Talk:National Union of Students (Australia)

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)