Talk:National Union of Students (Australia)/Archive 1

Archive 1

List of affiliated organisations

I noticed that the two equivalent Canadian organisations, Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and Canadian Federation of Students, had a list of member unions at the bottom (click on one of the links and scroll to the bottom to see what I mean). I'm not quite sure how to so something like that for this article, but the information to do it is available from the NUS website. If someone else can add that, or atleast let me know how to do it (I'm happy to write it up), then that would be good. I know there probably aren't many articles for the affiliated student organisations yet, but they will get done soon, sooner if something like what I suggested is put up. Bambul☯ 09:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely - I've been meaning to start writing these student union articles myself, and a template would highlight the work that needs doing. I also think it'd be a good idea to have a List of student organisations in Australia article, which could then perhaps be part of a global set. Such a list could also include the political factions - and could also come in handy if more unis start disaffiliating from NUS if VSU comes in. Ambi 05:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've got something up. Not sure if the links are right, though it doesn't look like there are any articles up yet so it doesn't matter too much yet, I guess. Hopefully the gaps will get filled in and things cleaned up soon so that it doesn't just look like a sea of red, that hurts my eyes. - Bambul☯ 08:35, 1 June 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for getting it going. I've linked Melbourne and Victoria, though why ADFA is on that page on the NUS website I have no idea, considering as to my knowledge (and anyone else at my SA, considering that we're in the same city) they have no student union. I've also gone in and removed some abbreviations that went against naming conventions and some typos. Ambi 09:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the NBL no longer exists, and that Socialist Alternative and others (calling themselves "Grassroots Left") are operating as their own factions at NUS this year. Should this be changed on this page? Braue 01:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

NUS campaign tactics

This article brings back memories of my days at University of Central Queensland and the dirty tactics NUS representatives used to try and convince students to join in the late eighties. After I saw the misrepresentation of what NUS put forward on the benefits and cost of joining and the way they behaved in public debates, I lead a campaign against joining. UCQ student association eventually held a plebiscite and students voted overwhelmingly against membership, as did many regional universities. It even made the local television news. Garglebutt / (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The problems with NUS are not just limited to the National body. It has been my wish to rid the NUS and the more powerful SRC's of the corruption, but while UCQ might be able to break away from the corruption, I doubt the University of Sydney's gonna be able to. You might find my website, www.ourbloodysrc.com, of interest.Phanatical 15:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't NUS in its current form set up by Evan Thornley, with his wife as the first president?

Can anyone confirm the date? Was it not 1997?

I don't know what you're talking about, but NUS was set up in 1987. Braue 00:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Can student unions in Australia promise me a return of my marked assignments from the college(through their education officers)? I have heard that my college does not return assignments, and that that is a very common practise in Australia. Is this true, and, short of changing colleges/accepting it, what can I do? Thanks in advance. 218.111.168.171 19:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)SadAsian

5%

The comment about only 5% of members voting for office bearers is interesting if it can be substantiated but it shouldn't be just the ALSF that thinks that. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it mightn't be necessary - while probably true, it's too hard to source, and we've probably got as much as is NPOV about how damned corrupt the NUS is (although some more about the farcical conventions mightn't go astray). Ambi 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Office Bearers of the National Union of Students of Australia

Ok, this article is totally beyond what Wikipedia is for. This sort of infomation can be external linked to a website that has this information. This page serves little to no purpose other than to glorify people who had previously held positions on NUS. I don't see much point in having the page. I've tagged it so as to merge notable office bearers into the main article and then any additional information can be hosted somewhere else and linked to (Isn't there an NUS site with this information?). Alternatively merge the article into the main article with only the President and Gen Sec Office Bearers. -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 04:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not totally beyond what Wikipedia is for. It is not available elsewhere (at least all in one place), is a useful point of reference, and an interesting page in its own right. It has already survived an AfD, and belongs right here. As such, I have removed the merge tags. Ambi 04:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is totally inappropriate for any user to remove the merge tag on an article without a discussion. I have restored it and personally agree with Chanlord about the merger. I am concerned about the accuracy of the office bearers article too, where has the information been sourced from? DarrenRay 05:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any listings that you actually have reason to believe are wrong, or are you just launching ad hominems? Ambi 06:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The answer is to submit that information off-site (Perhaps on the NUS Website) or even set up a free site. There is no need for this information in Wikipedia apart from glorifing the position holders. I do see the vaildity of having the names of the main office bearers (Pres, Gen Sec). But I don't see the point of listing every office bearer of every state. If this main article or even the split article was of a good standard or sufficient length then I would be all for splitting it into another article, however at the moment neither of them are and the important information can be included in the main article. -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 05:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The important ones belong in the main article. The not-so-important ones belong in the spin-off article. This is the way of all Wikipedia articles. Ambi 06:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Chanlord, I agree with you on this. Some of the office bearer names are first names, eg "Rory". While a work in progress, I believe many of the names are invented although I can't be certain. I think Michael de Bruyn at NUS would be pleased to put up a list of their office bearers. He may even have a more accurate one than the pig's breakfast on Wikipedia. DarrenRay 05:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Pig's breakfast? This is a near-complete list of officebearers for all NUS positions. The people that are only first names should probably go, but no one has raised any reason to question any of the others there. Until that time, the accuracy argument remains baseless. Ambi 06:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What are the sources for all the information? Does NUS put out a list? DarrenRay 06:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Various sources. They're high enough profile positions to be receiving media coverage, and this is thus relatively easy (and at worst, not impossible) to verify. Again - do you actually believe any specific name here is wrong, or are you just making this up as you go along? Ambi 06:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Various sources, such as what? I agree they shouldn't be hard to verify, that's why I was asking about it. I have nominated the first name "Rory" as a potential concern, no doubt there are others we should be checking. DarrenRay 06:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And Ambi please stop removing the merge tags, I think the articles probably will merge after a reasoned discussion and by removing them you are disrupting that process, I'm sure unintentionally. DarrenRay 06:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a merge discussion, as you're proposing to delete virtually all of the other article. It has already passed AfD, and you're trying to use this to get around that via the back door. As for the sources - the media. Most of these people have spoken to the press in their position as an NUS representative, and that information is not hard to find. I'm not disputing that the first names shouldn't be there, but if you want to dispute the accuracy of any of the others, I challenge you to find one example in this long list that is wrong. Ambi 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

<-- Well as a (British) outside viewer, I think the list is totally OTT. There's no need for this level of detail; most of the people are not notable and would fail WP:BIO. I propose merging in the presidents list and abandoning the rest, as per National Union of Students of the United Kingdom. I'm aware that the article "survived AFD", but it was by no consensus and unfortunately nobody raised the NUS UK example. Recent events have shown that there is a large amount of Aussie student politics related cruft on Wikipedia and this is part of it. --kingboyk 09:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Many of the people here are notable in other realms, and this list is a useful source of reference for such things. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from deleting the vast amount of the information here. Ambi 04:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Precisely two non-Presidents are blue linked, which I don't count as "many" nor sufficient to justify the size of the list. I don't believe that anyone who wants to know who was Environment Officer of National Union of Students of Australia in 2003 is going to come to Wikipedia to find it out. Anyway, that's my opinion and is worth no more - and no less - than yours :) I'll shut up now and let's see what other folks have to say. --kingboyk 13:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they come to Wikipedia to find that out? Now that this list is here, they can. Ambi 22:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This merge suggestion is ridiculous because this article is far too long to be absorbed into another article. It's clear that many people would like to have it deleted. They can go to AfD with it if they want, but I feel fairly certain that the consensus will be to keep. Since there has been no discussion on this issue for two months, I am removing the merge tags. mgekelly 09:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability concerns

I agree that the Union itself is notable, but I have strong concerns about whether or not there should be individual articles on each of the chapters, unless they can be shown to be independently notable via third-party sources. --Elonka 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy

I note that the neutrality and factual accuracy of this page seems to be disputed, yet I see no discussion of this here as the tag seems to indicate. Can people who doubt factual accuracy please elaborate? LibStu 03:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

comment was here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Union_of_Students_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=136489791 there is a need for independent non-student organisation aligned references. Michellecrisp 04:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that, however, perhaps the appropriate tag would be one on lack of sources, rather than disputing factual accuracy? LibStu 07:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

there is no need to interpret the original tag as negative (I would have removed the whole line if I thought it was plainly too biased), Wikipedia needs independent sources over non-independent sources. Michellecrisp 07:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've change the tag to what I think more adequatly reflects our concerns. If you wish to revert it back, I shan't change it, but I think this tag is a better fit for what you're saying LibStu 09:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

National office bearers

I see no basis for this long list of office holders. It is normal for the top person, perhaps the top two, in an organisation to be named but not below that level. I propose that we thin this out accordingly. TerriersFan 03:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Australian Labor Students

I merged this in following the AfD since despite assertions of notability it is totally unsourced and fails WP:V. If it can be expanded into a sourced article that's fine but in my view it is better here until then. TerriersFan 16:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely welcome to your view, but until and unless you receive a consensus for that view, it will remain as a separate article. Rebecca 16:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

ALP and Coalition ideology

Do people think it's more precise to classify the ALP as social democratic, rather than center-left. By the same token do people think it's more precise to classify the Coalition as neoliberal, rather than center-right. If anyone has any input into this please see the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_federal_election%2C_2007#Description_of_ALP. Alans1977 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Update

This article is no longer accurate - executive and office bearers have changed. Does anyone have the updated list as it isn't on the website StuPol (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

NLC Merge

Just looking to merge the old NLC page into here, literally into the line:

The NLC has discontinued its relationship with the NUS as of April 2009 and has developed into a commercial operation much to the dismay of many international student organisations.

Post any concerns in the next couple of days. Australian Matt (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No response - will do the merge Australian Matt (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't. Unlike most of the other factions, there's actually quite a bit of press about this one - as the main advocacy body for international students, it (and it's internal conflicts) hit the papers repeatedly during the reports about the bashings of Indian students. Rebecca (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the NUAUS?

When I was at university in the early '70s, the national body was the National Union of Australian University Students (NUAUS). This was, I believe, the original body which later became the National Union of Students (NUSA), when the Union accommodated more than just university students, and later the Australian Union of Students, when the lefties decided that to commies the term "National" was anathema. This chronology is probably wrong in some particulars (the years have dimmed this once dynamic mind), but nevertheless, I was surprised to see that NUAUS gets no mention here, though historical references to it can be accessed through Google. It might be a good idea to have a table with the previous incarnations of this august body itemised, with dates. Otherwise, it is hard to follow. Myles325a (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Good thinking 99 - will do some research in spare time and write something up over the next couple of days Australian Matt (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Have put in a little bit of info on NUAUS - but might put together a timeline when it's all verifiable Australian Matt (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Factions

I added the East & West coast independents. As far as I am aware, there were essentially no liberals at last NUS, there were certainly none at the special meeting at USYD I'm not convinced they remain a major faction- tempted to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.105 (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm the same guy as above. I've removed the qualifier that Easte & West coast independents are minor factions because A) They each controlled more of the floor than the liberals who are listed as a major faction at last conference. B) They each controlled >15% of delegates from memory. I'm still not convinced that the Liberals constitute a major faction- or even a faction at all at the moment- but I'm willing to leave them in as a major faction becase whilst their numbers wax and wane, I'm sure they'll wax again at some stage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.105 (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Still same guy as above. I've decided to list the Liberals as a minor faction since only two liberals attended conference this year, and only one proxied at the special general meeting, out of hundreds of delegates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.32.23 (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Looking to merge National Organisation of Labor Students, as a past student faction, ino this page. This was similarly done to Australian Labor Students. Any issues or concerns with doing so - let me know :) Australian Matt (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any problem with this merge? Australian Matt (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me.  -- Lear's Fool 13:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok - will do Australian Matt (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

History of the Union

The history of the Union, which has its livewire moments, and its shameful ones, should be given priority here. I particularly remember that Nimbin had its beginning as Australia's showcase of hippie and alternative culture in the Aquarius Festival of 1973. In 1971, NUAUS's Arts Festival included over 100 student arrests in large demos against the Vietman War and apartheid in South Africa. New laws "summary offences" were passed to counter this other student insurgencies. There were over 1000 student arrests in 1971.

More shamefully, the Union passed as motion confirming UNQUALIFIED support for the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation). I think that might have been in 1973 or 1974. It was an outrageously provocative move, especially coming so soon after the Munich Massacre. The Jewish leagues of each constituent campus fought the motion campus by campus, and of course it was duly rescinded. I believe that campuses began to pull out of the Union then, and effectively it was emasculated. I also THINK that the motion had its main support in the Union from the Overseas Students Union, which was known to be particularly radical, as opposed to the vast majority of overseas students themselves.

I was a student at Newcastle University in the early 1970s, during a crucial and most volatile time in the history of Labor and left-wing politics. NUAUS was heavily involved in this movement, mostly for good, some for bad. It is sad to see that this history is so neglected here in Wikipedia. (The treatment of Australian subjects in general in Wikipedia is an international and local embarrassment. See my note in cetacean intelligence). I was not centrally placed in the Union, so I cannot make much of an inroad into this, but there were many delegates and officers of the time who are now pillars of the establishment, and who have better access to those records. It would be most satisfying if the ones who were closest to the action in those times, provided WP with a better exposition and analysis of some of the most interesting events of Australian post-war militancy, and at a time when NUAUS was the largest federation in Australia, and one of the most radical and active. Currently, this article as it stands would give the reader of the near future the impression it was never anything more than the smallest and most lackadaisical subdivision of the Fabian Society. And that was far from the case. Myles325a (talk)

Feel free to add some well sourced info to the article Australian Matt (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirection of faction articles to this article

I have been bold and redirected National Labor Students, Student Unity and Australian Liberal Students' Federation to National Union of Students#Delegates and factions (per the alternatives to deletion policy). My rationale is that none of the factions have particularly broad coverage in reliable sources (I think it would be a stretch to claim either meets the general notability guideline), and that the articles themselves were dominated by largely un-referenced commentary and lists of office bearers. If one were to remove all of this problematic material, one would be left with little more than a one-line description of each faction's political affiliation (which is already in this article) and news-bites of borderline encyclopedic value. As such, I submit that it is editorially preferable for them to redirect to this article.  -- Lear's Fool 13:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No big issue with the move -- you may encounter some resistance from the ALSF one in particular -- which has a bit more coverage than SU & NLS Australian Matt (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion you have been overly-bold, and this redirect of factions to NUS misses the point that these are somewhat indpendant organisations which come to NUS. Similar to a party in a parliamentary system (Liberal party, Labor party, Greens etc, in relation to parliament of Australia). If they were too irrelevant to note that is one thing, but in my opinion, the history of these organisations (together with their preceeding organisations) are very easily enough for an article on their own. (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

to the point that their integrity and inability to reference is reason enough to merge with another article of quite different content; I would disagree. If there is a problem with the content or referencing, it should be indicated as such, but not simply deleted and redirected to a confusing seperate organisation. It should be edited, and tagged as needing increased referencing. I can see the previous 10 changes before you redirect and a few following it were quite inaccurate and likely written by political opponants. This is an issue unto itself. (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the listing of the factions is appropriate in the Delegates and Factions section of the NUS page until one of NLS, SU & ALSF merit an article of their own. There is little to no coverage in reliable sources of their organisational history. Which article are you referring to when writing about the 'previous 10 changes'? Australian Matt (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I see what you mean by the comparison to Parliament, but we are not dealing with well established, notable political entities. As Lear's Fool notes above, the small amount of potentially encyclopaedic material regarding each faction is already in this article. There is no inaccuracy with listing the ties to youth wings of Australian political parties - but that's about it notability wise. If and when they receive broader coverage (like Socialist Alternative, for example, and even that article is bloated and self-referencing), then greater coverage of the student factions could be considered. Australian Matt (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I must echo what Matt has said: while I understand your comparison to Australian Parliament, the objective difference between the Greens (say) and the student factions is that the Greens are the subject of coverage in reliable sources, while the factions are not. Don't get me wrong, I find the factions (and their history) quite fascinating, and would love it if there were enough sources to support an article, but there aren't. Contrary to what many articles may look like, it is against one of our fundamental principles to include information that cannot be verified by reliable sources. Finally, I would just note that it is generally considered poor form to cast aspersions about editors' motives, as you did on my talkpage. Neither Matt nor I are trying to quash coverage or insert bias: I redirected the articles in good faith because (unfortunately) none of them had enough sourcing to sustain them.  -- Lear's Fool 13:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey everybody i dont think that is approprate, and dont agree that this merge represents a true and accutate view of the factions. Users should be able to understand the thinkings behind and the nature behind the factions with in the NUS. seeing that most Factions have websites the credibity is there simply not linked. i am opposed to this merge and suggess that we flag the factions sites as needing sources. Bcolless (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to above comments by lear's, Bcolless, Matt; The main concern is not so much related to whether they have sources currently linked to information on the pages, but to the inaccurate depiction of them simply as 'factions' within the NUS, which is incorrect, and misleading and confusing to readers. They are organisations unto themselves, which dialogue within NUS, but are not simply NUS factions. I see little harm in them having their own apges, especially if it allows readers to learn about what they in fact are (including the part of their actions which involve NUS). There are reportings on happenings within factions, but unfortunately they have not been linked here. This is partially due to student reporting being slow to publish their articles online (and keep them there). Perhaps those moving these articles to NUs could try and contribute to the referencing of the pages, and flag it as needing more references. Yobsta (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To deal with your first point, you are free to update the content in this article to more accurately reflect the roles of the factions. More broadly, however, I feel you misunderstand the way sourcing works on Wikipedia. It is not acceptable to include unreferenced and unverifiable material and slap a {{citation needed}} template on it in the hope that someone else, in the future, will reference it. When articles consist almost exclusively of this content (as they do here), they should be deleted or (as in this case) merged into an appropriate article. Furthermore, it is incorrect that I have redirected these articles without attempting to find sources. I searched extensively for reliable sources, and it was only after I was confident that there were insufficent sources to support the articles that I redirected them.  -- Lear's Fool 00:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Factions again

There seems to be some controversy over the list of factions, since an edit I made a few days ago was changed. Here are my rationales:

National independents, National Labor students & Student Unity are listed as major organizations because they are large groupings (each well over 20%.) We can also see the merit in this approach when we divide up the executive 7 to National independents (3 state presidents and 4 general spots) 6 to National Labor students (2 state presidents and four general spots) and 5 to Student Unity (2 state presidents and 3 general spots) with the Liberals holding a spot as well (1 general spot).

The Grassroots left is not listed as a seperate faction to the National independents (despite a recent counter edit to mine), because the members of both these putatively different factions caucused jointly and voted en bloc at the 2011 conference. Nor are the west coast independents, Tasmanian independents, or the largely Greens based Victorian independent grouping regarded as seperate, for the simple reason that all these factions caucused together and voted together as national independents. I would not be adverse to a listing of sub-factions across the major factions, if it pleases, but counting sub-factions is difficult, murky and subjective so I'd suggest against it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.32.24 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason I, personally, would describe the 'National Independents' differently is because while the groups caucus together nationally, they exist as completely distinct groups otherwise. In actual politics, the coalition parties may vote together in parliament as a very stable bloc with a lot of crossover but we still observe the distinctions between the LNP, Liberals, Nationals and CLP when describing them in a more academic sense. If there were a broad left caucus, like there once was, which included Socialist Alternative then I think we would both also list them distinctly due to their distinctly different organising outside of the three day NUS conference. I don't see much difference here (nor do I see the huge controversy?) but it's also student politics so I can't really be bothered starting a dispute over it. PeacockTango (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2014

Beneath the listings of students to have held positions within the NUS is a list of positions within the state branches and what students have held them. My name ("Elisa Westmore") is listed here beneath "Queensland" under "Queer Officer" for the year 2008, along with my affiliation with the National Labor Students faction. I wish for my listing to be completely removed (no name, no position, no affiliation - I dont want to be on this page at all), as this page is one of the first results obtained after googling my name, and I don't want to expose my sexuality or political affiliations to any potential employers who might google me after receiving a job application. Ughusernames (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: While I appreciate your concern, the information is hidden well (I had trouble finding it myself). As we are unable to verify your identity on-wiki, feel free to email info-en-qwikimedia.org. They will be able to verify your identity, and take further action. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 14:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding issues with the list of factions, I have removed the vast lists of individuals on whom we will almost certainly never have articles, and whose only source is the primary source. Directories of past and present officers can safely be left to the NUS(A) website, unless and until there is evidence of indepnedent coverage of these people. Obviously a list of notable past and present members would be fine. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

List of office bearers should be brought back

Why were the tables of office bearers removed? It was a very useful resource for the page. There are plenty of analogous articles which include tables of office bearers without the particular individuals named being notable in and of themselves:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Sydney_Students%27_Representative_Council - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberal_Federation#National_Liberal_Federation_officers - There is even a list with its own page for the NUS UK! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_National_Union_of_Students_(United_Kingdom) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Students#Complete_List_of_Chairpersons - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Communist_League_(Britain)#National_Secretaries_.28General_Secretaries.29 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTS_Union - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Australian_Postgraduate_Associations

I request that the tables of office bearers be brought back immediately! HappyRhino24 (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There aren't outside sources for any of it, I'm afraid, and Wikipedia requires Wikipedia:Reliable sources for material in order to be included in articles. I'm also afraid that this post is more likely to lead to the deletion of all of the above than it is to see the previous lists returned here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Bloat

This article is constantly being padded out with trivial information whose significance is nevcer established by reference to reliable independent sources. The only justification ever given is "it's useful" - but that's not a content inclusion criterion in the absence of reliable independent sources. In fact the entire article relies on primary sources and factoids added by people with some involvement. Please, please stop adding trivia and start adding sourced material. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Return of factions section and addition of new section on organisational crisis

In attempt to bring together an accurate picture of the current crisis NUS is going through, I've put the faction section back (with citations) and added a new section that summarizes a number of reports covering the organisation's current structural and financial issues. As the structural problems have been linked to the issue of factions, I though it wise to bring the factions section back to give context to issue. Planetofpants (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"New Matilda", catalyst and Honi Soit do not appear to pass WP:RS. The Australian, of course, is fine. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

New Matilda is a reliable source that shouldn't be arguable, especially on a subject of this nature. They're an outlet that has broken much bigger stories than this. I also think it's questionable (though I will grant that that's at least arguable) that university newspapers aren't reliable sources on coverage of the national student union, particularly when there are several of them supporting uncontroversial points. NUS is an intensely factionalised organisation, and that more in-depth information is critical context to organising the surrounding material; you can leave it out if you want, but it would make Wikipedia's coverage comparatively useless compared to anything else they'd find in Google, most of which should pass a sufficient bar to make our content not crap. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:RS and if necessary ask at WP:RSN. From my long experience, it does not seem to meet the guidelines. Regardless, material that is subject to challenge does not get revert-warred back in, it stays out until there is consensus that it is properly sourced. I am not acting as an admin here, but, being an admin with some years of experience, I have some experience in these things. I have no interest in the topic other than to police, as noted above, the constant addition of poorly-sourced material pertaining in the most part to living people, so please have a care and just bring better sources, eh? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

On what basis? It's a respected investigative journalist outfit who broke a number of fairly significant stories last year. The editor is a respected journalist who formerly edited a newspaper and a magazine which are both unquestionable WP:RS. One of their main journalists holds a Walkley Award for her reporting on a story so significant that most Australians still remember the case and its fallout. The rest of their staff are journalists. Reverting on the basis "Do not appear" and "does not seem to meet" do not address that. I'm not trying to edit war, but if you're going to take significant material out based on sourcing concerns, you need to do better than that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

Please change "Adelaide University Union SRC (AUU SRC)" under the section, "Union affiliation", to "University of Adelaide Student Representative Council". The Adelaide University Union and University of Adelaide Student Representative Council are different incorporated associations and don't share any part of their names. Thanks BeeJS (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  03:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2017

Please change the former Officebearers to the new Officebearers seen below: Bruzzz10 (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)