Talk:University of Western Australia Student Guild

Over tedious note
Even though the people editing this page may be new to Wikipedia, I suggest you all look at the following three CORE policies from The Wikipedia Simplified Ruleset, before you go messing around with the facilities that the Wikimedia Foundation is providing:

1. Neutral point of view. Write from a neutral point of view. This is a fundamental principle, which allows us to make a fair representation of the world around us. Even if material is verifiable, it is still important to put it into a balanced and representative form so that it conveys a fair impression of the views of the many significant viewpoints on a subject.

2. Verifiability. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it.

3. No original research. Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of: published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements — that serves to advance a position.

Many involved with the University, presumably, look at the University_of_Western_Australia page and say, "Wow, I'm studying at a University that's not only fantastic, but it's on Wikipedia! How exciting!". Similarly, the UWA Guild is such an important and major organisation that it definitely has a place here at wikipedia. HOWEVER, this page is not the place to debate student politics.

In addition to blatantly ignoring the policy of what most students would call a fantastic resource, the people who are putting political comment on this page are introducing a problem further down the pipeline. What happens at the next elections? If this page continues to be such a volatile document, it'd possibly cause a big issue with the policy on propaganda.

I'm not pointing fingers at the council in general, nor individual parties. The point is quite clear, and should be made to anyone with a political sway, whether it's for Alpha, Star, or the SaveTheSouthAfricanElephantsParty. If you all want to edit the information about the Guild itself, fine.

But THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO BE SAYING "Dave did this" and then someone else to revert it to "Chuk did this" etc.

As a way to presumably disseminate information quickly, someone added the names of all the elected candidates to this page. There's no subjectivity to the fact that David de Hoog was elected President, nor that James Marzec was elected Vice-President. That's encyclopaedic.

I've now edited the page so that not only is it well layed-out, but it contains key information about the Guild, and appendices listing the councillors and NUS delegates. (It's just a list. If you really truly truly feel that you need to add a note to the list, make sure it's fucking neutral because otherwise we'll just go through this rigmarole again).

For the love of God, can we now leave it alone? 130.95.118.133 11:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

On the NUS list, you have forgotten to put down Pierre S Yang and list him under his faction National Labor Students and Alpha. Now that is a fact.

I only deleted him because he's no longer a NUS delegate, but ok. (PS. Does anyone know how to do indenting on the talk pages? I'm lost! :D) 130.95.101.118 00:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

NUS has not received any resignation from Pierre, and in the recent Welfare By-Election, votes were sent to him. He remains a registered delegate, and a member of the National Labor Student Faction.

This Diff
I don't have time to check it right now, but could someone else look into this diff and make sure that this wasn't vandalism? If no one gets around to it before I do I'll remove this message. Zell Faze (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a minor controversy surrounding the inclusion of a satirical article in the school newspaper. The article in question is a Horoscope featuring an aboriginal Australian man.  It has been described as racist by the news, a description I think is fitting.  Not sure how important it was, I won't add it back, but I think it ought to be in the article personally.  The source was this article. Zell Faze (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)