Talk:University of Sydney Students' Representative Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Adair Durie 2 Collectives 3 Our bloody SRC web site 4 Joe Hockey 5 2006 Election Dispute

[edit] Adair Durie

Wasn't Adair Students First (a liberal who left the group a week or two prior to the election), not Labor Right? Should the reason he was removed (was it that his election campaign exceeded the spending limit?) be mentioned? Or maybe it'd be getting a bit non-notable. Andjam 06:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard conflicting arguments about whether Durie was Liberal or Unity, but I happen to think that he fitted more with Unity. But I will fix that up. Braue 07:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Adair Durie was a member of the Liberal Students Club - his decision to leave the Club shortly before the election was to advance his campaign, not due to a change of heart. Post-election, he was welcomed back to the Liberal fold. See http://www.liberals-usyd.org/history.html . I would like to amend the article, but am posting this here for discussion purposes first. Jeendan 02:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collectives

It is POV to say that the SRC is "more interested" in broad campaigns than representation of students. Please stop editing it to say that. You should also have the spine to sign in and stop editing anonymously. Braue 15:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our bloody SRC web site

I can sympathise with the person adding the link to "our bloody SRC", but is the web site notable enough? Andjam 11:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe so. Certainly, if we wish to provide an unbiased perspective on the SRC, then surely all sources of information are relevant. Especially this one. Phanatical 15:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but as it's your website, adding it to Wikipedia yourself may leave you open to allegations of spamming.--cj | talk 15:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Your point is taken. Nevertheless, the value of the site cannot be disputed.

No, the value of the site can be disputed. It's a digital sh*t sheet against the SRC, and a consipiracy theory website. A lot of the things it claims are just bogus. Braue 22:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Such as what? Everything on that site is completely true. Phanatical 02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There is too much edit warring on the article, with 4 anti-OBSRC edits in a period barely more than 24 hours (3 from Braue, one from a new user). If you're going to call the web site a "**** sheet" and slanderous, it'd be appreciated if you back up your assertions with examples. I'm against the inclusion of the web site, but I'm also against dodgy behaviour. Andjam 11:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Everything on that site is completely true." - what you think is the truth. I'm sure there are others who would disagree with you. In the interests of maintaining NPOV around here, I think we should lose the link. enochlau (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is that much edit-warring. There has only been two reverts, not four, and after I did it once I decided not to touch that link again until there had been some discussion. I will come back later with some more information on why I don't think that link should be included on this page, but in particular I'd point to a few things. First of all, it makes misleading and dubious claims about the spending of the SRC, grossly exagerating the levels of spending on activism, as well as sexist and homophobic comments, and basically spreading Chinese government propsaganda about Falun Gong, which can be summarised in the quote "Protesting at a boy’s funeral. Demonising half the ethnic groups on campus, to support the other half. Funding the Falun Gong Cult. Gay and Lesbian Pride flags at an Education protest. Women’s Officers, without Men’s Officers." It does present a different view, and I'm not quite clear how much point-of-view is allowed in external links (links are often made to political websites which clearly have POV content), but surely a link which presents criticism of the SRC can be found which doesn't include the totally dodgy stuff you find on this website. I'm not going to remove the link again unless people seem to agree that it shouldn't be put up there, but it certainly isn't encyclopedic. Braue 13:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for the mistaken revert count. Andjam 22:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The website is clearly propaganda. It should only be used in that context. See Wikipedia:External links.--cj | talk 14:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Hockey

I don't think Joe Hockey was elected SRC President as Centre Unity. From memory, he was an "independent" with strong support from the Young Liberals.

I'd be interested in anyone else's recollections before I change the article - in case my memory is playing me false. Jeendan 03:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments, I have changed Joe Hockey's affiliation as SRC President. Jeendan 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Election Dispute

While appeals are in progress, I do not believe it's appropriate to really discuss these issues in Wikipedia.Phanatical 00:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not? I don't believe that when it comes to what is "appropriate" or not, an encyclopedia shouldn't be bound by that. If you think it's inaccurate, sure go ahead. But Wikipedia doesn't need to keep quiet about something because it's a legal dispute. Ben Raue (Talk) 06:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that it is a current legal dispute has no bearing on whether we discuss it on Wikipedia. What I am more interested in, is the question of whether the 2006 election dispute is noteworthy enough to be in a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure about how frequently election disputes of this nature occur with the SRC, but I'm sure that readers do not want the minutiae of every year's election unless it's important. enochlau (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)