Talk:University of Melbourne Student Union

message: UMSU has taken over the function of MUSU. As such, all the student history should be merged into this article. Xtra 13:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Keep the information relevant. Biographical information on office bearers should go on individual entries, not in an article about UMSU. Stephen Luntz has never been a returning officer for a MUSU election, although he was an office bearer. Rumours about Sist's pay are just that; please cite a source for your accusations. MUSU was placed into liquidation by the Supreme Court. Reference to the factional alliegance of Darren Ray should go in its own article on Cr Ray, not in an article about UMSU.
Also, MUSU had low turnouts as well. 2001 for example when Darren Ray was elected only had 1500 students vote. 7,000 and 10,000 voted in 2000 and 2002/03, and were exceptions, although MUSU traditionally had high voter turnout when compared to other student unions (ie, b/w 4-5,000 on average). 
Detailed information on student unionism at Melbourne Uni can be found here: http://www.unimelb.edu.au/Statutes/s151.pdf (it will be updated in the next month, following the next meeting of Uni Council, to include information on UMSU and the liquidation).Theusualsuspect 02:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting the identities of the President is notable in the introduction, but clearly the level of detail you want should go in a seperate OB section, or in the Politics section. I have included you voting details in the Politics section.Theusualsuspect 07:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UMSU biographical and voting 

message: DarrenRay: The article's structure needs to be logical. I have created a seperate section for Office Bearers AND put the voting level info you wrote in the relevant section (ie, Politics). Before you revert those changes, can you discuss this on the Talk page?Theusualsuspect 11:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  structure

message: I think it is interesting and maybe worth mentioning that the new constitution was drafted by the socialists and labor left. That a lot of the clauses that were put in, are things that would specifically benifit those factions. This such as abolishing incentive voting, when history shows that at incentive voting elections, a wider range of students are encouraged to vote, and not just the die hard lefties (and to a lesser extent liberals and labor students) who turn up anyway. Other things which specifically advantage the left are gender quotas and making the structure hundreds of times more complex and rigid than the old constitution. Xtra 23:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The makeup of the group was actually evenly split, but the Libs and Unity refused to participate in alot of the stuff. A friend of mine was one of the independents on the working group, and he mentioned several meetings where the right members would simply refuse to vote on motions or not turn up at all. --bainer (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1052 yes votes out of a student population of 40,000 Xtra 06:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Xtra - I doubt you could guarantee whether a majority of students agreed or disagreed, but we do know that about 90% of students who voted in the referrendum agreed (bear in mind that less than 30,000 are on campus, due to post-graduate, partime, etc (compare 1000 students voting at Melbourne to almost any other student union elections). Regardless, the referrendum was passed and accepted by the University, and that includes the prohibition on giving any kind of incentive to vote. As for the makeup of the WG, unless you have detailed information on the breakdown of factions, I will revert any edit to make that says the left "controlled" the WG.Theusualsuspect 06:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe it would be on the Uni News website. Otherwise it is unverifiable.Theusualsuspect 06:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I have seen the results of the working group election and from the outset the committee was controlled by a left leaning majority. I also had a copy of meeting minutes. However the Student Union has destroyed all this online information. Xtra 06:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incentive voting 

message: For the record: UMSU full time pay = $16,000 (all OBs are paid at the same rate). Part time OBs get 60% of this each. In 2005, this was $17,000. Payscales prior to 2005 were in excess of $20,000 for full time (Darren, perhaps you can confirm how much you were paid). In my opinion, this information is not notable.
Theusualsuspect 06:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pay 

message: We might all disagree about various facts, biases and so on here but I don't think there can be genuine dispute that the article is a mess. I am happy to contribute to a re-write but only if others are comfortable with that and will also contribute. DarrenRay 08:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: There are too many to individually list. Saying that Parliamentarians were active with UMSU before it existed, or before MUSU existed is just wrong. The article is specifically about UMSU, where it makes reference to the 408 different predecessors it should do so accurately. Because it has been restructured so many times, this will need a real eye for detail.
: You can't say that the article is biased and then refuse to list the biases.Theusualsuspect 09:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual errors

message: *Oppose I can't even begin to understand why this was proposed. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Andrew Landeryou 

message: I was under the impression that Student Unions exist to represent their members and to provide services. Therefore, if these articles are to go on and on and on and on about the petty politics of the union and give hardly a mention to what the Union actually does they are way off message. Do you think people on the other side of the world (or on the other side of Victoria for that matter) give a damn about which faction is currently on top? Why is there no photo of the SU building? The SU bar? What has the Union achieved for it's members in real terms during its existence? Another example: "First published in 1925, Farrago is the University of Melbourne student newspaper". It gets one paragraph. Nothing notable or fascinating has happened to that newspaper in the 80 years of its existence? Hopefully with some of the key POV warriors blocked (just look at the section "Incentive voting" above - who cares?!) the cruft can be removed from this and related articles and it can get back onto message. --kingboyk 09:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The purpose of a Students Union is...? 

message: It has been noted before that this article needs some serious work.  I am going to have a look through it, and I'll start by removing the current officers, since they are clearly not independntly notable, the information is trivial and subject to frequent change, and the list of names (apart form questions of vanity) adds nothing to the understanding of the institution.  Every student union has elected officers, to note their existence is surely sufficient. I will leave in those past officers who have their own articles, as appears to be usual with articles on institutions of this type. Just zis Guy you know? 21:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up 

message: I was surprised to see reference to "Womyn's" and Queers department. At first I thought it was somebody trolling, but according to the MSU website, there is a Queer Department, so I won't remove that. However the Women's Department is spelled correctly, without the Y.
Limeguin (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Women's and Queer Departments

message: I would have thought that the full-list of Office-Bearers and their names and ticket backgrounds is important for a page of a Student Union - for anyone interested in who the OBs are or who is running the Union. I could guess that people visiting the page would be interested in the contemporary who’s who of UMSU - which as far as I can tell has been a feature for most of the page’s history. The page was just updated because UMSU just had a by-election and new OBs were elected (with some factional changes). I looked up the page to see the updated list, which is why I was surprised to see it removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.36.186.80 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Office-Bearer list