14:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

University clubs

Wikipedia is not a web directory, and this is not the place to link to a long list of Labour Students groups. Warofdreams talk 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with a small list of University clubs that are clearly relevant to the article?

Because there's then no reason to exclude any of the large number of other university clubs, and the links will get out of hand (Wikipedia is not a web directory). Warofdreams talk 01:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be sensible to create another Wiki page listing Labour Students branches? Of course not many Wikipedians will have an exhaustive list, but no doubt branch leaders from across the country would be able to contribute. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There exists a redirect from “Labour Clubs” to “Labour Students” which does not look very approriate in my eyes. From 1926 to 1935 the Workers' Theatre Movement of the UK used “town halls” and “Labour Clubs” as venues. They did not own any theatres. It would be better to explain in an article on its own what a “Labour Club” is or has been. ----87.184.229.3 (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation and POV tags added

There are problems with this article. For example, Kat Stark (the national womens officer) did not use labour students on her manifesto and the fact that she is a labour student is not confirmed. This needs referencing and removing. Also, there are clear POV issues - 'targeted grants are best for poorer students' for example is POV - this needs redrafting.

Several parts of the article need referencing.

Please leave the tags until edits have been made that confirm or reference the issues raised. --manchesterstudent 21:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD - Glasgow University Labour Club

An article associated with this article - Glasgow University Labour Club - has been nominated for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasgow University Labour Club

Thanks. --Mais oui! 10:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The party line

There seems to be an effort by someone involved in the leadership of Labour Students (past or present) to be very strict about what is 'allowed' on to this page.

First, there has to be a simple repetition of wikipedia guidelines. You should not be editing a page that is about you or an organisation you work for. I'm sure no-one minds this convention being broken for completely uncontroversial matters, but Labour Students is an organisation that has many proponents as well as detractors. Someone is clearly trying to remove any mention of the criticisms of Labour Students.

This is wrong. It is not vandalism that is being removed, it is knowledge. The fact that this 'battle' has now been mentioned in The Guardian is to the shame of both Labour Students and the Labour Party.

Labour Students has an official website. People who read wikipedia are not stupid. If they want to read the official line on the organisation, they will visit the website and read it for themselves. Otherwise, the knowledge that others possess should be shared.

I suggest a compromise. If you really cannot accept that a few people might read a less than flattering summary of Labour Students, you should introduce a Criticism section and put any offending material in there. Then everyone who reads the page can know that the material in that section constitutes the opinions of those who criticise the organisation, and I'm sure they'll be enlightened enough to understand that not everyone will share those views. 79.64.102.205 21:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Happily, I'm not involved with the leadership of Labour Students, past or indeed present, so I think I'm exempt from that criticism. I came across this article precisely because of the Guardian piece.

I have to say I think you're contradicting yourself here. First off you say that "it is not vandalism that is being removed, it is knowledge". You then go on to call material which could go in a proposed Criticism section as "the opinions of those who criticise the organisation". The material must be either "knowledge" or "opinion"; it cannot be both.

I believe that the major Wikipedia guideline is that entries must constitute referenced knowledge, not hearsay and opinion. The parts being deleted are clearly assertion, not fact. If you doubt that simply look at the start of the sentences involved: "Labour Students is seen by some"; "Holding high office is perceived as a fast track to becoming an MP" (by whom?); "accusations remain" (from what source?); "According to many observers" (who?); "The excessive time commitment required to play a leading part in the national organisation has been blamed for some recent Labour Students leaders failing or dropping out of their degrees" (blamed by who?).

The very fact that this unsourced, critical material is being repeatedly included by someone points to their own bias against the organisation, for whatever reason. As Oliver Kamm pointed out in his Times column last week, this makes Wikipedia the "province of the covert lobby" rather than a site dealing in referenced fact, and is entirely pernicious.

It is not 'opinion' - it is knowledge about other people's opinions. If there was a reliance only on referenced meterial on a page about Labour Students, frankly there would not be a page. You can say the same for a very large number of pages on here. I'd like to think interested people could get some insight into the subject from Wikipedia even if the academic standards have to slip a little - readers are intelligent enough to understand not everything on here is gospel. Yet it is knowledge, contested and disputable as it always will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.184.248.21 (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Chairman

Is it still called Chairman?

1977 was Mike Jackson, if memory serves? Anyone else care to comment? --DaveLevy (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Trevor Philips

Was Philips ever a member of NOLS? I remember him as unaffiliated Broad Left, At least when I was treasure of BL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngilks (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

From memory, No. He addressed 1977 Conference as President of NUS which he won as Broad Left independent. DaveLevy (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labour Students. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110403050102/http://www.politicsstudent.co.uk/ to http://www.politicsstudent.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)