Talk:National Union of Students (Australia)

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)

Factions section

@Salvationichor, I've reverted your reinsertion of the material you added to the factions section. Those source provided in support of the material aren't reliable for the claims being made. Per WP:ONUS you need to obtain consensus prior to re-inserting the same or similar content. Please discuss. Regards, TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, as per WP:RSSM student papers can be considered a reliable source if the subject matter is relevant to schools / their community. As the NUS is a student-led organisation, I believe that information reported by student media can be considered reliable, particularly when it comes to reporting on criticisms made by students of the NUS. Could you please explain why you believe that student media is not a reliable source for reporting on these criticisms? Newspapers like Honi Soit and Pelican

The articles by student media that I cited, were already cited within the factions section, I simply added extra information and removed information that I could not find reported elsewhere.

If your issue is my addition to the mention of vote binding, I would appreciate an explanation on why you haven't edited the section on NLS within the Factions section which currently lacks citations and currently includes the claim that the faction binds votes.

Would love to have some clarification on the issues you see so that we can come to a mutual understanding. Salvationichor (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

1) WP:RSSM says "Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community". These outlets are not Harvard Crimson and are not automatically considered reliable. See Talk:National_Union_of_Students_(Australia)/Archive_1#Return_of_factions_section_and_addition_of_new_section_on_organisational_crisis where there was some discussion on Honi Soit. I went to ANU so I personally know that Woroni (one of the sources you were adding) is a not reliable. In fact I've just noticed Woroni is still used in the article, added by editors prior to you, and should probably be removed. The Pelican peice is an opinion peice, only good for determining the opinions of those quoted and of the author. In generally student newspapers are as bad as or worse than tabloids. Full or gossip, inuendo and SFA fact checking. Refer to WP:RSOPINION. We don't build encyclopaedias on the basis of opinion pieces, where there is no reason to giving some weight to those specific opinions.

2) Being a reliable sources for news on their school and local community, where a paper can be considered as such and here that isn't given, does not extend to being reliable about things external to those schools and local communities, i.e. NUS.

3) Please don't ask me to WP:SATISFY you and edit the entire article for consistency. I have limited time, as I expect you do. We all do the amounts we are prepared to do on a voluntary basis. Bottom line, as far as I could tell only one reference in the new material you added, had anything on binding and that was only about Student Unity. Saying Student Unity binds is not the same as saying most factions bind.

Now if you want to dispute me saying these student newspapers are not reliable for the purposes that you were using them, you can raise it at WP:RS/N. Per WP:ONUS, you need to establish the reliability of the references where they are in question. TarnishedPath^talk 23:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, could you please elaborate on why you don't see Woroni as a reliable source? Their publications must be approved by a board and the paper is over 50 years old. Similarly, Honi Soit is nearly 100 years old and has 6 Directors of Student Publications who check over the paper each week prior to publication. Obviously, these papers are not the Harvard Crimson, but they can be considered the equivalent for their universities.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but from my understanding, your view seems to be that student media is automatically an unreliable source regarding the NUS.

Currently, the only citations under the "Delegates and factions" section are different student papers. If you do not believe that any of these are reliable sources, then I propose that we remove this section entirely as the information is unverifiable and much of it currently lacks citations (my previous edits did not add any additional sources but simply made clear where information had originated). However, I believe including information about the factions is important to provide context to readers as structural and financial issues for the organisation have been linked to factionalism. Salvationichor (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Salvationichor my previous edit summary was making a broad universal statement which I shouldn't have made. The issue I see with many student newspapers is that they engage in a lot of gossip. Additionally a lot the articles I've seen from them are clearly opinion pieces but they are often passed off as if they are straight-forward factual reporting, often with no indication that the articles are opinion. I know this firsthand with Woroni, having attended ANU for 5 years.

Looking at the references you added; Honi Soit, Honi Soit again, Woroni and Pelican Magazine, all of them are clearly opinion pieces and are not marked as such. They are passed off as factual reporting. This clearly marks them out as unreliable for anything other than the opinions of the authors and those they quote.

If you want to remove material that is inadequately supported I am not adverse to that. If you're going to do so, I'd suggest having a look at each source used and determining if there is a straightforward reporting of facts or if there is clearly language used in the articles which indicates that they are opinion pieces, in which case WP:RSOPINION applies. TarnishedPath^talk 05:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TarnishedPath, so just to confirm I understand you correctly, your issue is primarily that you see the specific articles cited as being primarily opinion pieces? Would you be amiable to inclusion with a qualifier clearly asserting information as opinion e.g. "Honi Soit has said... "? My perception of these sources is that they factual reporting with opinion commentary intermixed in the article, for example reporting of delegate percentages for each faction is factual information reported.

I believe there is some value in reporting some of these opinions within the article as these student papers are the primary source of information for many students about the NUS and therefore are indicative of broader student perspectives on the NUS. Salvationichor (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

References