Talk:Australian Liberal Students' Federation

earlier comments

About the "not very significant electorall" - my intention with this was to point out that the ALSF have an impact on NUS inconsistent with their actual numerical strength. It may have been phrased dismissively, but probably something along those lines should be included in the article. The ALSF are quite small nationally compared especially with the two biggest Labor factions, but that doesn't mean they don't influence NUS conference greatly. Lacrimosus 21:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Having seen NUS I understand that. By the way, you would have to wonder why a political organization which has large parlimentary success would always be just about the smallest faction at NUS. Xtra 22:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A number of reasons, I think, the biggest one being that student electorates always and everywhere are more radical than the general population. Also, the paramount issue for students, unlike the general electorate, is education policy, where the government is unpopular. It's interesting to note that with UK Labour in power attempting to introduce tuition fees, the radical left groupings have gained in influence. The same thing happened to the the Australian NUS when Labor was in power federally. Lacrimosus 23:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bias

I am not a Liberal but this article is heavily biased against them and seems to be written by someone wanting to disparage them. One user is keen to reinsert descriptions of them as "controversial" etc. I doubt they are any more controversial than any other group. DarrenRay 08:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"TheUsualSuspect" edits call the group "vicious".

And continues:

"No other faction carries the notoriety attached to the ALSF at NUS National Conference. Opponents claim that the ALSF attempts to disrupt proceedings; the ALSF however claims that the Conference does not permit freedom of speech and despite preaching tolerance, the conference acts to gag dissident opinions."

"Controversial," "vicious," "no other faction carries the notoriety," "attempts to disrupt", clearly biased. DarrenRay 08:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Those words were written by others, and were included in reverts made by me. The controversial nature of ALSF's involvement in NUS is notable. I removed unfounded statments as to the activities of ALSF at NUS conference, as you note above, giving both views (ie, opponents claim they disrupt confenence, ALSF claims they are being gagged).Theusualsuspect 08:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing Sentence Regarding 'Faction' and 'Caucus' As someone who is active in ALSF, while I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiments of the sentence regarding avoidance of the use of those terms, the facts are they are still quite commonly used. I'm not sure if the sentence is worth removal or the addition of an explanatory sentence regarding my own premise. Thoughts?

The language is wrong but the group is controversial. As an ousider with links to high ranking Liberal Party members i know that several times the group has been diciplined by the non young party for its actions. I have added a controvery section because it ough to be.

Congratulations! You've just given away the fact that you're here on a political mission. Wikipedia isn't the place for "controversy" (oh, my!), it's the place for encylopedic information. You can have all the controversy (oh, my!) on your own blog if you so wish; but not here. michael ^talk 11:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This article needs some serious tidying up. The language is emotive (e.g. "widely condemned"), claims often unsubstantiated (e.g. while the Queensland division of the Young Liberals pointed out that, while one prominent Young Liberal member was involved, the students were delegates elected by their university's student body, as such they were members of the Australian Liberal Students' Federation), and clearly lacks any semblance of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random71 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

external links

I agree with removing those links:

1. The liberal party is a right wing party and that wording was redundant
2. The language and links were POV
3. The young liberals do not have any representation at NUS. It is only Liberal alligned students.

Xtra 07:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

neutrality

I note none of the other factions have been subject to this level of scrutiny... LibStu 12:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi LibStu, I understand what you're saying but the higher the scrutiny of an article the better I would have thought because it results in a better quality of article. While I think all those notices look pretty ugly, they do comply with wikipedia policy (most import one here being that it is an encyclopedia not a free promotional web-tool). If you wish to scrutanise other articles about 'factions' for their complience with wikipedia policy I would encourage you to do so, they all seem pretty poor to me in NPOV and referencing terms. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 13:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh look, I don't dispute the value of some of the tags, I just find it interesting to note that. I t is for this reason that I havn't removed any of the tags, although, having said that, it might be easier simply to consolidate them somewhat. Might I suggest, however, that some of the other editors here actually assist in the editing and help try to improve it?

LibStu 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, although I wouldn't know where to start to find sources, tell-all books like John Hyde-Page's are not really neutral sources. When it comes to student politics maybe there just isn't enough published about it yet for there to be articles at the level of factions within student politics. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WikiTownsvillian. If we can't find third-party sources to prove notability for these student organizations, then they don't really pass the test of being "encyclopedic." For those factions, I recommend we either merge summarized information about each faction into a centralized page, or move all the information to some other more appropriate wiki where the notability requirements aren't as high. For example, this would probably be good information to add to the Australia wiki at Wikia. --Elonka 04:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to realise however that, unlike the other NUS factions which exist soley in the context of the National Union, ALSF has its own independent existance, organises its own seperate events, conferences, media, receptions, lobbying etc. It has a much longer history (since 1948)tha any of the other NUS factions (the oldest of which is a little more than a decade) and I would argue that the argument fors ALSF staying on Wikipedia as a seperate entity, and not being merged, are even stronger than those that apply to any other faction. LibStu 06:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is only one test for a subject's notability as far as I can see and that is that it has enough independent references to source about the article's subject matter. WikiTownsvillian 09:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Elonka and WikiTownsvillian. Does the greater public actually have an interest in the existence of the ALSF and other factions? Given that most uni students don't even care about student political organisations. LibStu is the communications director of Sydney University Liberal Club so you wonder why he is so strong in maintaining this article. 210.56.72.220 11:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, LibStu. You do not own Wikipedia articles relating to Liberals and student politics. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a self-congratulatory tool to promote "ALSF has its own independent existance, organises its own seperate events, conferences, media, receptions, lobbying etc. It has a much longer history (since 1948)tha any of the other NUS factions" . All Wikipedia articles have a much higher level of scrutiny and objectivity than content derived from www.alsf.org.au 210.56.72.220 11:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we leave the politics out of this discussion, and particularly not personalise it. As has already been stated; there are alternatives in the wikiworld for just about anything anyone could want to write, we just have to comply with wikipedia policies for wikipedia articles, that is all this discussion is about. The point that was originally made by LibStud is valid that there seems to be competition on these student faction articles between factions, the neutrality of the editors on all sides is an issue because all these articles seem to have being written by people who are involved in the factions and not editors who are researching the subject-matter independently. I think I might flag this issue at wikiproject Aust politics to get the perspective of some other editors who may not have these factional articles on their watchlist. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 12:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, can people please stop assuming my identity. The fact that I am a Liberal Student is not exactly a secret from my username. Let's not get above ourselves by claiming who I am without any evidence. In response to some of the concerns raised, I think that the fact that the ALSF site references major newspapers, the NUS webpage, parliamentary debates & hansard and so forth, I don't think comments that all it sites is the ALSF page are particularly justified. Yes I certainly agree that the page needs work, and I am attempting to do this, however improving these sites takes time. My point regarding the separate identity of ALSF as a body is that its achievements and activities extend beyond NUS (eg read page 9 of the Australian Financial Review today), and so to simply make it a subsidiary of the NUS page would not be accurate. In general can I point out though, that up until the little flurry of activity the last few days, generally all the factional pages had been edited by people from all factions with a nice consensus reached, but anyway. I reaffirm my point though that at least I'm attempting to do something about the problem, none of the other factional pages are, yet I am the one who gets criticised and has all the tags on the ALSF page because of certain people's petty personal grudges. I just hardly think it's fair. The page isn't perfect, sure, but at least I'm trying. I do think that the pages of various factions do deserve to stay here, and, to quote, we're not there yet, but we're heading in the right direction! LibStu 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

LibStu you say "certain people's petty personal grudges" because people tag stuff and ask for more verification. That is part of the Wikipedia process. You can see other factions' articles and people have repeatedly asked for more verification on sources. It's got nothing to do with that and you interpret people trying to make the article more encyclopedic as a personal attack? Crying foul because "other faction articles" don't get the same scrutiny is diverting attention away from making this ALSF entry more encyclopedic. Wikipedia's referencing should predominantly be independent sources, not party produced material. This is the same standard as for say company articles in Wikipedia, they should not be really sourced too much from the company website. As for this ALSF entry, no one said it was all referenced from ALSF website, that is obvious. If you can link today's article as an example, that would be good. LibStar 02:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re today's article, the AFR site is password protected so I can't actually link to it. I have a PDF of the article though so if someone can explain to me how to upload it I would appreciate it. LibStu 06:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mac Uni

I fail to see how the recent controversy regarding Macquarie should be placed under the Wiki ALSF page. Whilst it is certainly a relevant issue, it should be placed on a page relating to Macquarie as the ALSF was not involved in any way, and I think it is a rather bad precedent to set that the actions of individuals in various student councils is to be counted towards the national organisation. If significant editors (by which I mean real editors and not one-off IP addresses) disagree, i'll be happy to keep it up, but let's discuss this first. LibStu 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

agreed LibStu/Ben Potts.

Clearly, the involvement of the ALSF (or its members or affiliates) warrants the Macquarie situation to be included in the ALSF entry.Theusualsuspect 10:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree for inclusion, Victor Ma was elected on a Liberal ticket thus he is under the umbrella of the ALSF. Isn't the ALSF about the grouping of university Liberal clubs? Of course the national executive of ALSF may claim no involvement but a degree of responsibility must lie with the top like with any major organisation. Secondly, I'm yet to hear the President of the ALSF condemn Victor Ma's actions or deny ALSF involvement, if it's supposedly an unrepresentative action of an individual. Michellecrisp 13:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any references for the fact that Victor Mar was elected on a Liberal ticket? My understanding is that there were a few members of the Liberal club on Victor's ticket, not the other way around. If you have a reference to the contrary, I would be glad to retract this statement. Secondly, as a believer in precedent, there is no mention on the Unity page for their involvment with the Monsu fiasco (something which, due to the fact that it is still before the courts is obviously of far greater significance). Similarly, the USYD SRC when under broad left control being dissolved by the University and put into liquidation is not mentioned on the broad left page. The list goes on. There seems to be a consensus on wiki that national student organisational pages should reflect the actions of the national organisation as a whole, and that the alleged improprieties by individual student organisations not be tied to them. Indeed, from a constitutional standpoint, as the ALSF is a federation of independent liberal clubs, which has no authority over them or their actions, I would state it has even LESS reasons to have things like this included than other student political organisations which have considerably greater control over individual clubs. From your comments, I can still see no reason for it to be on the ALSF page. LibStu 13:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ben, there is nothing stopping you adding other controversies to the respective wikipedia site as long as it's citated. if the ALSF has no authority over individual clubs and individual actions, then why doesn't the President come out and say that? the fact that some on Wikipedia want to put it up here reflects a misinterpretation of the role of the ALSF in the media that the President must clarify or you as a Communications Director. at the very least Victor Ma is a member of the Liberal Party but is he affiliated with ALSF? http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21668934-12332,00.html http://www.search.com/reference/Macquarie_University_Students'_Council Michellecrisp 14:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated on numerous times, please refrain from calling me Ben Potts, something you have no evidence of. Whilst I recognise the fact that you use numerous aliases, one of which, I might add, Stephen Highbury, has been referred for investigation for the continued harassment of Young Liberal Executive members, you really have no right to keep making comments on my identity. It is juvinile at best. Secondly, the ALSF Constitution clearly spells the lack of ALSF authority of individual clubs out. It is downloadable from the ALSF website. I suggest you read it. Victor Ma is NOT a delegate to ALSF. Victor Ma has never held an ALSF Executive position. Victor Ma therefore is NOT personally a member of, or affiliated to, ALSF. It is my understanding that the ALSF President DID make this point to the media, however was not quoted -I suppose it isn't particularly interesting news. This, however, is irrelvant. What is relevant is that the ALSF Constitution clearly sets this out. My point remains that I have no problems with this issue being placed on Wikipedia, however, it should be placed in the relevant place. Editors should discuss this at the appropriate forum. I again draw your attention to the precedent set by Monsu. The monsu contraversy here is located under the University of Melbourne Student Union Wiki, and not under the Student Unity Wiki, even though all parties controlled were members of Student Unity (aka Labor Right). LibStu 01:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone let me know how to flag this issue at wikiproject Aust politics so as to get an impartial perspective? Cheers. LibStu 01:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ben, the evidence is here: [3] it definitely isn't baseless. as for whoever you think I am, whoever this highbury guy is I can state on the record I have no connection to whoever he is or is claimed to have done. I had a look around and there is no contributor called highbury on wikipedia. Making baseless accusations like that on Wikipedia which have no relevance to Wikipedia (unlike your conflict of interest as an editor/communications director) is typical of the accusatory element of some student groups on all sides of student politics. If someone has harassed you or your colleagues go through the appropriate channels to complain not Wikipedia. I am a genuine Wikipedian, look at my edits. Michellecrisp 02:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do have my evidence, however you are correct in that I probably shouldn't be discussing this here. My apologies. However, in the same vein, you should not be making comments stating your belief as to who I am which are based on assumption, not fact. Similarly, the fact that it would seem that every liberal related page on Wiki has had "LibStu is Ben Potts" tagged in the past seems a tad juvinile (to whoever did it, I obviously have no evidence it was you as it was done via IP). However, can we please get back to the matter at hand, and can you please address the points I made. LibStu 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

well it's obviously false evidence, I have no connection to any highbury as previously stated. seems like Liberal students get paranoid whenever someone questions them. as for Victor Ma, I think we seek more evidence of who he represents. there's no denying he has a connection to the Liberal Party and there's no denying his actions are most likely that of an individual. As I said before there is a perception (unjust or otherwise) that the Macquarie uni incident is related to the ALSF. same way if something similar happened say with Young Labor. Michellecrisp 02:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, however I would argue that as none of the media reports you cite, nor any others that I can find, link ALSF to Mac Uni then the perception isn't all that widespread... How about we come to a comprimise. You find me an article in the media referncing ALSF and this 'perception' we can cite, and I shall withdraw all my objections. Otherwise, we don't include it. Deal? :) LibStu 02:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

the perception is reflected from various different people trying to put up this incident on this page but also the general perception of the connection between ALSF, young libs, and individual liberal clubs. Michellecrisp 02:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Have slightly modified the page to reflect this, adding constitutional reference. Please advise if you have better suggestions. LibStu 02:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing I do thank you for is discussing this openly here, rather than simply deleting it with no comment or contribution as Alans1977 seems to be doing. Quite tedious really. LibStu 05:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate User:Michellecrisp, the perception of overlap between between ASLF, young libs and individual campus Liberal clubs is so great, that amongst most people involved in student politics (despite ASLF's constitution), they are considered to be synonymous. Alans1977 05:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.alsf.org.au/alsf/docs/584331.pdf, "I am pleased to report that the link between NSW Liberal Students and the NSW Young Liberal movement is stronger than ever. Through joint functions and campaigns we have achieved a unity of purpose enabling us to work together to promote Liberalism". Said by a then NSW State Representative of the Australian Liberal Students Federation. Alans1977 05:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you for finally having the courtesy to participate in the discussion. In response. 1)Yes, I agree that there is a perception of overlap between ALSF, the yl's and so forth. This perception however is an inaccurate one. One only need do factiva searches on the hostility between alsf and the yl's in the 1980's and 1990's for instance. Indeed in some states liberal students and young liberals have nothign to do with each other still. In contrast to the YL's, the ALSF is not considered part of the Liberal Party, and the party has no authority over it. If you have any suggestions as to how I can make this clearer on the ALSF page, I shall be more than happy to take this on board. 2)Stating that the YL's and Liberal Students in NSW have worked together and held joint functions does nothing to counteract what i just said. I fail to see the relevance. Furthermore, we're talking about joint functions between the NSW Liberal Students Association and the YL's, not alsf. 3)Most importantly, what on earth does this have to do with the issue at hand, regarding Macquarie Uni? I really can't see it. Again I ask, is there ANYTHING in the media, or anywhere other than with two Wiki editors that links the actions of Victor to ALSF? If you can find something, please, put it up, i'll retract all my comments. I just honestly can't see how it is relevant. LibStu 06:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While the link between ASLF and yl's might be more unjustified (even though they are considered by many to be the same thing). The link between Liberal students and ASLF is certainly a lot more solid. I diverged from the subject mentioning yl's. It is however quite appropriate the bring up Ma's actions given his status as a Liberal Student. As a Liberal Student he is associated with ASLF, he might not be on it's exec, he does however fall under it's umbrella.Alans1977 06:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any citable evidence that Victor Ma is a member of the Macquarie University Liberal Club? To the best of my knowledge there is not. There is a very large difference between being a Liberal Student and being a student who is also a member of the Liberal Party. Allow me to state that I think that this issue can play a part on Wiki, however, it is one far too complex to adequatly go through here. For instance, the history of the dispute, the plans by the university that triggered this whole thing and the consequences they have for student representation, the criticism of the university's actions - this is something that shall take up quite a lot of space, and would probably end up being half the ALSF page if one wished to be fair and present both sides, even though it would have nothing to do with the Federation. Let's keep the Federation page to official acts of the Federation LibStu 06:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macquarie_University#Restructure_of_student_organisations_amid_fraud_allegations provides some evidence of him being a member of student Liberal clubs. I have seen more else where. I will provide it when it is found. Alans1977 06:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I can't see from that what the evidence is. Could you please clarify? LibStu 06:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan, your question to the Nat Ed egroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nat_education/message/7348 clearly shows that you have no evidence for this. LibStu 07:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

He is a member of the Liberal Party. He is a student. He is involved with people who are or have been involved in Liberal Student clubs at USyd and Macquarie. The implication is obvious. Also see http://www.3000votes.org/?p=33 Alans1977 07:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous and does not address any of my points. LibStu 08:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ben and others, I was the one that originally included this Macq Uni incident because I believe is noteworthy. others such as theusualsuspect have supported its inclusion. there seems to be some majority view of the perception that Victor Ma as a member of the Liberal Party and involved heavily in university politics is connected to ALSF. Ben's constant rebuttal "oh well ALSF is a federation so can't control anyone" is a nice way of deflecting any responsiblity and great use of weasel words, no wonder you're student politicians, it's a bit like the other incident reported below "oh it's not us (Young Libs) it's the other mob we're actually not connected with but follow the same political party, the ALSF" I do note Tom Watson of Sydney University Liberal Club and the infamous Jessica Weber formerly of James Cook University were clearly shown on that video. here is another report of the actions of Weber and co: http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/qld/content/2006/s1700124.htm LibStar 12:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have consistantly stated that if there is consensus here to include the Mac Uni stuff here that I shall withdraw my consensus. Hence why I have repeatedly asked for independant opinions. I do not consider LibStar (an account that seems to have been set up specifically to mimic my username) and Alan to be independent participants in this debate. Regarding the NUS stuff, I agree - as I have said below - that it can be included here. I do think it fair under the impartiality principles of Wikipedia however that the response of ALSF be included as well. Finally, please stop calling me Ben. You have no evidence for this and it is rather childish. LibStu 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

on the same token, you are not independent either being an active member and office holder of a university Liberal club. as I've said before you may have a conflict of interest in editing Liberal and student politics websites (which is all you seem to do). how do you judge Alan as independent? he has expressed a view that is not necessarily politically motivated. Michellecrisp 01:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed to be independent. You will note I admitted previously to being a Liberal Student. This is irrelevant to the debate at hand however. LibStu 03:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But you say you think LibStar and Alan are not "independent participants in this debate". I interpret that as meaning you think their opinions are less valid. perhaps you should refrain from future discussion on this talk page, you have consistently displayed a lack of impartiality on topics relating to the Liberal Party and student politics (which I've previously stated is all you edit). I can state on the record that I am not a member of any political party nor affiliated or know anyone in parties. I have in fact voted for different political parties in my life. Please remember this policy. I note you are the original creator of Sydney University Liberal Club. Do not dismiss conflict of interest as irrelevant to the motivations of your edits. Michellecrisp 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You misinterpret my meaning. I do not claim to be independant. It was for this reason that I asked for discussion on this topic. In the same way that I am not objective about this, I do not believe Alan is. Nor LibStar. I simply asked for people who don't have a vested interest in this (and yes, I do consider you to have a very vested interest) to comment. Wiki guidelines btw clearly permit me to only edit one subject as well as to have my own affiliations. LibStu 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My view on this discussion is that there are competing viewpoints which to be presented regarding Victor Ma. Like you, I am happy for others comments, a compromise might be both views being presented as per NPOV guideline which states Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Michellecrisp 04:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I never said you claimed to be independent. Why do I have a very vested interest? I have no involvement with the Liberals or opposing factions. that is a baseless claim like your claim I'm another person who harasses your colleagues. completely unfounded and potentially defamatory. this is not a site for airing your dissatisfaction of people that criticise (justly or unjustly) your Liberal Students/Party etc. There is nothing wrong with editing on a single topic, but every edit you do is to make the Liberal Party as positive as possible, which includes edits that soften or remove criticism such as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Union_of_Students_of_Australia&diff=99579116&oldid=99546657 or the use of "strong keep" I've never seen "strong keep" used in a deletion discussion before which indicates strong bias that is influencing your Wikipedia editing. Michellecrisp 04:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

who has the vested interest influencing edits? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Union_of_Students_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=99579116, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Labor_Students&diff=prev&oldid=100846258 Michellecrisp 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

more on Mac Uni, this ALSF document says on page 11 by ALSF NSW rep "Macquarie University saw Liberals still maintaining complete control of the Students’ Council (MUSC) and the Union, SAM." did this involve Victor Ma, why is it reported in an ALSF publication?? http://alsf.org.au/alsf/docs/898906.pdf Michellecrisp 08:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How shallow that LibStu discounts me on the basis of my name. No one is truly independent in this world, didn't you learn that at church? Having said that, I believe I am more independent than you as I don't try to be childish and hide my real life position as an executive member of a uni liberal club which is a prime motivation for the style of editing given as evidence here. You're not simply a "liberal student" but an active student politician. you take an incredible amount of interest in defending and promoting the Liberal interest. I would like to too but NPOV guidelines prevent me on Wikipedia. There are other excellent forums such as the ALSF website for promoting Liberal values. On the Mr Victor Ma issue, if he did something fantastic at Macquarie like turnaround the union, would ALSF take credit? LibStar 11:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been many, very successful things undertaken by student organisations under the control of Liberal Students. I have not mentioned any of them here. LibStu 03:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Sydney Morning Herald Article yestterday [4] which states "Ma did not advertise his membership of the Liberal Party on campus" combined with the answer on the nat ed egroup [5] which states that "there are two Lib factions that don't entirely get along" and that the Liberal Club was different to Victor and Victor's people. I think this clears it up does it not? LibStu 04:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, then why did the ALSF care to report and essentially take credit for Liberal control of Macq institutions in their own publication (as in Michelle's message 08:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)) if the ALSF and associates didn't get on with Victor? LibStar 05:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You will note that in that very same paragraph - the next sentance in fact - where Liberal Students in positions of power are named, and Victor isn't one of them. Look I think we are all losing site of the main point here which is whether it is appropriate for the ALSF page or not. I certainly agree it should be somewhere, and discussed in full. I certainly agree that you can mention that Victor is a Liberal. However I don't think it appropriate on the ALSF page. LibStu 12:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we are losing sight of spelling.

Do we have any agreement on this yet?LibStu 02:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with LibStu. While it is certainly clear that Victor Ma was a Liberal, there are two issues. One and less important is whether Victor Ma's links with ALSF are strong enough, I do not believe they are. Two and fundamental, is the question of whether this should be on the ALSF page or on a MU student union page. I believe it should be a part of the latter. If we turn the factional pages into a listing of every stupid thing individuals have done, these pages will very quickly end up looking like the TimeCube website. I think this should be added to a MacU page, and we nut out the details there.Lashlan 01:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Article protected

I have fully protected this article due to edit warring – please resolve the dispute though discussion. I remind both Alans1977 and LibStu of the three-revert rule and civility guidelines.--cj | talk 05:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any place we can ask other wiki editors to look at this? As I have stated from the outset, I am more than happy to let this issue go if some consensus is reached, hence why i began this discussion - I do take objection to what I consider a valid point for discussion being labelled 'vandalism' and reverted by Alan, without him addressing my points in the slightest. In anycase, it would seem that me and Alan shall not be able to resolve this, although I do believe that MichelleCrisp & I seemed to be coming to a consensus, so as I asked previously up here, is there any place I can go to refer this for outside advice? Wiki project australian politics or something? LibStu 06:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made a request for input at WP:AWNB.--cj | talk 06:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not see compromise between you and User:Michellecrisp. I've seen you thinking that putting a reference to the ASLF constitution was a compromise. While I do not have a problem with the placement of a link to the ASLF constitution it certainly does not reflect a compromise in the difference of opinion about the relevance of the disputed material. Alans1977 06:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments were based on teh fact that Michellecrisp did not make efforts to reinclude the disputed paragraph, and that the debate moved away from the disputed material to how best to clarify the relationship between ALSF/YL's etc, so I formed the opinion, particularly from her saying "we need more evidence" that we coudl reach a comprimise. Appologies if i am mistakenLibStu 06:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave that for User:Michellecrisp to comment on. However the mere fact that she did not re-include the material you removed does not constitute a compromise by a long stretch of the imagination. Alans1977 06:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Alan, no compromise here it appears. claiming victory when you indeed did not. LibStar 12:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise? I don't think so. See the comments I added today. Michellecrisp 03:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for being of the belief that people here were trying to resolve this dispute and work together. I retract that statement. Sorry. LibStu 07:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words again. I'm trying to work together but I don't think compromise has been reached yet. Michellecrisp 07:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Michellecrisp stating that she does not believe a compromise had been arrived at equals not trying to resolve this dispute and not work together? Quite a combative stance to take for someone claiming to try and reach a consensus and resolve a difference of opinion. Alans1977 13:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

yes Alan that's why I don't take it as a genuine apology, weasel words and lack of contrition. Michellecrisp 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NUS Conference 2005

{{Editprotected}} Can this please be placed in the page under the National Union of Students section. It is directly relevant to actions of ALSF members. "In July 2006, Young Liberal Movement was the subject of controversy after the ABC's Lateline program aired footage from the 2005 National Union of Students' conference in Ballarat. The video showed Liberal students chanting "We're racist, we're sexist, we're homophobic". The president of the New South Wales Young Liberals released a statement condemning the outbursts , while the Queensland division of the Young Liberals pointed out that, while one prominent Young Liberal member was involved, the students were delegates elected by their university's student body, as such they were members of the [[Australian Liberal Students' Federation]." Alans1977 06:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to something of this nature being added. I would, however, seek for it to be slightly edited to reflect that they arn't acutlly members of ALSF (ALSF as discussed previously being a federation of independent clubs, clubs are members) as well as to reflect that ALSF responded by stating that, as a body, it has no authority over the conduct of individual delegates at NUS. so I'm happy with that included, because it did directly affect the Federation, but I think that those two ammendments would be justified. LibStu 06:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your playing with words. Clubs are associated with ASLF and individuals are associated with clubs, so by direct connection the individuals involved are connected with ASLF. Whether ASLF has power over their actions or not. Alans1977 06:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoever these students were they were wearing those black Liberal T-shirts, they may have come from individual university Liberal clubs but weren't they represented under the general ALSF contingent? It's like saying actions of individual divisions of CFMEU don't have anything to do with the CFMEU. at the end of the day, individuals bring organisations into disrepute through their own actions. The issue is the Young Liberals deny it's them and they say it's ALSF. Michellecrisp 06:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it is a fair point hence why I'm not objecting to the content being included. I just think it be fair to make the distinction. LibStu 06:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request. Editprotected's are usually reserved for non-controversial edits (e.g., typo fixes, etc.). There's clearly still discussion in progress. Please feel free to re-enable the request if there is clear consensus for a change. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

More material on this subject to be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO7knUNlJso&watch_response (footage of the incident) and http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/qld/content/2006/s1700124.htm (transcript of the footage). I think so far, no one has argued against the inclusion of this material. Sounds like a consensus to me. Re-enabling tag. Alans1977 06:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph to be added to end of National Union of Students section: "In July 2006, Young Liberal Movement was the subject of controversy after the ABC's Lateline program aired footageReport on ASLF associated students at NUS Conference 2005Transcript of NUS 2005 incident from the 2005 National Union of Students' conference in Ballarat. The video showed Liberal students chanting "We're racist, we're sexist, we're homophobic". The president of the New South Wales Young Liberals released a statement condemning the outbursts , while the Queensland division of the Young Liberals pointed out that, while one prominent Young Liberal member was involved, the students were delegates elected by their university's student body, as such they were members of the [[Australian Liberal Students' Federation]."

Young Liberals and Liberal Students definitely like doing things together, http://www.younglibs.org.au/news/news_200604.php isn't the distinction that Young Liberals are Lib Party members under 30 whilst students are those attending uni and affiliated to a university liberal club? Michellecrisp 07:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Two quick points. Firstly, that is not the correct distinction - The Young Liberals are formally affiliated to the Liberal Party, and as such, members of the Young Liberals are members of the Liberal Party. The ALSF is independent from the Liberal Party, and you can be a Liberal Student without being a member of the Liberal Party. Secondly, regarding the proposed paragraph, it does not address the point I made previously about the role of ALSF in the context of NUS and that ALSF claims no jurisdiction in this regard. You can say alsf came under criticism for their response, but you should include it. (nor, I might add, does it mention the fact that the students involved pointed out that it was a sarcastic chant in response to them being labeled racist for attempting to unveil the Australian flag at conference floor, something which, obviously, the ABC decided to exclude from their broadcast) LibStu 07:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

yes I'm aware that technically an ALSF member doesn't have to be a member of the Liberal Party, my previous statement just said students are affiliated to a uni club. As for the sarcastic chant defence, I've heard it before but there appears inconclusive evidence that it was sarcastic. I'm definitely not concluding yet that it was or was not sarcastic. Michellecrisp 07:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What you mention, in regards to the chant being a response, is not documented. As per the actual students not being members of ALSF (by nature of its structure), it is irrelevant. The students are associated with individual Liberal clubs which in turn are members of ALSF. They clearly come under the umbrella of ALSF. It is clearly correct to associate them with ALSF. ALSF's structure/constitution is irrelevant. The student's involved have been identified by persons of your own political persuasion as being associated with ALSF. Placing in disclaimers, as suggested by you, is playing with words and contrary to the ordinary usage of the English language. Alans1977 13:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is a problem with the way verifiability works here that the Lib students who were interviewed and said it was sarcastic were not quoted by the ABC and as such I can't see how we can include this response; perhaps include it but simply put a 'citation needed' tag? As for the structure of ALSF, I do believe it is relevant because, unlike NLS/Unity &c which have internal member disciplinary proceedings, the ALSF as a body has no power whatsoever to control the behavior individuals. As an organisation governed by a constitution, it must act within the law. Even if every single member of the ALSF Executive unanimously condemned a Liberal Student, called for their expulsion etc, it would matter naught. I think that this is highly relevant. I would like to note that according to the most recent issue of the ALSF publication, the ALSF constitution is being re-written to update it and to try to resolve some of these problems. In anycase though, you can certainly condemn the behaviour of individual liberal students, but you need to recognise that only their clubs have the power to discipline them, not alsf, and that alsf can not be held responsible for their behaviour. Or at the least state that that is what ALSF's stance is. LibStu 00:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to note that the ASLF students were chanting as a sarcastic response to SAlt chanting as long as a 'citation needed' tag was included. Alans1977 04:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I note Alan you seem to constantly remove every negative piece of commentary from the SA Wiki... funny, that. LibStu 00:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

LibStu, I've added a bit of material to the SA Wiki which reflects on them in a negative light. See the last paragraph, where I added a link to an incident involving them at ANU. I personally witnessed the incident and thought it was hilarious. The linked interview does however make them look like a bunch of loonies. The one thing I have removed is a reference to horseshoe theory, which is a POV laden, highly debatable theory of questionable validity. It's only fair that if I ad something that reflects bad on them (while maintaining a NPOV), that I remove something that does display a POV and is of questionable validity. Alans1977 04:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok i'll concede that LibStu 07:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This section added as per previous discussion. Alans1977 10:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

References

National Union of Students section

{{editprotected}} A few corrections to this section that I believe are necessary.

1) The final sentence in the first paragraph states "The "AUS folded in 1984 after a lengthy campaign by the Australian Liberal Students’ Federation"" and references http://www.unistudent.com.au/about/nusinfo.pdf. The sentence places undue weight on the actions of the ALSF in the downfall of AUS. Especially considering the reference states "The AUS folded in 1984 after a lengthy campaign by the Australian Liberal Students’ Federation, the Fraser Government and state Liberal Governments to destroy it." I think it would be appropriate to replace the sentence currently in the article with the one from the reference if the sentence is to remain.

2)The third sentence of the second paragraph reads "The ALSF asserts NUS to be simply an excuse for Labor students to spend students' money on political campaigns, citing the large sums of money used by NUS to campaign for the ALP in the 2004 federal election.". the second part of this statement makes a very strong claim that is not backed up and should be removed.

3)The first sentence of the fifth paragraph states "No other faction carries the notoriety attached to the ALSF at NUS National Conference". This is simply untrue and needs and edit. SAlt certainly have as much notoriety. Perhaps "ALSF is one of the more notorious factions at NUS Conference." While on the subject of NUS Conference, I think it would be correct usage to change all references to "NUS National Conference" to "NUS Conference".

4)The sixth paragraph is simply wrong. The votes of ALSF delegates only mattered once Student Unity lost delegates because of the loss of accreditation at one of their strongholds. This needs to be reflected, as the current sentence gives to much weight to the power of ALSF. Else the sentence needs to be removed.

5)The seventh paragraph is far from perfect, especially given some ASLF students saying afterwards that this would send NUS to the wall the fastest and was therefor why they acted as they did. A NPOV way of putting this paragraph would be "Despite attempts by Student Unity to gain the votes of Liberal Students in favour of Unity Candidate Camden Gilchrist, Liberal Students delivered their votes to to Mathew Chuk, a member of the Independents faction, thus ensuring his victory" Alans1977 14:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If only you'd put the same level of scrutiny to any of the other factional pages. In response: 1)I agree with that. 2)There is a sydney morning herald article you can get on factiva which states the $255,000 spent on marginal seats campaigning by the NUS in the last federal election; it is not available online - specifically, the web version lists the article but doesn't include the table which the print/factiva version has accompanying it which quotes the NUS figure. If someone can show me how to properly reference it,k I gladly will. 3)I certainly agree with that. 4)Your point regarding SU is irrelevant. The balance of power was in the hands of Liberal students. The margin of Chuk's victory was 39 votes. Lib students had far more votes than that. Everyone had deals sown up before conference except for the Libs. It is a very well known fact that up until the day in question when the Libs revealed how they would vote, that the decision rested with them. SU offered 3 NUS exec spots (one of which I might add would have come from NLS), as well as other numerous inducements which they rejected. To deny the fact that the libs had balance of power and thus made a difference, as mentioned by both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian, is to deny clearly citable facts. 5)I disagree with this quite strongly, and challenge you to provide a citable reference to back up the 'to the wall' comment. Quoting Landeryou's opinion does not count. Indeed both the ALSF press release on the matter, and the memorandum regarding the relationship between ALSF & NUS put out earlier this year mention this.

On this matter, as ALSF, for the first time in its history, put out a memorandum earlier this year in detail outlining its viewpoint on the NUS - you can find a version sent around by the NUS president at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nat_education/message/7188 - I suggest that this be included. Your thoughts? LibStu 00:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read it and you would have to be careful about what parts of it are reflected as it makes a lot of claims that would need to referenced if they were included on this page. Go ahead and write something and others will see what they think, I guess. Any thoughts on my comments above? Alans1977 04:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, missed the first paragraph of what you wrote earlier. On the topic of 5)Even disregarding the alleged comments of ALSF delegates, the sentence I have suggested as a replacement is a lot more NPOV. I also think this paragraph should be merged with the one before it. So far we are agreed on 1, 3 and I don't see any reason why you shouldn't agree with my proposed replacement in 5. Alans1977 05:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As per showing the same level of scrutiny to other factional pages. I only have some much time in one day and I've have shown the quite a bit of scrutiny to the SAlt page at least. I'll get around to the other pages, if I feel like it and when I have the time. Alans1977 06:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've edited this section as previously discussed, except for those parts that were in contention. Alans1977 10:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Assualt at ALSF Conference 2006

http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2006/07/big-brothers-liberal-sex-attack-rocks.html

What are peoples take on adding some material about this to the page? Alans1977 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not very impressive to say the very least, however I don't think a blog can be considered a reliable source, that is actually the problem I have with all these student faction articles, there is very little neutral sources of information. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As charges were never laid, and the allegations never proven, I think including unverifiable information would be contrary to wiki policy. Otherwise I believe that there will be many, many more allegations cluttering up all the student political faction sites detracting from their main points. LibStu 00:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

agree with WikiTownsvillian, blogs are not independent sources and even worse for a political article on Wikipedia. also continually quoting from party websites such as www.alsf.org.au is potentially biased too. Michellecrisp 01:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Some backup here http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:hXiH09FVDKAJ:kieranbennett.com/blog/%3Fp%3D101&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=au&client=firefox-a I'll attempt to find a better source.

again this is a blog. Michellecrisp 05:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not even a blog but a comment on a blog. Orderinchaos 08:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ALP and Coalition ideology

Do people think it's more precise to classify the ALP as social democratic, rather than center-left. By the same token do people think it's more precise to classify the Coalition as neoliberal, rather than center-right. If anyone has any input into this please see the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_federal_election%2C_2007#Description_of_ALP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alans1977 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just undid a massive act of vandalism that removed almost the entire contents of this page, without discussion. Alans1977 (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Liberal Students' Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312003722/http://www.unistudent.com.au:80/about/nusinfo.pdf to http://www.unistudent.com.au/about/nusinfo.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212204902/http://www.aph.gov.au:80/senate/committee/eet_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999-02/vsu/report/c01.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/eet_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999-02/vsu/report/c01.htm#FOOTNOTE_2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)