Talk:University of Melbourne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	University of Melbourne is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

The Globe is the University's student newspaper? From what I recall Farrago was the student newspaper. --Robert Merkel 23:55, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC) The Universities Newspaper is Uni News, it comes out fortnightly on a Friday and contains a wealth of information about the University, highlighting, council and research activities

Contents 1 Lots of work required here 2 Removing the factual innacuracies tag 3 compulsory collection of fee 4 Australia's Most prestigious University 5 Most grants from the ARC? 6 Largest Faculty? 7 Famous alumni? 8 Requested move 8.1 Voting 8.2 Discussion 9 Naming: *#! Definite Article 10 University of Melbourne Colleges Template 11 Labor Club and ALP Club 12 MERGE from University of Melbourne student services 13 Founding 14 Anti-VSU 15 Origins of the word Prosh 16 Architecture 17 Prosh Week 18 Growing Esteem criticism

[edit] Lots of work required here

(1) The discussion of recent events in student politics is quite out of place. That text should be moved to a Melbourne University student unions page.

(2) In the years of Alan Gilbert's recent leadership, key features include the establishment of Melbourne University Private, the University's inaugural leadership of Universitas21, and a strong public advocacy for greater private funding of higher education in Australia.

(3) A significant aspect of David Penington's leadership was the fight the university had with the state government of John Cain over the form of assessment for high school students, the Victorian Certificate of Education. - VC 2004 - Kwong Lee Dow was intergral in forming the VCE

(4) Arising out of the 60's, before its demise in the late 80's, was a remarkable experiment in university governance, the Melbourne University Assembly. There is a good book around about that somewhere, edited by Chris Francis.

(5) Yes, Farrago is the student newspaper. Not sure if there were others tho.

(6) membership of the Australian Vice Chancellor's Committee and, more recently, the Group of Eight.

(7) University of Melbourne (Florida) was a small school from 1953 to 1961 and was later absorbed by Florida Institute of Technology. Perhaps there needs to be a split.

Well fix it, dear anonymous user.

With respect to point (1), some mention of MUSU and its controversies is relevant. The student union is a reasonably major part of the undergrad experience. The others sound reasonable. --Robert Merkel 08:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It certainly isn't for me, and it might not be for a lot of students next year, with the new government legislation. Jonmmorgan 02:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(8) random associated notes, that I will assist in looking at - The student union issue needs to remain central to the affairs of the university, as this has resulted in an interem council being appointed (by the student body - without the bribing vouchers of the previous administration

(9) I do not believe that the University of Melbourne in Florida become a disambiguation, as the University has an international represntation, and the title should be changed to The University of Melbourne as appears on all offical documents.

(10) that the faculties are listed, and there is a discussion about Melbourne's responce to the Nelson reforms, the University is the only one in Australia to offer dual fee courses - that is Australian Fee and CSP for double degreees... however, I am new to this game and think that is am important area

(11) The phrase "The University has almost 40,000 students, who are supported by nearly 6,000 staff" is a bit flippant. A large number of staff members in any research university, including Melbourne, have little to no contact with students, whether they be in administrative or research roles. I'm being nitpicky, but it gives the article the impression it was written by a self-centered undergrad. It's a university, not a high school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.253.35.62 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Removing the factual innacuracies tag

I'm removing the tag asking for factual claims to be verified. It's not really clear what section is being referred to, but if anyone knows of any errors, than they can simply be corrected. As it stands, most of the article's claims are straightforward, and I can't see much discussion here about what's actually innacurate (apart from the Farrago mistake, pointed out more than a year ago), the tag seems unnecesary. --Brendanfox 12:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added the tag when I added the list of colleges; its purpose was that I couldn't find information on all of their founding dates via their web sites. --De Guerre 04:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] compulsory collection of fee

This is the actual text of the bill. It prohibits "compulsory collection" not "collection":

(1) A higher education provider must not: (a) require a person to be or to become a member of an organisation of students, or of students and other persons; or (b) require a person enrolled with, or seeking to enrol with, the provider to pay to the provider or any other entity an amount in respect of an organisation of students, or of students and other persons; unless the person has chosen to be or to become a member of the organisation. (2) A higher education provider must not require a person enrolled with, or seeking to enrol with, the provider to pay to the provider or any other entity an amount for the provision to students of an amenity, facility or service that is not of an academic nature, unless the person has chosen to use the amenity, facility or service.

So don't try to make it seem anything different. Xtra 12:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australia's Most prestigious University

I notice the people removing it are from WA and SA. Is it a coincidence? Xtra 09:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I notice people adding the claim are from Melbourne. Is it a coincidence? Seriously though, the claim was conjecture and not supported by any valid reference. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

First off, Xtra, what sort of assertions are you making? Because I am from Western Australia I am anti-Melbourne or something? Moving beyond the ridiculous, the Melbourne newspaper article which was cited did not even support the claim that the university was Australia's most prestigious. It said "...has changed the culture of our most prestigious place of learning". Since it is from a Melbourne newspaper, for all we know they mean Victoria's most prestigious place of learning. True, it does go on to say "most prestigious academic job in Australia", but that does not mean "job at most prestigious university in Australia". A quick Google search brings up very mixed results, which seem to favour the University of Sydney being the most prestigious in website comments (though probably largely due to identical text put out by the university itself). So you could say "Melbourne University is arguably the most prestigious university in Australia", but you could equally say "Melbourne University is arguably not the most prestigious university in Australia". This sort of conjecture should be avoided unless we refer to a reputable source one way or the other, such as the Good Universities Guide or whichever organisations perform rankings of universities by prestige. - Mark 03:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Come on... my comment about you was tongue in cheek. P.S. the only way to validly identify prestige is by asking every employer and consumer "given two people with absolutely identical degrees, but one says X uni and one says Y uni, which would you choose?" Xtra 05:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

There is little doubt that Melbourne University is overall one of the top two or three most prestigious Australian universities. But to separate it out and say that it is arguably the top university is like saying "Oxford is the most prestigious university in the UK", which the University of Oxford article does not do because of the difficulty separating it from Cambridge. I think we should follow their example here. - Mark 14:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

According to The Age, The Times higher education supplement ranked Melbourne as #19 in the world, ahead of ANU at #23 and Monash at #33. I've cited this in the article. --bainer (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a much better source to cite. :) - Mark 08:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Not that its ranking proves prestige, of course :P.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I was just reading about that in "Uni News" today. Xtra 09:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It only proves anything to the extent that one trusts the Times. But at least it's an NPOV way of sticking it to USyd etc. --bainer (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The latest THES ranking, and more specifically the peer-review component, does however support the view that Melbourne is the most prestigious university in the country. The THES panel included some 2500 academics from around the world.

My response to that is: Bah!

Firstly, "prestige" isn't determined by a panel, it's an intangible quality.

Secondly, had anyone on this panel heard the names Oxford, Harvard or MIT??? The obsession with Melbourne's prestige now starts to look pretty silly. . . Slac speak up! 19:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

the most prestigious university in the country. Not the world. I don't see what's wrong with stating that UM is prestigious. It has a hell of a lot to do with why it attracts students, IMO. Few if any people would disagree that the Go8 unis are more prestigious than the NGU unis (see [1]). Quibbling about ANU vs Sydney vs Melbourne, silly, yeah. But prestige is a big part of why UM is important. pfctdayelise 01:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Stating that it is prestigious is enough without saying it is the most. It's definitely up there with USyd and ANU, but I don't really see the need to get into a pissing contest among the three. Ambi 01:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne Uni has the highest (HECS - or HELP, whatever it is these days) entry score requirements of any University in Australia. Entry scores (ie ENTER/UAI etc) measure the demand for a particular course. If Melbourne has the highest ones, then it has the highest demand for its courses, and thus could be seen as the most prestigious uni in Australia. Of course this should be used in conjunction with its world ranking etc.Suicup 07:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a student at MU and have a pretentious disregard for all things Sydney/NSW, however, it seems like this whole rankings thing has gone a little too far. Cornell University (featured) only includes the sentence "Cornell ranks among the world's top universities" with a nice reference in its introduction, and in my opinion not much more than that is really justified here. Any objections/thoughts? • Leon 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Right now there are two paragraphs worth of ranking information. Surely that is excessive? IMO, the name of the indice/source/whatever doesn't need to be mentioned in the article. Simply footnote the relevant statement, and include it there. How about:

"Melbourne University is one of the most prestigious universities in Australia,[1] and ranks among the world's top universities.[2] Melbourne is particularly strong in the fields of the arts, humanities and biomedicine.[3]"Suicup 10:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good one. Although "world's top universities" does sound a little rich to me, I think it's probably the most succinctly accurate summary User:Leon...

I took the plunge and condensed it even further. It doesn't actually offer much information about the university, and I think those folks from Cornell are rather on the ball.• Leon 05:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked your version slightly as IMO my one sounds better. However feel free to change it back. Cheers on bringing this issue to light! Suicup 12:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just condensed to one sentence, added another reference, and clarified areas of note according to 2005 THES rankings. Thanks for the support! • Leon 01:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most grants from the ARC?

Please have a look that this site from the Australian Research Council. It clearly shows that Melbourne University did not get the most new funding in 2005. It ranked fifth, behind USyd, ANU, UNSW and UQld: www.arc.gov.au/info_users/factsheet_statsoverview.htm

That page doesn't say if it's NEW funding or total funding. If it's the latter, UM might have been 5th overall but had the great %age or flat increase in funding. ('Flat' is not the right word, but I can't remember it right now, damn.) Also, please sign your comments on Talk pages by typing 4 tildes like this: ~~~~. pfctdayelise 14:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't explicitly state that it is new or existing, but if you go to the Media Release section of the ARC site, it is apparent that the reference is to NEW funding. I can't find the exact source for it, but I'm pretty sure that in 2004, UM was either second or third overall (correct me if I am wrong). And thansk for the advice re the tildes Cleric71 07:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Cleric71

[edit] Largest Faculty?

If find it a little inconsistent that Arts is listed as the largest faculty with 6,400 students, while I have written on the Faculty of Science page that Science has over 6,500. I'm pretty sure that Arts still is the largest faculty, but I think that Science is probably second (which the article says is Medicine). Incidentally is the 6,400 undergraduate or overall students? My figure is from the Faculty of Sciences' Webpage, and includes both. [2] seems to be a good reference for enrolment numbers, but won't give the most recent data to non-staff. If you follow that link and select Historical & Summary Stats, then Load & Enrolments by Faculty, there is a document that puts Arts at 7,222 and Science at 6,328 (for 2004). I feel that this shows an inaccuracy with this article, and needs to be fixed. Matt73 01:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm changing it because noone else has. Incidentally, how could such inaccurate stats get put there? And left for at least 6 months? cf [3] Medicine only has 4,921 (not 5,800) and thats Gross Students, even students who only did 1 subject. Matt73 05:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous alumni?

A section for famous alumni?

Good ideaLeon... 00:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming: *#! Definite Article

Even if WP guidelines (which must be right?) say the article title shouldn't contain "the", that is no reason to leave it out of the text of the article. Besides, there's always an exception: see The The for example ;-) —DIV (128.250.204.118 05:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] University of Melbourne Colleges Template

I have created a template for the Colleges and added it to the bottom of the page. If you like it, it should be added to each of the College pages. Add {{University of Melbourne Colleges}} to the bottom of the College page. To look at it see Template:University of Melbourne Colleges. I would do this myself, but I am off soon to Sydney for a Workshop. --Bduke 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see they have already been added to the College articles, so at least one person likes them. --Bduke 05:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. Should encourage the rest to be created. pfctdayelise 05:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Should Ridley come off the template? There is now a page for Ridley that says it is no longer a Melbourne Uni College. --Bduke 03:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't know that. I edited the template to show Ridley is a former college. I think it should stay, but with some kind of notice. If people don't like the way I put it I guess they will change it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems a good solution. --Bduke 04:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labor Club and ALP Club

Someone flagged these for merging in with the University of Melbourne article, but on one of the talk pages, when they should go on the receiving and giving article main pages. I have fixed that up. However, now to comment. This makes no sense. There are other Melbourne University Student Clubs with their own articles - Football, Maountaineering and Basketball. There is also a Student Union article. So the choices are:-

1. No merge - leave as is.
2. Merge into Student Union page.
3. Combine into a single articles - "Left Clubs at the University of Melbourne".

There could be contention that the Labor Club could be considered a "left club" NcLean 10:05, 15 Feb 2006

1. Combine into a single articles - adding the Liberals etc into "University of Melbourne Student Political Clubs".

If you have thoughts add them below. --Bduke 05:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A better solution would be a Uni Melb student clubs or Uni Melb student politics. Merging with the Uni article makes little sense as these clubs don't have any formal affiliation with the Uni, only the Student Union. Theusualsuspect 00:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A Melb Uni Clubs page is a good idea, but there could be too much info for just one article. Xtra 00:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. The main university article shouldn't be cluttered with such information. How about an article on Melbourne Uni student politics? Matt73 12:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Although the political wranglings of the (former) student union are notable, these should be considered separately from the academic body of the University. The political clubs have had less direct interaction with and influence upon academic activity than faculty societies or even More Beer NcLean 10:05, 15 Feb 2006

That's not true. A lot of University programs were proposed and (until the liquidation of MUSU) co-run and funded by a student union administration dominated by one or another political (usually Labor or ALP) club.Theusualsuspect 21:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Putting those arguments aside for now, the question is what, if any, is an appropriate merge target. I think NcLean's point was that they shouldn't be merged to University of Melbourne because they're really more relevant to Melbourne University student unions, which is a valid point. The other options would be something like student politics at the University of Melbourne (to tie in with student politics in Australia), or perhaps student societies at the University of Melbourne. I think the former (student politics...) is my preferred option, since it could discuss all of the clubs and factions in the one place. --bainer (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MERGE from University of Melbourne student services

• Merge: I am not alumnus but I think the student services page should be on this page too. AChan 12:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The University of Melbourne student services article is rather too long to merge into this one, particularly since UMSU has not yet been merged into it. There seem to be plenty of parties wishing to see detail on student unions which would need to be truncated to avoid making this article excessively long. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Shall we toss a coin?. AChan 12:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, given your disruptive edits during your first couple of hours on wikipedia, I assume it will be a two headed coin. ;) Garglebutt / (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose merger as per the reasons given by User:Garglebutt--A Y Arktos 22:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• NO request by disruptive editor. OPPOSE. Xtra 23:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: As student services are soon to become optional as a part of "The Melbourne Experience" a merge would be unwise. Jonmmorgan 02:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tag. There is obviously no support for this merger. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Founding

Is it really accurate to say that the university was "founded by Hugh Chilvers" or was he merely the first vice-chancellor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fat Red (talk • contribs).

[edit] Anti-VSU

When did the idea come about that VSU will 'severely' diminish services? I could possibly understand the use of something like 'VSU is likely to diminish some services', but considering that the legislation hasn't even come into effect yet, I think that stating that services will be 'severely' diminished is premature. MickBarnes 02:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that services will be diminished given that they will be getting about half their normal funding. But i see your point. How about: "However, given the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism from the 1st July, 2006, it is likely the services and activities offered by this new Union will be diminished."Suicup 04:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I reckon that's a better description, and better avoids the alarmist predictions that CSU advocates are making. MickBarnes 05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but have you read any of the minutes or reports of UMSU? They are clearly not in a position that any other student union is. Where is the evidence that services at Melbourne Uni will be diminished? The Age reported that UniMelb was putting aside $6 million this year. Reports from the President indicate that the University will continue this funding for several years.Theusualsuspect 23:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Diminished does not mean abolished. Total ASF revenue is around $13mill. Assuming 30% membership next year, this will mean a drop of $9million dollars in ASF revenue. The $6 million from the University doesn't replace all of that. Thus, amenities and services will be diminished because the total funding will decrease. I agree with you that Melb is in the best position of any University, however this doesn't mean that the activities and services will remain the same.Suicup 03:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of the word Prosh

An anonymous contributor has claimed that the 'chief' theory for the origin of the word was due to a charity procession. I'm happy for it to stay in the article, however i'm curious as to how he knows/found out, simply because as a student at the uni, and having participated in Prosh week many times i have never heard of that definition.Suicup 09:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a bit elaborate. I'd be looking for connections with French prochain (last) myself. But w/out cites this is all just folk etymology. Slac speak up! 02:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there's an article in journal somewhere on the etymology of 'prosh'.... :) Suicup 06:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Proshesshion(sic)was a fairly common explaination amongst Foul-ies in the early 90's. Apparently the story goes that the clubs and societies would dress up and hold a clubs and societies procession down to the museum/library on Latrobe street and back. I agree about the folk etymology. Early issues of student newspapers would be in compactus at the Bailleu Library, or as part of the union archives. Alas I am not in Melbourne...Markjohndaley 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture

It seems to me like the Architecture section contains far too many external links. If it doesn't bother anyone, I'd like to remove them all and place links at the bottom of the page. 128.250.6.243 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (who was actually • Leon 03:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

Oops, I realised that this applies to the Student Services section as well. Any objections to a rewrite? • Leon 03:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Be BOLD! pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prosh Week

I reinstated the alcohol reference because it is factually correct, and the consumption of alcohol is a component of the week. I don't understand how it is unnecessary. I also removed the 'citation needed' tags as it is impossible to source these claims - they are part of an oral history. Cheers Suicup 12:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's impossible to source them (no written reference to the culture of drinking has ever been made -- ever?), then they must be removed. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure sources could be found about the alcohol thing. The ^{[citation needed]} tags were in reference to prosh week history. Deleting it because it has no online source is a bit simplistic. That paragraph has lasted for ages, with a large volume of editing having taken place in that time (even on that particular paragraph). I'm sure if it was obviously false, it would have been removed by now. The information is well established amongst the Melb Uni community. Suicup 12:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Pfctdayelise, are you currently/ever have been a student of Melbourne University? If so, you would acknowledge the authenticity of the information. Suicup 12:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

She is, and so am I. But just because we may know something is accurate, doesn't make it any more verifiable, and doesn't mean that it's suddenly no longer original research. It doesn't have to be anything fancy, even some old editions of Farrago would be ok to use as a reference. A source that doesn't consist of "because I said so". --bainer (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It doesn't have to be an online source. An old Farrago would be fine. Wikipedia is not the arbiter of all truth, OK. It's not even trying to be. It's just trying to be a collection of verifiable and neutral facts. Trying being the operative word: just because wrong or unsourced information has been present for a long time, doesn't mean it shouldn't be removed when it is noticed. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I know i can't win, and that this 'policy' is set in stone, but going by that logic, around half the content of Wikipedia should be deleted immediately. IMO, if WP is serious about citation in an academic sense, it sets the bar WAY too low. Re prosh week, this is interesting info that an outsider of UniMelb probably can't find anywhere else, and the only reason you can find it here is precisely because of the wiki format. Going by what both of you have posted, it seems you are sympathetic to the info, and are effectively advocating its deletion on a technicality. I think it is a shame that worthwhile knowledge that is well known can probably never be included, whereas other crap (even false crap) can, just because it has some obscure 'reference'. Suicup 02:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much a technicality, think about it in practical terms: articles on universities and schools and places like that are particularly prone to having all sorts of nonsense added. Imagine what sort of stuff we would get if the standard of verifiability we set was "anything that students there can confirm". We'd be in for a hell of a time. --bainer (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt any Wikipedian considers WP:Verifiability a technicality. It's our last hope of distinguishing ourselves from the unwashed masses who would like to write about their cat, not to mention their great new theory of perpetual motion which is being Suppressed by the Establishment.

I would argue that these examples fall under WP:Notability rather than Verifiability. The issue isn't whether Prosh week (or more specifically its history) is notable or not (it obviously is), it is whether this information can be 'verified'. I'm not going to trawl the Baillieu in search of 'evidence' for obvious reasons. However, lets suppose i pick a random copy of Farrago and use this as a reference. Are you seriously telling me that you or others will go to the library and check that the source is correct? Of course not! You would accept the 'source' at face value like what happens to 99.999% of 'verified' info on WP. This is why the whole 'if its got a <ref> then it must be ok' mentality is on very shaky foundations IMO. In regards to bainer, i disagree. All sorts of crap has been spouted in this article, and guess what- it has swiftly been deleted. Surely the collective conscience of WP editors is evidence enough of this so called concept of 'verifiability'. If WP was serious about this procedure, firstly they would make it compulsory to have every article (old and new) fully referenced, or else face deletion or blocking from publication. Secondly, they would lift the standard of references from what is currently acceptable to a more academic standard. The thing is, this will never happen because is would effectively kill the project. I suppose the point of this long winded rant is that IMO WP will never be acceptable for academic use due to its very nature, and thus it should accept this (i believe it already has in some respects) and focus on removing obvious vandalism and being an interesting and useful repository of information. At the moment it is trying too hard to come across as something it can never be. Suicup 04:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not a reader chooses to verify a statement via a provided source is irrelevant. The point is that they should be able to. In fact, the standard for sources is rather higher than thebainer and I have said (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources), but good luck finding an actual academic source for many pop-culture type things. If we have a Farrago source, at least we can say, "Student magazine Farrago reported that Barry Humphries did X". We would still not say "Barry Humphries did X". Other comments from WP:V: Just because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it. Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an article. ... Just because information is true, doesn't mean that it meets our verifiability requirements — information has to be sourced from reliable sources if it is to have a place in Wikipedia (although, of course, if information is true, you should be able to find a ready reputable source for it).

Whether or not a reader chooses to verify a statement via a source provided is everything! A statement with a bogus source is just as bad as having no source at all, and yet the former is acceptable for the most part. You could argue that the current policy is dangerous because it lulls people into a false sense of security. Citing a source gives the 'great unwashed masses' (as you term them) much more confidence in the authenticity of the information, even if the source (or info) is crap. People let down their sceptical guard when they see a footnote. And because the vast vast majority of people won't bother to check, good edits go to waste and bad ones get to stay. Suicup 12:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of things lull readers into a false sense of security: tone of the author, breadth of vocabulary, posh-ness of typefont, fame/size of the publisher, favourable reviews, expense to access. They're all wrong, of course. Critically questioning absolutely everything you read, while a good mental habit, is also tiring.

Sorry, but a good edit cannot be one that adds unsourced information. Bad edits, sourced or unsourced, should always be removed. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, but in reality do sourced bad edits get removed on a consistent, systemic basis? I doubt it. Yes all of those things influence the reader, but the footnote is the most important, and thus the most dangerous. A good edit is one which provides useful, interesting information relevant to the subject at hand. Being able to 'verify' it is just a bonus IMO. Suicup 15:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WP will never be suitable for academic use due to its very nature -- I agree. But who says that has ever been the ultimate goal WP is striving for? It serves a different type of usefulness. See also Wikipedia:Replies to common objections, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great, Criticism of Wikipedia. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually tried finding a reference? I would be rather surprised if it had never been mentioned in Farrago in 80-odd years. Here's a good place to start: [5]

(BTW, you are welcome to help improve Wikipedia by removing/sourcing/tagging as {{citation needed}} any unsourced material you find in any article, anywhere.) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• ma or may not use alcohol breached Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words - might as well say may or may not have blue skies - says nothing, and added no value. Don't remove requests for citations. Wikipedia:Citing sources: This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. That there is information that is on wikipedia that could be challenged and has not yet is no defence and Being able to 'verify' it is just a bonus is wrong - it is not just a bonus - if you can't verify your assertions, go write somewhere else. That it hadn't been queried before is also no defence. Despite the direction to the main article, I think these points are worth reiterating. --Arktos ^talk 19:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

'This Day', until recent years the daily bulletin of The Melbourne University Student Union (Inc., not Ltd.) advertised the annual boat races in the North Court every Prosh week until about 4 or 5 years ago, when university policy to quash the alcohol culture on campus influenced the Activities Committee to stop advertising Alcohol events. I'm not sure if the This Day sheets are on file somewhere. Markjohndaley 00:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Growing Esteem criticism

I removed the entire paragraph because IMO after sourcing and removing the weasel words there would have been nothing left anyway. Whoever wrote the paragraph had an obvious political agenda (i'm guessing from the socialist alliance), and this has no place on an encyclopaedia. Upon further investigation, it seems that the entire section was written by user 147.10.30.111. That user's edits have all been political tirades against capitalism (check out his/her G20 additions...), and one case where he/she inserted an potentially libellous remark which claimed that the principle of Princes Hill secondary college fought for the Khmer Rouge! Suicup 12:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Maxyk is the same person as 147.10.30.111, given they are both editing the same two articles. Suicup 11:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think so too, the worst part is he? has absolutely no interest in responding to people who say its bias, so its just ending up to be a revert back and forth. You guys seem to revert faster then I manage to on G20 though! (Madrone 02:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC))

I agree that what was written by user 147.10.30.111 was unaccetable. However i have re-instated the paragraph as it was before this user began modifying it. It now provides an accurate picture of the current criticisms of the growing esteem plan without the political bias. This is absolutely necessary to maintain this section of the article rather than just summarily deleting it because it has been attacked by someone who has their own agenda.144.133.82.254 11:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

hes back! (Madrone 17:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC))

User:Maxyk please do not deceitfully change inline links by stealth. If you want to make a point, do it here on the discussion page first, and then if a consensus is reached we can make the appropriate changes to the article. Suicup 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)