![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The FDA changed its name to "FDA" in 2000. The "First Division Association" is, therefore, no longer in existence.
Additionally, the FDA is a registered trade union, and has been for decades. Guineveretoo ( talk) 02:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Could you please clarify what we're discussing here? ie what do you both believe the name of the article should be? Thanks.
Chzz
►
00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I just clarify what we're discussing here? As I understand it, Guineveretoo thinks that the article should be called FDA (trade union), whereas Haldraper thinks it should be First Division Association. Is that correct? Chzz ► 00:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I have just checked on the website; I note that, in every instance on the site, they refer to themselves as the FDA. I also noted the following section;
What does the FDA stand for?
Across government we are known simply as 'The FDA', which is less of a mouthful than our erstwhile proper name: the Association of First Division Civil Servants.
This was the name registered in 1918 when the organisation was founded to protect the interests of senior civil servants, who were at that time known as the 'first division' within the civil service hierarchy.
Over a period of decades, what became widely known as the 'First Division Association' established a reputation for successfully representing the interests of senior managers and professionals in government. Given the public sector's fondness for acronyms, the moniker 'the First Division Association' evolved naturally into 'the FDA'.
The union formally adopted the FDA as its name in the year 2000.
Based upon this information, in an ideal world, the article should simply be called "FDA', however, as we have the considerably more notable U.S. Food and Drug Administration, we need an addition to the name.
As there is some disagreement over the term trade union), I also noted that the website states, "We are a professional association and union for the UK's senior public servants..." (reference here).
Therefore, I propose the following name; FDA (professional association).
We should also have a redirect from "First Division Association" and "Association of First Division Civil Servants", both pointing to the article.
I also suggest that the article should begin as follows;
I welcome any comments. Chzz ► 00:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Definition of a trade union
1.19 Section 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provides as follows: “In this Act, a “trade union” means an organisation (whether temporary or permanent) - (a) which consists wholly or mainly of workers of one or more descriptions and whose principal purposes include the regulation of relations between workers of that description or those descriptions and employers or employers’ associations; or (b) which consists wholly or mainly of – (i) constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil the conditions in paragraph (a) (or themselves consist wholly or mainly of constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil those conditions), or (ii) representatives of such constituent or affiliated organisations, and whose principal purposes include the regulation of relations between workers and employers or between workers and employers’ associations, or the regulation of relations between its constituent or affiliated organisations.”
that the organisation is a trade union or employers’ association."
We're getting into 'Through the Looking Glass', 'A word means exactly what I choose it to mean' territory here, except that instead of Humpty Dumpty you have awarded an obscure state official, the certification officer, the final, unchallengeable say on what is and what isn't a trade union: 'Dorset Landowners Association you're in, sorry Tolpuddle martyrs your papers weren't in on time' -:) Haldraper ( talk) 11:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Guineveretoo, I think we've exhausted this debate and I object to being called 'strange' and 'weird' for raising reasoned objections to calling the FDA a trade union.
Haldraper (
talk)
20:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why it is particularly relevant to wikipedia what Jonathan Baume said at the TUC in 2006. He has spoken at every TUC for years, but only this one speech has been referenced - last year, he successfully moved a motion, and lead a debate, in support of the Equality Bill. Guineveretoo ( talk) 19:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
What has happened to all the information which was on the page? It was sourced from the FDA website, from the TUC and from the certification officer. Isn't that sufficient? I understanding removing stuff which is just a report that someone is supposed to have said something, but it now looks like virtually the whole page has been removed! Guineveretoo ( talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this revert. Please can somebody tell me:
If the response to the above is nothing better that 'it's referenced', as the original revert suggested, then I'll be requesting a third opinion as to the merit of including this material. People should be under no illusion that there is no barrier in policy to the removal innappropriate material, referenced or not. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
FDA (trade union). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on FDA (trade union). 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The FDA changed its name to "FDA" in 2000. The "First Division Association" is, therefore, no longer in existence.
Additionally, the FDA is a registered trade union, and has been for decades. Guineveretoo ( talk) 02:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Could you please clarify what we're discussing here? ie what do you both believe the name of the article should be? Thanks.
Chzz
►
00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I just clarify what we're discussing here? As I understand it, Guineveretoo thinks that the article should be called FDA (trade union), whereas Haldraper thinks it should be First Division Association. Is that correct? Chzz ► 00:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I have just checked on the website; I note that, in every instance on the site, they refer to themselves as the FDA. I also noted the following section;
What does the FDA stand for?
Across government we are known simply as 'The FDA', which is less of a mouthful than our erstwhile proper name: the Association of First Division Civil Servants.
This was the name registered in 1918 when the organisation was founded to protect the interests of senior civil servants, who were at that time known as the 'first division' within the civil service hierarchy.
Over a period of decades, what became widely known as the 'First Division Association' established a reputation for successfully representing the interests of senior managers and professionals in government. Given the public sector's fondness for acronyms, the moniker 'the First Division Association' evolved naturally into 'the FDA'.
The union formally adopted the FDA as its name in the year 2000.
Based upon this information, in an ideal world, the article should simply be called "FDA', however, as we have the considerably more notable U.S. Food and Drug Administration, we need an addition to the name.
As there is some disagreement over the term trade union), I also noted that the website states, "We are a professional association and union for the UK's senior public servants..." (reference here).
Therefore, I propose the following name; FDA (professional association).
We should also have a redirect from "First Division Association" and "Association of First Division Civil Servants", both pointing to the article.
I also suggest that the article should begin as follows;
I welcome any comments. Chzz ► 00:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Definition of a trade union
1.19 Section 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provides as follows: “In this Act, a “trade union” means an organisation (whether temporary or permanent) - (a) which consists wholly or mainly of workers of one or more descriptions and whose principal purposes include the regulation of relations between workers of that description or those descriptions and employers or employers’ associations; or (b) which consists wholly or mainly of – (i) constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil the conditions in paragraph (a) (or themselves consist wholly or mainly of constituent or affiliated organisations which fulfil those conditions), or (ii) representatives of such constituent or affiliated organisations, and whose principal purposes include the regulation of relations between workers and employers or between workers and employers’ associations, or the regulation of relations between its constituent or affiliated organisations.”
that the organisation is a trade union or employers’ association."
We're getting into 'Through the Looking Glass', 'A word means exactly what I choose it to mean' territory here, except that instead of Humpty Dumpty you have awarded an obscure state official, the certification officer, the final, unchallengeable say on what is and what isn't a trade union: 'Dorset Landowners Association you're in, sorry Tolpuddle martyrs your papers weren't in on time' -:) Haldraper ( talk) 11:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Guineveretoo, I think we've exhausted this debate and I object to being called 'strange' and 'weird' for raising reasoned objections to calling the FDA a trade union.
Haldraper (
talk)
20:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why it is particularly relevant to wikipedia what Jonathan Baume said at the TUC in 2006. He has spoken at every TUC for years, but only this one speech has been referenced - last year, he successfully moved a motion, and lead a debate, in support of the Equality Bill. Guineveretoo ( talk) 19:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
What has happened to all the information which was on the page? It was sourced from the FDA website, from the TUC and from the certification officer. Isn't that sufficient? I understanding removing stuff which is just a report that someone is supposed to have said something, but it now looks like virtually the whole page has been removed! Guineveretoo ( talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding this revert. Please can somebody tell me:
If the response to the above is nothing better that 'it's referenced', as the original revert suggested, then I'll be requesting a third opinion as to the merit of including this material. People should be under no illusion that there is no barrier in policy to the removal innappropriate material, referenced or not. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
FDA (trade union). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on FDA (trade union). 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)