This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just added the infobox. The staff figures were 2004. The student figures are a bit rubbery. I have some official ones I will chase up. Andrew Kepert 01:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I believe it is pertinent to add information about the downsizing of the university here. Sumthingweird 08:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
I have seen interiors of empty matchboxes that have been more exciting and imaginative than your userbox, Mattopaedia. And this talk page has become rather—squeezy, hasn’t it? Myles325a (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
UoN | This user is a student, or graduate, or staff of the University of Newcastle. |
Mentions in 1988 and 1989 someone jumping off the roof and breaking his ankle... well I was there for Autonomy Day both those years, and I don't recall these events happening. Sure you didn't dream it mate? And before you say my memory is dodgy, I remember the following events:
that i have just added some well sourced but unfortunately negative material. I added a real references section as well for inline references. DGG 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (as the printed source is available on line by subscription, I quote the relevant section: "Corrupt ConductReply
Newcastle's woes began in December 2002 when a lecturer awarded a score of zero to 15 students who were then enrolled in Wira's M.B.A. program. The lecturer, Ian Firns, failed the students after discovering that large amounts of their work on an organizational-effectiveness examination had been lifted without attribution from the Internet.
"They have treated us as though we are fools," Mr. Firns wrote to the university in an e-mail message explaining his decision to flunk "the worst group of students I have encountered in any class." The lecturer had been "personally insulted" by the students' actions, he wrote.
Rather than failing the students, however, the university responded to his discovery by reassigning the disputed papers to another lecturer, who passed the students, in a number of cases with some of the highest grades in the class. All of the students went on to receive degrees. What's more, it was later revealed that some of Mr. Firns's earlier critical markings on the papers had been whited out, prompting a public spat between Newcastle officials and the lecturer, an educational consultant.
Describing Mr. Firns's response as a "gross overreaction," the university later fired him.
In June 2004, Mr. Firns took the matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, an official body in the state of New South Wales, which has since issued a report that vindicated him and severely criticized the university's role in covering up the students' misconduct.
The inquiry found that at least two educators with whom Mr. Firns worked had "engaged in corrupt conduct" by ordering the students' essays to be marked again without any reference to his earlier concerns. Its report detailed ways the university's plagiarism policies could be improved.
Although Newcastle initially fought the report's findings, it has now accepted them, administrators there say, and welcomes the closure it now hopes they will bring.
"This has gone on for years now, rumbling on and on, both locally and internationally," sighs the university's president, Nicholas Saunders, an outsider appointed to the position at the 23,000-student institution last October.... (Officials at Wira declined to be interviewed for this article.)"
To the user who has flagged the Autonomy Day section for deletion... it is customary to put something in Talk to explain your reasons. Ok I guess it's obvious in this case (trivial, unencyclopedic, etc.) but courtesy might have been nice. --Jquarry 06:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Image:UoN logo square.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
I note that the article has a photo in it. Should the photo request now be removed? --Athol Mullen 00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
As a graduate, I could hardly believe that this is the best treatment that you could accord my holy alma mater. Two stamp-sized piccies in the "gallery"! Staff and students, do you realize that most potential students would be looking up Wikipedia for additional info on the University, and that in many cases, the impressions formed there and in the associated talk page would have more impact than any number of glossy propaganda brochures? I remember a campus which could easily be classed as physically the most beautiful in Australia, possibly the world. And here I see two, count ‘em – TWO – blurry stamp-sized photos of some shrubs. And that’s in the section called GALLERY! I remember a Student Union building which was envy of the large Universities, a winner of Blackett prizes, short-listed as a candidate for one of the Wonders of the Modern World. And yet here it merits not a word. If you were set the task of designing a more drab and feckless article for a university, you could hardly improve on the one here.
Do you really just want to fade away? What is wrong with you? If you don’t have any pride in your campus, then wouldn’t even an elementary instinct for self-preservation argue for an account of your campus that does not make it look like a cross between an old-age home for accountants and a Rotary convention? And then I turn to the Talk Page. Yes, it is nostalgic to read that someone was permitted to enter some sport contest because he was resourceful enough to eat his own vomit. This is perfect practice for the Psychology Department, sure, but what kind of image does it evoke for the general reader.
And the great and much loved Professors Godfrey Tanner and Norman Talbot, amongst others – why do not these gods who walked the Earth and outdrank the students have articles in Wikipedia? For gorrsakes, my CAT is the subject of an article there! Is there really not a one of those who learnt at their knee who could put together a rousing portrait of such men and women? I am sorely disappointed. This is not the vibrant, idiosyncratic, wacky, beautiful campus that I loved and which made me the man I am today. LIFT YOUR GAME, and always remember I LOOK AHEAD. (forgot to sign before) Myles325a (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Some of you might have noticed that over the last few days I have been heavily modifying The University of Newcastle page to provide a better overview of the University. I am a N00B, so thank you to those of you that have been correcting the mistakes I have been making in regards to correct formating and referencing. I am still learning so lease be patient with me!
Just to provide an overview of what I am looking to achieve through my modifications:
Basically my main goal is to bring the page up to a state that will provide a good base for other individuals to add more information. I am hoping that the my efforts will make future edits much simpler.
As well as this I would like to provide a number of notable sources I have found to be quite good for anyone else modifying this page:
Would love to hear any of your thoughts on what I am attempting to do. Thanks! Cortez2009 (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
The following is a multipart discussion, conducted at three user's talk pages regarding the corporate logo and the official crest. I've copied them here for convenience.
I refer to your recent edit of the University of Newcastle, Australia wikipedia page. In this edit you restored the University's coat of arms to the infobox and referd to it as not being obsolete. Unfortunately this is not true. The University has refreshed the logo for a "bolder and more contemporary design". A simple search of the website will indicate this. Also note that the usage of the Coat of Arms is being phased out and can not be seen in any recent publications or on the university's website. Please refrain from making edits to topics you do not know anything about. [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortez2009 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Regarding this edit that you made to User talk:Bev the great, while use in day-to-day branding is being reduced, this has absolutely no relevance to the Coat of Arms. The Grant of Arms is still in effect and therefore the University's Coat of Arms is still a valid, and the official heraldic logo of the university until such time as the Grant of Arms is withdrawn.
Regarding the final statement in your post, "Please refrain from making edits to topics you do not know anything about", you should note that this breaches Wikipedia's policy on civility. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Further to the above, {{Infobox university}} states that "|image_name=
" should be "preferably the university's official seal or logo", while "|logo=
" should be "an athletics logo, corporate emblem, or similar image". This means that, technically, the two images in the infobox should be reversed, with the COA at the top and the corporate logo at the bottom. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't know WHERE you are getting you information but from what I have read the new logo is a modernization of the old crest and hence a direct replacement. The University has refreshed the logo for a "bolder and more contemporary design". A simple search of the website will indicate this. Also note that the usage of the Coat of Arms is being phased out and can not be seen in any recent publications or on the university's website.[[9]] [[10]] [[11]]
If you have any sources of the usage of the crest then please use them. --Cortez2009 (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
The consolidation of references that I mentioned in the third part was done with this edit and the reference is:
To summarise, File:University of Newcastle Logo.png is the university's corporate logo while File:Uni-of-newcastle-crest-150.png is the official coat of arms. The corporate logo can be modified, withdrawn or made obsolete at any time while the coat of arms remains valid until such time as the Grant of Arms is withdrawn. Even if it is not used in day to day operations it remains the official coat of arms/crest regardless of the existence of any corporate logo. The instructions for {{Infobox university}} state that "|image_name=
" is for a "university-related graphic, preferably the university's official seal or logo" while "|logo=
" is used for "an athletics logo, corporate emblem, or similar graphic". Since File:Uni-of-newcastle-crest-150.png is the official seal of the university and File:University of Newcastle Logo.png is a corporate logo, the images in this revision of the article are in the wrong fields meaning this edit was correct, while this reversion was not. Accordingly, I'm going to fix the error with a link to this discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hello users and editors of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_University_of_Newcastle,_Australia, we are University of Newcastle staff working within the Marketing and Public Relations, Vice Chancellor's Division. It is our role to assist in the management of The University of Newcastle's reputation. Working in collaboration with our Vice Chancellor, we would like to make some edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_University_of_Newcastle,_Australia. We would really appreciate if you could contact us should you have any concerns about any future edits. Thank you UoN Official — Preceding unsigned comment added by UoN Official (talk • contribs) 23:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for sharing your expertise, Ariconte. It is greatly appreciated! We will read these policies and continue to communicate via Talk. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UoN Official (talk • contribs) 00:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Again, we would like to thank Ariconte for the advice and guidance provided above. The University of Newcastle is trying to communicate in a courteous and considerate manner in an attempt to correct some of the information displayed on this page. We intend to ensure that only factual content is displayed and hope that other users, especially those with editing capabilities assist us to achieve this goal.Reply
As part of The University of Newcastle's (UoN) rebrand, and approved by the University's Executive Committee in 2007, the University logo as found on the homepage of the University of Newcastle website today, was developed to replace the Crest, also known as the Coat of Arms. As part of this process the Crest was replaced with the UoN logo across all official documentation, collateral, transcripts and graduation booklets etc. The Crest is no longer used to identify the University, and therefore the current display is causing confusion to readers of Wikipedia, students, staff and members of the local University community.
For this reason we would request that the Crest be removed as the primary visual identity and replaced with the current University of Newcastle logo. We also make this request for another reason, as content from Wikipedia is commonly used to populate sources like Google Maps / Listings. As these feeds are automatic it is difficult for us to correct, hence we need to make sure the Wiki page reflects the most relevant content. If users could please assist with this request ASAP that would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcurls (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, AussieLegend. May we further clarify why is it required to have an official letter indicating the withdrawal of the Grant of Arms in order to alter the content displayed? The Grant of Arms is a declaration of our independence. It is a part of our history and will continue to remain a part of our history, for example, references are made in our Great Hall. However, we are attempting to update our Wikipedia content to accurately reflect our University and how it should be viewed today and therefore using the coat of arms which has not been used for many years to visually represent our University is not an accurate reflection.
There are a variety of public sources available supporting the use of the current corporate logo and therefore justify the replacing the coat of arms as the main visual representation of our brand. In addition to the items mentioned previously; all official documentation, collateral, transcripts and graduation booklets etc, here are just a few of the public sources that also utilise the current corporate logo to best represent our brand; our website, our multiple social media pages, Google search listings, Newcastle City Council and other third party businesses etc. None of these sources reference the coat of arms, only our current corporate branding.
We understand and appreciate Wikipedia and its purpose; however, we believe it important to note that any Wikipedia article should be a ‘summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject’. It ‘should not be a complete exposition of all possible details’ and based on this interpretation we believe the use of our current corporate logo would be more appropriate than the coat of arms, especially as the logo is used to visually represent the University of Newcastle across multiple public sources and the coat of arms has limited reference in the Grant of Arms document and certain University buildings. Furthermore, there are multiple Wikipedia pages where the main visual representation references their current logo or images of the university buildings etc.
We kindly ask users to edit the primary visual to best reflect our brand, by replacing the coat of arms with our current logo. The coat of arms would be more appropriately referenced within the History section to support the content written within this section. Please assist this page to best accurately reflect a summary of our university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcurls (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
image_name
field is generally used for the coat of arms. See, for example, these other Australian universities:
logo
field, which is for "an athletics logo, corporate emblem, or similar graphic" (emphasis added). The coat of arms is included here because, although it's not used for marketing purposes, it is still the official coat of arms. Gcurls, University of Western Sydney is not a good example because it doesn't seem to have a coat of arms. Again, Wikipedia isn't here to present any organisation's "brand", it's an encyclopaedia that presents facts about subjects in a neutral manner. What you call an official seal is still a corporate logo, so it belongs where it is in the infobox. The other issue here is that there is no actual evidence that the corporate logo is the official seal. All we have is your word, and Wikipedia editors are not considered to be reliable sources. Unfortunately the University of Newcastle Act 1989 doesn't specify the form of the seal. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)ReplyMy edit adding info that Callaghan campus is built on Awabakal land was reverted for being 'non-notable trivia'. I'm still fairly new to editing Wikipedia so I wasn't really sure how to put something so that it's clear it is notable (and am still working on grasping the concept to be honest), but here are some sources that I think support its notability:
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/41868/Research-document_John-Maynard_whose-land.pdf - 55 page research paper commissioned by the university looking into whose land Callaghan was and is built on so that it could be (and has been) incorporated into University practice. http://www.miromaa.org.au/Culture.html - timeline on bottom half of page showing relationship between the University moving onto the land and the local Aboriginal people. http://www.newcastle.nsw.gov.au/council/committees/advisory_committee/guraki_aboriginal_advisory_committee - Wollotuka Institute, University of Newcastle listed as a stakeholder in Aboriginal advisory group in Newcastle. http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/voices/australia/awabakal-youthvisions-strengthening-voices-aboriginal-youth?page=58 – University taking part in programs for Awabakal youth. http://uoncc.wordpress.com/category/aborigines/awabakal/ - website for the dedicated Awabakal section of the University Cultural Collections division http://www.desailly.com.au/blog/why-academics-love-newcastle-nsw#.Ut4haBB9LIU – links with Aboriginal community listed as a selling point of the University. ‘Political Performances: Theory and Practice’ edited by Susan C. Haedicke: a book which documents on p 312 research relationships between the Awabakal community and University based on the land http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2013/07/02/3794249.htm - talks about a students perspective on learning at the University and the effects of being on Awabakal land — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelbird72 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
University of Newcastle is often called UNCLE. Here's a link of proof- http://community.boredofstudies.org/586/general-university-discussion/234071/uncle-newcastle-uni.html . As you can see, even the UAC (Administrating authority for Tertiary admissions) refers to Newcastle as UNCLE, so I think its fair to include it 134.148.64.206 (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
References
The following section is required and proposed. It is not news, it is official stats (research paid for by uni) and the institution's position and advice for students on the matter that the uni has no tolerance for.
Section title:==Student Life==
The survey conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2017 found that UoN had the highest incidence of sexual harassment in the state, fourth highest in Australia and 11% above national average.[1][2] The university states it “has no tolerance for sexual assault or harassment”. With sexual assault and harassment complaints the university has advised victims to: “informally resolve your concern or issue at the lowest level possible”, work "respectfully and courteously with the person or people directly involved with your issue"[3] and “discuss your concerns directly with the person involved and attempt to resolve the matter”.[4]
References
At a glance: The University of Newcastle… 30 per cent of responding students subject to sexual harassment... The data above come from students who chose to respond to an optional survey. At The University of Newcastle, 623 of the 30,997 students responded to the survey. This particular survey question asked sexually harassed students who the offender was in their most recent experience of sexual harassment. Hence, some students harassed by teachers are missed by this figure.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(help)
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(help)
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(help)
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and eventsand follows that up with
While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. This information is one report that does not have enduring notability. Newcastle is not mentioned at all in the first source, or in the report that is downloadable from the second so you can't use them to support your claims. The third, which is a tangentially related news report from four months before the first two sources says there were 14 "complaints of sexual assault and harassment" over a two year period. Given the number of people that go through the university, this is not a high number compared to the rest of society, especially when you consider that the figure includes "harassment", not just assaults. It's just not notable enough to mention in the article.
Please provide more evidence as to your position that one can never use a newspaper article as a source.- I never said that was the case. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
This contradicts your first statement- No it doesn't. You are clearly not reading, or not understanding, what WP:NOTNEWS or I are saying. You said
It is not news. My response to that was "Two of the three sources that you have used above are newspapers." Clearly it is news. I then went on to say that the content is contrary to NOTNEWS and I've explained why.
So let's move forward now that you have dropped the WP:NOTNEWS argument- You're great at misreadng everythng. I never said that. NOTNEWS clearly does apply.
Please explain why- I already have. No enduring notability was one reason. The universities involved have accepted the report and said that they will address the problems. There has been no demonstrated controversy, just acknowledgement that the report has been published. Time to move on.
30% of students reported sexual harassment- Not according to any sources that you have provided.
you have played this down pulling out some other stat that doesn't concur with the HRC.- The only sources I've used are the ones that you provided. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
The source provided shows 30% sexual harassment at UON,[13]- cannot see that clam in that source.
it now seems your take WP:OWNERSHIP of this article- You really need to stop attacking other ediitors. Personal attacks are not acceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
No-one has attacked you.- Accusing someone of ownership without justification is an attack. You've made baseless allegations at WP:AWNB,[15][16] It's not just me that you've attacked either. You've also attacked others.[17]
I am questioning your need to read sources and understand wikipedia policies better.- I'm not the one having problems understanding policies or misreading what has been written.
The edits show you have taken WP:OWNERSHIP of this article, no other editor- Again, this is an attack. Please stop!
You have failed to read the source. It states "At a glance: The University of Newcastle...- It actually states "At a glance: Australian Catholic University". If you are going to use such a source you need to provide a much better direction to the content that you are using. Readers shouldn't have to search through multiiple pages of a source.
With that, one would agree that my proposed text, as above, is notable and ripe for inclusion.- Not at all. In fact that demonstrates that it's not significant. If some legal action was being taken then that would be a different matter.
What do you mean by "controversy"?- The content that you added to the article was a section titled "Controversy". --AussieLegend (✉) 16:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Pointing out a policy to you is not an attack- You didn't "point out a policy", you blatantly accused me of ownership.
I aim sorry about your sensitivity,
OK now I understand, you are misdirected,
You imagined it was titled,
I have found your talking down to me discomforting,
you may again start swearing and calling people names,
It has been intimidating- Your tone is not helping your cause at all. Anyone can see through it for what it is.
I must say it has been difficult to get your support for the text I proposed above- Your attitude hasn't helped. Nor has the fact that you haven't provided any
The following section is required and proposed.
All your arguments of opposing the text have been unconvincing- I do apologise, since what I've written reflects our guidelines. I would remind you though, it's not me who has to convince you. As the editor wishing to add the content, the burden is on you to convince others that it should be included in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
No, its stats and policy as from a report and as also reported in the newspaper, this is just what you've said before and has been addressed already. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
you have withdrawn from this topic and also failed to substantiate why it should not be part of the article- Again, after edits have been opposed, the burden is on the editor wishing to add content to gain consensus for its inclusion, not for an editor opposing its inclusion to justify exclusion, although I believe that I have done that. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
The posit - that any information or content that may have been mentioned in a media article falls foul of NOTNEWS guideline - this is incorrect . If this were the case then the vast majority of the UON page would need to be deleted as most of the content has also been referred to in the media at one time. The suggested 'Sexual misconduct and safety' content is acceptable and allowable under the NOTABILITY and NOTNEWS guidelines. 120.151.210.209 (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
I suggest that editors participating here familiarise themselves with WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. When edits are good faith reverted you don't simply revert back and restore the disputed edits. You discuss the content on the talkpage and gain consensus to include the content or a variation of it, or to continue to omit it. AND, while discussion is underway the status quo remains. That means leaving the disputed content out until there is consensus to include it. Forcing it into the article is edit-warring and you can be blocked for that. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
There is 'some enduring significance'. These statistics reflect ongoing debate regards the uni non disclosure or under reporting of incidents. As stated in the source. 49.181.238.148 (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Your arguments on the subject have proven a failure. As of now there have been no justified arguments as to why this content should be included, and no demonstration of the enduring notability that Shiftchange said was required. There has just been a lot of edit-warring and blatant ignorance of and disregard for the procedures that we follow by anonymous editors. That has been stopped now by the protection that has been restored to the article. You really need to make valid arguments and come to consensus. The content cannot be added until that happens. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
You can't readis in violation of WP:NPA, as is the reference to WP:JERK. Please comment on content, not on the contributor. Could you please explain how
The sexual harassment stuff is encouraged by WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:LAWYER and WP:ABUSE? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
It has been reported to me- And who exactly are you?
you have sent personal messages legally threatening people- That's unfounded personal attack with absolutely no basis in fact.
The stuff abides by all the rules as has been discussed above.- It hasn't been discussed. You really need to read through what has been written.
More WP:wikilawyer and more WP:Npa personal attacks from you sir/madam I suggest you stick to the content and retract your legal threats. You have asked me to reveal my identity in order to harass me personally, also to reveal which editors are female, this is a clear breach of WP rules. You have now gone too far. 1.144.97.224 (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
A lot of the edit warring on the article and bickering on this talk page is pretty unimpressive. I recommend that everyone familiarise themselves with WP:AGF. In particular, insinuating that a fellow editor might have ulterior motives for wanting or not wanting this particular matter to appear in the article is a real problem. Concentrate on the content and considering how best to present this information to the reader, and cut out the Wikilawyering. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC).Reply