Talk:National Union of Students of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)