Talk:University of Wollongong

message: This seems very much like undue weight. There is one report, which alleged that a single student was unhappy with the university's response to an alleged sexual assault. The university's actions seem typical for a university - tailor a safety plan, and presumably pass the issue on to the police. The university can't comment, as they can't comment on specific cases; legally they cannot investigate the claim, as it is a police matter; no one was charged; and only one other person's opinion of the actions are provided. While mishandling of sexual assault cases is an incredibly serious matter, we have nothing to show that this was mishandled, and it is a single case. Under those grounds, does it really warrant a full subsection? - Bilby (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sexual assault on campus has been highlighted in Senate as "rampant" and Unis do nothing. UOW is perhaps the worst example. Do little approach is inversely pro-assault on campus. Nothing more to discuss as misogynistic bureaucratic thinking going on here. 49.195.91.77 (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The worst example is a case where no one was charged, nothing has been proven, and the university acted according to policy in working with them to generate a safety plan? I think your concept of the "worst" is somewhat misplaced. - Bilby (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

text: The new material doesn't really help. That Wollongong has sexual assault figures and actions equivalent to other universities seems relatively uninteresting. However, I am concerned that this has now become significantly more biased in the presentation. I'll see if there are any valid objections before acting, but at best this needs to be reduced and better context provided. However people may feel about the university, this should not be justification for non-neutral content. - Bilby (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What did u permanently delete from this talk page here just now Bilby? You are already deep up to your neck in C.O.I. with this article. Bullying victims or editors is no way to get your agenda served. It's just abuse of privileges as a Wikipedia Administrator to twist topics that you have personal experiences with at work. Leave the article as is, it's perfectly reflective of the uni's stance on rape on campus, that's what the sources reflect. 1.129.96.2 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear, I have no connection to the University of Wollongong and no COI in regard to this article. - Bilby (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

text: No, I am not paid to edit on anyone's behalf, and as far as I am aware, I have had no contact with the University of Wollongong in any capacity. - Bilby (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, but you do have an agenda, as one look at your user page will make immediately clear to anyone who takes the trouble. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:FD41:9606:D09:6E78 (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the trouble and I cannot see any agenda on the talk page. Can you give sources? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Employees from Australian uni's editing in favour of their colleagues at UoW, may want check their own social media policies before editing controversial topics (such as sexual abuse) and UoW on wikipeadia, and refer to expected behaviours on social media activities and the topic to ensure no policy breach. Please refer to your equity dept. For example UofSA has policies at http://w3.unisa.edu.au/hrm/equity/default.asp --1.129.96.239 (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual assault allegations 

message: No indication that this institute has independent notability. Note apparent COI editing. PamD 07:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose merge on the grounds that while the institute is affiliated with the university, it is formally recognized by the Australian government as being independent of it. Klbrain (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, somewhat boldly, as my objection has not been contested over the course of a week and there has been no support from anyone other than the proposer (over the course of more than a year). Any editor can feel free to re-proposed a merge should they wish to. Klbrain (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Illawarra Health & Medical Research Institute]] into [[University of Wollongong]] 

message: In the fourth paragraph it states that in 2019 this place had the highest student satisfaction rating of any university of any kind in the whole of Australia, but only the second highest student satisfaction rating of any public university in the state of New South Wales. Since this isn't logically possible, should that perhaps be the other way round?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.249.141 (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually borderline possible. Wollongong belongs to that shady collection of entities that are not really universities properly speaking: polytechnics, community colleges, adult education, etc. Sitting at the intersection of a Venn diagram, it may have been rated in two different, but overlapping groups. I mean no disparagement of the "not really university" group of institutions; what is bad (like, really bad) is that we allow them to call themselves universities, award PhDs to anti-vaxxers, and so on. It is a move designed to look democratic on the surface whilst undermining public trust in science. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:FD41:9606:D09:6E78 (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd Student Satisfaction Rating Claim