This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: New South Wales / Education Mid‑importance University of Newcastle (Australia) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Higher education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education

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]

Seconded! Wow what an advert! Also some content from outside 134.148.x.x would be nice. 211.31.253.230 03:02, 21 May 2006 (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]

Thankyou for your comments, Myles. Long ago, when I created it, the userbox had the seahorse logo on it, but in the subsequent hoohah about userboxes, logos, and all that crap, it somehow got changed (not by me) to the less inspired version you see now. I've been too busy to change it, so that's how it is. ...At this point I made some comments about you being part of the problem, not part of the solution, and on further reflection, I regret my sarcastic and deliberately hurtful approach. So I removed it. But listen, the point I want to make is: this is wikipedia, so if you don't like something, improve it! Its far more fulfilling than just complaining or insulting the work of others, and you're making the world a better place. Mattopaedia (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paying attention to my own point...

UoN	This user is a student, or graduate, or staff of the University of Newcastle.

And now I feel much happier because: 1.) I decided not to be a dick; and 2.) I fixed something that's been bugging me for about 2 years. Merry Christmas!Mattopaedia (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. It looks sauve, cool, and refreshing. I've added it to my user page. Myles325a (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment as to the utility of non-encyclopaedia-related userboxen like this one, but — worthwhile or not — it and its brothers must never, ever be added to actual encyclopaedia articles. Thanks for your understanding, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Fuddlemark.... these user boxes are created for the express purpose of inserting into one's user page. I wouldn't worry about them finding their way into articles. And your opinion notwithstanding, a lot of users do find them worthwhile. --Jquarry 21:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Some idiot broke a glass in the fountain thereby stuffing up the Iron Man contest
• In the same contest a guy ate his own puke so as not to be disqualified
• Someone transposed the 'w' in old Commonwealth Bank sign (now the drama theatre IIRC), to read "Common ealth wank".

--Jquarry 00:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Conduct[reply]

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]

• Having said that, I support deletion, for the reasons I just mentioned and because I'm a b**tard. --Jquarry 06:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The real question is whether autonomy day (AKA Amalgamoney day after the amalgamation with the HIHE and Conservatorium of Music) actually has enough significance for information about it to be upgraded to the extent of being encyclopedic. Oh, and I'm having flashbacks to a former student named Jason, but can't imagine why. :) --Athol Mullen 07:54, 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:

• Add reliable references to all content
• Construct a more logical structure of sections to better reflect the university
  • Re-arranged order of sections: History > Faculties and schools > Campuses - Seems logical to me, great to hear your thoughts
  • Added section Facilities and services - Included
• Add reference and structured content to History, Campuses, Student body and organisations, Facilities and services sections
• Add Research section - overview of the university's research engagements
• Provide more photos from across the university - I will be doing this gradually and eventually hope to have notable images from both the Ourimbah & Callaghan Campuses
• Update the University logo appearing on page to be in line with that appearing on the university website

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:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

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]

Great work, Cortez2009. Please date stamp contributions like this. You will see that my last one here was in 2007. In a few years' time, your reference to "the last few days" will confuse readers if there is no date. Thanks. Myles325a (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already confusing, as Cortez posted that over 17 months ago.[5] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2011 (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.

• Originally posted at User talk:Bev the great#The University of Newcastle Logo

• Originally posted at User talk:Cortez2009#University of Newcastle

• Originally posted at User talk:AussieLegend, now archived at User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 4#The University of Newcastle Crest

The consolidation of references that I mentioned in the third part was done with this edit and the reference is:

• "Grant of Arms – The University of Newcastle's Declaration of Independence". Archives Outside. NSW Government. Retrieved 17 January 2010.

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]

Suggest you read WP:COI and particularly the section WP:NOPR. It would be best if you put your edit requests on this talk page and let someone else do the actual changes to the article; see {{request edit}}. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 00:03, 1 February 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]

Please see the discussion above. Regardless of any corporate rebranding, the Grant of Arms remains in effect and the coat of arms is still the official coat of arms until such time as the Grant of Arms is withdrawn. The coat of arms is included in its current position because that is what is specified by the infobox instructions. Similarly, the corporate logo is shown where the infobox places it and can't be moved for an individual article. We need something more than a request by any single editor when there are reliable sources supporting inclusion. You need to show, using a reliable source, that the Grant of Arms has been withdrawn in order for the coat of arms to no longer be shown. A copy of the official letter indicating withdrawal of the Grant of Arms would probably be sufficient but, as far as I'm aware, no such document exists. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:13, 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]

Regardless of whether or not the coat of arms is used, it is still the coat of arms, which is why it is displayed in the field designed for the coat of arms. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a marketing tool for any organisation, and we are required to maintain a neutral point of view. Even if the coat of arms were to be removed, the marketing logo would remain where it is now, as that is the field for that image. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template says the image used at the top of the info box should be the "University-related graphic, preferably the university's official seal or logo" at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_university&oldid=532456915 . Why not have the logo here and the crest by the history paragraph??? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ariconte, we agreed that this would be a more appropriate representation of the page content.

AussieLegend, we understand that Wikipedia is not a marketing tool, however, this page should correctly reflect a summary of the topic and our current logo best supports our brand at this point in time, not our coat of arms. Also, there are other universities where their logo and images of their buildings have been used as the primary image. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Western_Sydney. It is hard to understand why we cannot do the same, especially as Wikipedia recommends that a “University-related graphic, preferably the university's official seal or logo” be used. Our logo is the official logo of our University and it takes precedence over our coat of arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcurls (talk • contribs) 04:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ariconte, where there is an official coat of arms the image_name field is generally used for the coat of arms. See, for example, these other Australian universities:

• University of New South Wales
• University of Sydney
• University of New England (Australia)
• University of Wollongong

or these other universities:

• University of Oxford (note, this is classed as a good article)
• Aston University

All of these have corporate logos which are, quite correctly, located in the 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)[reply]

My 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]

Disussion forum posts are not considered to be reliable sources. That it may be called UNCLE by a few people on one discussion forum is certainly not an indication that it is widely referred to as such. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you removed:

UNCLE^[1]

As you acn see there is included a UAC (Universities Admissions Centre) reference. So it IS considered a reliable resource 134.148.66.128 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The forum post that you mentioned above is not a reliable source. What I removed is WP:SYNTH. The only reference to "UNCLE" on the page is "UNCLE’s Open Foundation Course/English Language Certificate/Newstep/International Foundation Program". Nowhere does it say that the university is called UNCLE. In fact there is no explanation at all as to what UNCLE is. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

121.216.192.249 (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three sources that you have used above are newspapers, which reported because of release of the statistics. It clearly is contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, No you are wrong. I see nothing that supports your argument. WP:NOTNEWS says nothing about not using newspaper (or any media) article as a reliable source for encyclopedic content. You misunderstood WP:NOTNEWS. Your position is clearly is contrary to WP:NEWSORG and WP:RS. Please provide more evidence as to your position that one can never use a newspaper article as a source. 121.216.192.249 (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read NOTNEWS more thoroughly. It says, quite clearly, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events and 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]

Thank you for confirming that one can use newspaper articles as a source. This contradicts your first statement "Two of the three sources that you have used above are newspapers ... clearly is contrary to WP:NOTNEWS." So let's move forward now that you have dropped the WP:NOTNEWS argument. You are now opposing the inclusion of the text because you believe it is not noteworthy. Please explain why these university generated stats and UON's directions on the matter are not noteworthy? They are top in the state with stats in this matter, and you support (I assume) the inclusion of the Uni's rankings in other matters. Or do you want all the rankings removed from the page?

Also you have misrepresented the facts and stats. 30% of students reported sexual harassment and you have played this down pulling out some other stat that doesn't concur with the HRC. This in noteworthy, but seemingly not in your community where harassment must be rampant at over 30% I empathise. But it certainly is notable in Newcastle, Central Coast NSW etc. Please consider this. 121.216.192.249 (talk) 07:49, 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]

You've once again misrepresented the references. The source provided shows 30% sexual harassment at UON, [12] Looking back through the edits it now seems your take WP:OWNERSHIP of this article, and understand your position. Your ability to take a WP:NPOV seems impossible, and wish to only have nice comments said about UON. 121.216.192.249 (talk) 08:47, 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]

1. No-one has attacked you. You are the one losing your temper and calling others 'wankers' for not agreeing with you on other pages - and referenced me regards that. Whoever you called a 'wanker', the fact is WP:NPA please.

2. I am questioning your need to read sources and understand wikipedia policies better. That is not meant as an attack.

3. The edits show you have taken WP:OWNERSHIP of this article, no other editor. The history clearly shows you. Please read the policy again to understand. That is not meant as an attack.

4. You have failed to read the source. It states "At a glance: The University of Newcastle... 30 per cent of responding students subject to sexual harassment".[14] Please read again as the selectable graph and table are plain and simple to any one. I am sorry that you say you "cannot see that clam in that source". That is not meant as an attack.

5. By the way, any person from UoN can plainly view this sad debate over your wish to obscure the sexual harassment figures on campus of 30%. You're OK with that? That is not meant as an attack.

6. Thank you for your confirmation that "The universities involved have accepted the report and said that they will address the problems." With that, one would agree that my proposed text, as above, is notable and ripe for inclusion. What do you mean by "controversy"? The proposed text says nothing like that. That is not meant as an attack. 121.216.192.249 (talk) 13:17, 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, I aim sorry about your sensitivity. OK now I understand, you are misdirected and constantly referring to the text that may have been there previously, not what was proposed above with the title of 'student life'. You imagined it was titled 'controversy' thats not the case.

"Student Life == Sexual misconduct and safety=== 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.[] 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” and “discuss your concerns directly with the person involved and attempt to resolve the matter”.[]"

I must say it has been difficult to get your support for the text I proposed above. Not what you imagined was proposed. All your arguments of opposing the text have been unconvincing. And I have found your talking down to me discomforting, and concerned you may again start swearing and calling people names. It has been intimidating, but am satisfied to have put forward the proposed text. 121.216.192.249 (talk) 20:38, 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 real justification for these edits beyond "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]

Please stop your personal attacks on me. "Your tone is not helping your cause at all. Anyone can see through it for what it is". What are you saying? Last time you labelled people like me "wankers", and now you label me as having some "cause" that's unpleasant. Your attempts at insult are pathetic but noted.

Your arguments of why you have tried to block the paragraph are not reflected in policy. Your whole argument now, after going full circle, is based on your belief that "Clearly it is news". No, its stats and policy as from a report and as also reported in the newspaper.

With new additions, it is not standard or necessary to convince an editor who claims ownership of an article, when there are other editors with less bias and agenda. I don't need to remind you that you have already made 2 formal complaints within wikipedia, intended to restrict the addition of this topic (even going so far as wanting to block the editing of the UoN page), both of which attempts you failed in.

I think it's worthwhile repeating your position on the Uni of Newcastle wikipedia article and the proposed addition of the sexual harassment/assault topic. AussieLegend wrote: "I'm siick to death of the wankers that attack these articles. I don't give a flying fuck any more. Let somebody else deal with it. The article can go to shit for all I care. deliberately not signed".[18] [19] Okay, maybe I should take you on your word? 121.216.192.249 (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor. As for everything else you've said, which is really just 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]

Please familiarise yourself with WP:NPA and comment on content, not on the contributor. Stop using insults and swearing to intimidate others. You withdrew from this discussion, prior to it being discussed here, when you lost your temper and said; "I'm siick to death of the wankers that attack these articles. I don't give a flying fuck any more. Let somebody else deal with it. The article can go to shit for all I care. deliberately not signed"

So I consider the hundreds of words you wrote above, after you withdrew, to be WP:HARASSMENT, if not to me, then to any other editor wishing to contribute.

You have addressed nothing in your circular conversation, and not substantiated anything relating to policies. As you have withdrawn from this topic and also failed to substantiate why it should not be part of the article then I believe the paragraph should be added. 121.216.192.249 (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That you may believe it should be included means nothing until you can explain why it should be included. You have failed to do that so far, instead taking a direction that questions your real reason for being here. Please stick to the subject.

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]

You have withdrawn from the discussion and continue to WP:BLUDGEON over and over and over again. Withdrawing means you have chosen for others to decided - but as you continue it has now become WP:HARASSMENT. Need I remind you of WP:BLUDGEON; "2 When you dominate a conversation by having multiple talk entries and address every other person's opinion, others may see you as attempting to "own" an article or the subject at hand. This is a type of tendentious editing and reduces your credibility within the conversation. It is also very annoying and inconsiderate to others".

At no point have you been able to justify why the the paragraph should not be included, primarily due to a poor reading of the policies. In contrast I have showed how the paragraph should be included and is not breaching the policies you have misinterpreted.

Thank you in advance for not engaging in the discussion any further and allowing others to decide who aim to abide by WP:CIVIL behaviour - not obnoxious behaviour and your statements regarding a very serious topic involving victims of sexual violence, i.e.; "I'm siick to death of the wankers that attack these articles. I don't give a flying fuck any more. Let somebody else deal with it. The article can go to shit for all I care. deliberately not signed". 121.216.192.249 (talk) 09:59, 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'm afraid that is incorrect. The discussion is still underway and, as of yet, there is no consensus to in corprate the edits so this edit was completely inappropriate. I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong feelings about the inclusion of this material, but in all of this discussion I've yet to see a single valid, convincing reason for excluding it. This information is reliably sourced facts about the topic, covered in several secondary statements. So I'm putting my support for its inclusion. Cjhard (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm yet to see a cogent argument for inclusion, and that's what we need. The information was published in news reports and there has been nothing since. It's clearly just a news item and therefore covered by WP:NOTNEWS. Even if it were to be included it would need to be included appropriately, not just slapped in a section called "student life". --AussieLegend (✉) 07:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aussilegend. It doesnt belong in the article. It was just a news item picked up by the news.UoN has taken it on board and agreed to fix it. 1.129.97.158 (talk) 08:33, 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]

User:AussieLegend is correct. There must be some enduring significance to the claims made in the survey. There must be some continuance of the issue to warrant its inclusion in the article. We don't know if this is a serious trend related to University policy (or lack of) or just a one-off event that will soon be rectified. Are there any other independent sources making similar claims about sexual misconduct and safety? Without this the article becomes unbalanced. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:06, 17 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]

There is still no consensus to add this content and your edit to the article was inappropriate. The article was protected by Oshwah specifically because of this sort of thing. Continually bulldozing the disputed content into the article is just going to result in the article being protected again, editors blocked or both. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The details of this are significant and don't break any rules. It is wrong that they are being removed from the wikipage due to an WP:EDITWAR. The information could be improved upon but not subject to a blanket removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.251.228 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They do indeed break rules, or at least editing conventions. Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, when dispted edits are under discussion the status quo reigns, which means the version of the article prior to the disputed edits being added. But I suspect you know that. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked to stop WP:LAWYERING by Lankiveil. Your rudeness is over the top. Your arguments on the subject have proven a failure and now you're desperately finding technicalities. Concentrate on the content, enough of your lawyer lectures.1.129.96.108 (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that Lankiveil was speaking to all. Perhaps you would care to concentrate on the content and explain why this content should be included in the article and justify your claim that 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 read. The sexual harassment stuff is encouraged by WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:LAWYER and WP:ABUSE. That is the fact of the matter. Any attempt by you to falsely claim it reads different to what it factually states is WP:JERK. 1.144.97.224 (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't read is 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]

Stop your harassment of the women involved in this editing. It has been reported to me that you have sent personal messages legally threatening people, rather than focusing on the content.. The stuff abides by all the rules as has been discussed above. You refuse to allow consensus to prevail.1.144.97.224 (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please stop attacking and concentrate on the topic.
2. There is no evidence that any editor here is female and, in any case, this is irrelevant.
3. It has been reported to me - And who exactly are you?
4. you have sent personal messages legally threatening people - That's unfounded personal attack with absolutely no basis in fact.
5. 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.
6. As of now there is no consensus. I'm more than happy to continue to discuss this if you stay on topic and stop attacking but if all you are going to do is make claims and then not back them up then there is little point posting anything more. And please, learn to indent. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Making an allegation that AussieLegend has been involved in offwiki harassment is a very serious matter. If this is the case, I suggest you anonymously forward evidence of this to the Arbitration Committee. Otherwise I suggest that making such allegations and using such legalistic language is not helpful and outside the bounds of generally accepted conduct here on Wikipedia. I see no place where Aussie Legend has demanded that you reveal information about your personal identity. Furthermore, if you're concerned about your privacy I recommend you register an account rather than post using an IP address that can be used to reveal personal information about your whereabouts and Internet Service Provider. I think we are at the point where further talk page disruption will be addressed by blocks if necessary. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:33, 27 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]

What I think is unimpressive is how some editors want to ignore our policies and guidelines while referring to essays such as WP:LAWYER and their own opinions of the content's relevance and significance. The same thing happens on Safe Schools Coalition Australia and is occurring on Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. Editors are insisting their biased content is included contrary to our policies and guidelines even when consensus has not been achieved. Calling out bad faith is not a real problem. Failing to ensure editors follow our policy and guidelines is the issue. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Youhave just broken the WP:AGF policy Shiftchange and revealing some bias on the topics you mention. Suggest you agree to listen to advice of Lankiveil and we look forward to your amendments and addition of the sexual harassment subject into the site. Or are you just involved here in order to 'stonewall'? 49.181.170.116 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@49.181.170.116: See, your post was exactly the kind of thing that I was talking about. If all you've got to contribute to this discussion is snide remarks and passive aggression, I suggest you go someplace else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]