Talk:Southern Cross University

message: Can anybody clarify what educational delivery technology is?
no  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.167.28 (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  latest educational delivery technology? 

message: Just by way of explanation, what I've tried to do with the recent edit is to make the article read less like an advertisement.  Part of this involves removing advertising-type language, and part of this is to include a paragraph on "Controversy", as a balance to the publicity about high rankings for SCU.  I've yet to touch the history section, but I think this could be edited down.  In addition, at the moment, these seems a direct cut and paste from the SCU website. I think also that the Annual Report might provide some good statistics on the actual number of students, which would be relevant.  This might be the place to insert some statistics about the number of international students. Lismore287 (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit

message: While I note that the user who tried to remove "On 19 October 2015, peer reviewed research was announced, revealing that at regional Universities, such as Southern Cross University, approximately one third of staff reported serious harassment and bullying ." appears to be an single purpose account, nonetheless citation provided does not mention Southern Cross University. The underlying study (to the extent I could see from the abstract, the full text being behind a paywall) surveyed staff at 19 Australian universities (i.e. about one third) but they are not named. There is no evidence provided that Southern Cross University was surveyed, nor, if it was, what the rate of self-reported bullying was at that university. I cannot see how this material could be reasonably placed on the Wikipedia article for *any* Australian university, although it could be placed in an article about universities in Australia more generally. It might be if someone had access to the original research publication, there might be more information in it that might specifically refer to individual universities and hence be reasonable to include in specific university articles, but that is not the case with the citation provided. For that reason, I am removing it. Kerry (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullying 

message: I hold concerns about the removal of the Controversy Section from this Article:
1. I think the bullying reference was correctly deleted, as previously discussed on this Talk Page, although removing the whole Controversy Section seems something of over-kill.
2. I note that the Editor (Swerve) suggests there is a "unbalanced information" in the Section. The Section provides facts, and it is difficult to see how there can be a lack of balance in facts. Perhaps what the Editor means is that the Section presents facts which show SCU in a negative light -  I would suggest, however, this is not a valid reason for removing the Section. 
3. Indeed the items mentioned in the Controversy Section have impeccable source references, such as Ombudsman Reports, reports in The Australia newspaper, and so forth.  The exception was the bullying item, which was correctly deleted, in that this probably included SCU, although the refereed article did not explicitly state this.
4. I would suggest that, by removing the Controversy Section, we have as a result an unbalanced article, in that the article generally promotes the achievements and accomplishments of SCU - almost in advertorial style. 
5. I note that WP:NPOV directs: "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on grounds it appears biased". It seems that the edit concerned has not followed this advice.
6. I note also that the Editor asserts that the SCU Controversy Section contains supposedly unbalanced information "that is not displayed on any other Australian university site". Of course, the exact nature of the information in the SCU Controversy Section will differ from other University Wikipedia articles, although a quick check will confirm that it is quite common for Wikipedia University articles to have a Controversy Section (for instance, see JCU, UQ, UWS, UOW - there may be more). Further, the material in these Sections is similar in tone to that found in the SCU Controversy Section. Why should SCU be somehow special, in that the Controversy Section for the SCU Wikipedia Article should be excluded? 
Before re-instating the Controversy Section, I thought I would see what other Editors think.
Lismore287 (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that input, Violet9. Your opinion noted (and BTW my apologies for the delay in this response). I was wondering, however, about whether you agree/disagree with the 6 points I make above, and, if so, which points you agree/disagree with, and the reasons. Lismore287 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has been now six months since I flagged what I believe to be problems with the deletion of the Controversy Section of this article, in July 2019. I raised 6 points of concern, but in particular the deletion seems to be based on inaccurate information about Wikipedia articles on Australian Universities and would seem to be directly contrary wikepedia policy in W:NPOV. I raised these concerns in the interests of attempting to work toward consensus on this. I note that to date there has been no disagreement on what I've put forward in those 6 points - however if any editors do want to disagree with what I put forward in July, I would invite you to let me know what you think, and the reasons. I plan to reinstate the Controversy Section in the near future. Lismore287 (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

text:  I've now re-instated the Controversy Section. If you think this action was unreasonable in any way, I'd invite you to expand on why you think this so on this Talk Page. Similarly, if you still want to delete this Section, I'd invite discussion as to why you think that this is appropriate. There may be aspects of the Section which might be altered, and thus we might be able to come to a compromise. Lismore287 (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

text:  On the controversy section you are posting newspaper articles the mention : could be at risk of de-registration. Then attempting to cite a non publicly available "source". I will address all the 6 points listed above 
1. I think the bullying reference was correctly deleted, as previously discussed on this Talk Page, although removing the whole Controversy Section seems something of over-kill
2. I note that the Editor (Swerve) suggests there is a "unbalanced information" in the Section. The Section provides facts, and it is difficult to see how there can be a lack of balance in facts. Perhaps what the Editor means is that the Section presents facts which show SCU in a negative light -  I would suggest, however, this is not a valid reason for removing the Section. 
The section is very unbalanced as I note you have made no other edits to the page that show southern cross in anything but a negative light - I did note you added the adam shoemaker page in 2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Shoemaker&action=history which make me suspect you are a disgruntled employee with a bias against the university. This seems to be backed up by the number of edits you have made specifically to this page and in particular to this section which is not matched by your input to any other page as noted by user:Violet9
3. Indeed the items mentioned in the Controversy Section have impeccable source references, such as Ombudsman Reports, reports in The Australia newspaper, and so forth.  The exception was the bullying item, which was correctly deleted, in that this probably included SCU, although the refereed article did not explicitly state this.
The australian newspaper article cited is not an impeccable source, the ombudsman report, fair enough but I note you have provided no links to this document. I also note the australian article piece, we take at face value. The article "cited" is behind a paywall and does seem to be aware of libelous outcomes of patchy reporting of possibly illegally obtained emails by referring to "could be at risk" as opposed to "is at risk" this seems to be casting aspersions as opposed to facts. note: WP:NEWSBLOG I suspect this is an opinion peice but have no way of virifing this information.
4. I would suggest that, by removing the Controversy Section, we have as a result an unbalanced article, in that the article generally promotes the achievements and accomplishments of SCU - almost in advertorial style. 
The controversy section you have added, cites 2 potential pieces of important information about southern cross university both which are either incorrect or have no links to available sources - 
Breaches of statutory standards, of which no cited documents are publicly available and 
Reported on-campus sexual assaults - which incorrectly lists Southern cross university as the 6th worse in australia for reported sexual assualts when in the article cited it says the 6th worse in queensland, Overall it is 21 out of the universities that reported this information which again would seem to show southern cross in a lot lower in this unfortunate list.
5. I note that WP:NPOV directs: "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on grounds it appears biased". It seems that the edit concerned has not followed this advice.
The information is not only biased it is factually incorrect and relies on unverifiable sources. If you want to keep this section it needs to be factually accurate and linking to verifiable sources.
Swerve (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Thanks Swerve for your contribution, although possibly I think it might have been more productive to have attempted to reach consensus prior to removing the Section.  Anyways, just two points of clarifiation: a) I gather that you believe that verifiable sources need to be online sources. Am I correct in this understanding? b) If this is correct, which Wikipedia policy are you relying upon in this position?  I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any such policy. Regards, Sue2016 (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, those seem valid questions, although I've noticed that the Section in question has now been restored, so perhaps it may not be necessary to engage with these issues. I would dispute the assertion by Swerve that all my edits have been negative of SCU. For instance, see the statement by Swerve "you have made no other edits to the page that show southern cross (sic) in anything but a negative light". That's simply not true. There was nothing negative in my initial tidying up on the article and more recently my added Section "Community Engagement" actually points out a positive initiative from SCU. If anything, that Section leans a little towards being PR for the University. The Shoemaker article? I don't think that anybody can point to anything in that article which is in any way negative. Shoemaker is an important academic administrator in Australia, and as such he rightly deserves the article. Interestingly, if you look closely at the history of the article, I was gently criticized by another editor for being too praising of Shoemaker. So much for supposedly always being negative. Just thought I should put the record straight on the above matters. Amount of time spent on article? The original article was in a mess, and needed much work (it still needs more work). Plus I've spent a lot of time on this talk section, seeking to reach consensus. Now, speaking of consensus, where I think there may be room for compromise is whether the particular "Controversy" Section, which points out the shortcomings of SCU over the years, should have subheadings in bold. Maybe that's not warranted. I suspect that Swerve would be happy in having these bold subheadings deleted, as he/she is keen not to highlight anything negative about SCU, and I respect that. In an attempt to reach consensus, I would be interested to hear what other editors might think on this issue. Lismore287 (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

text: In answer to the question above, no, I don't believe that reliable sources need to be online sources. Lismore287 (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Controversy Section 

message: This section has been removed as it references "possible" sub standard record keeping.
The citation also references an article that is not publicly available.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swerve (talk • contribs) 06:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little puzzled as to the reasons for the removal. Only a "possible" breach? In the ABC source, the Deputy VC confirms this. The Australian newspaper not publicly available? Really? It is available in just about every public library in Australia. Lismore287 (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substandard record-keeping