Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:05, 1 September 2020

Australia Start‑class Low‑importance [REDACTED]

Australian Unemployed Workers' Union is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. [REDACTED] The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Organized Labour Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

COI disclosure: I am a member of the AUWU. Zatarra86 (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that there have been a large number of attempts to vandalise this article, including repeated attempts to remove legitimate NPOV sourced information and insert inaccurate and misleading statements without any NPOV notable sourcing, often without sourcing at all, and also other vandalism as well including vandalising the article name itself, and IPs inserting flags about supposed lack of neutrality or notability without attempting to argue such in "Talk". I have requested protection of this article. JayBee00 (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A maintenance template was inserted within the article by an IP without any prior explanation being made about this template being inserted within "Talk", and without any other user supporting this as such, therefore not appropriate to do so as per Misplaced Pages policy as detailed on the Maintenance template removal page, since there was no clear basis for the template challenging article neutrality and no explanation given. The IP has subsequently sought to lodge a request for discussion about "neutrality of article, edits and potential edit-warring", reliant heavily on claims which are actually contrary to fact as I have stated further below in my replies to the IP. I believe insufficient basis has been provided by the IP to justify that request, I believe the discussion is closed as per Misplaced Pages policy described on the Request for comment page, and I also believe further discussion is not likely to be helpful as per Misplaced Pages policy as detailed on the Closing discussions page, I am the only active Misplaced Pages registered user here at present, so I have removed the {{rfc}} template. JayBee00 (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, the only source claiming "Australian Unemployed Workers' Union" membership (as opposed to the number of people who are AUWU officials hence members of the incorporated association which funds the union) is somehow only 42, is the same non-NPOV and non-credible source, info from which was already removed from the page previously. Hence that assertion about membership numbers has no credible basis, and the membership number has been reverted back to 16,000, the number reported by NPOV credible media outlets in Australia as being the total of AUWU membership. JayBee00 (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The source is the actual registration listing for the Incorporated Associations Register from the State Government of Victoria. You have said in your edits that it's wrong because those are 42 "officeholders" but that's simply not true. There are not even 42 offices that can be held in the AUWU, and many other unions on the register including highly specific ones like the 'Melbourne Poets Union' list having 138 members. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The IP has no basis for this new claim of theirs about how many official positions exist within the AUWU, and has not attempted to substantiate that claim in any form, nor has attempted to support the claim that the registration listing he links actually constitutes total AUWU membership, any more than, for instance, the same registration listing for the Retail and Fast Food Workers' Union somehow constitutes total RAFFWU membership, it also does not, and nobody has attempted to insert such an assertion on the RAFFWU page. Multiple credible, reliable NPOV major media sources have stated AUWU membership as being approx 16,000, Therefore that number remains in the text of the "History and Membership" section together with solid credible NPOV sourcing (News.com.au and also Pedestrian.tv). JayBee00 (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is clear supporting evidence and substantiation in my comment above, with direct references to multiple registry entries as proof. If you refuse to see that then I suspect you are pursuing an agenda on behalf of the subject of the page. The RAFFWU does have a registered member count on the Victorian Incorporated Associations Register as 1401 members. Do you believe that the RAFFWU has 1401 officeholders? No, because that is in fact the actual registered member count as required to be filed by Victorian state law. In equal measure the AUWU has 42 members registered. There is no credible evidence that they have '16000 members' anywhere apart from their website, and referring to media coverage that is directly referring to the claim on their own website is not evidence either. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The IP now appears to be essentially repeating his previous claim still without substantiation, while also apparently disputing the validity of NPOV reliable, published sources and content derived from them, sources which clearly state AUWU has approx. 16,000 members, seeking to deny that this constitutes credible evidence, as it clearly does per Misplaced Pages policy, and making a further claim also without evidence about where those media sources got their information, plus a groundless ad hominem claim about me. Simply saying you've proven something doesn't substitute for doing so. Attempting to deny that NPOV reliable, published sources constitute credible evidence is pointless. There is no evidence AUWU somehow only has "42 members" aside from comments in a very obviously non-NPOV YouTube video - from a YouTuber who describes himself as a comedian, mind you, not a journalist - about what he wishes to believe that Victorian Incorporated Associations Register link represents. That YouTube video is clearly a completely unreliable and inappropriate source for any Misplaced Pages content. JayBee00 (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, I have repeatedly substantiated the claim with the official registration of the organisation as every other union in the country has on their own respective registrations. Anybody reading my comment above will plainly see this. You can deny the official government record and registration of this organisation (that is the clear and objective evidence here) all you like but that is the best and most reliable data that is available to the public. I have no idea what Youtube video you're referring to - it sounds like you have a personal angle here that shouldn't form part of NPOV Misplaced Pages curation. Further, your blatant misrepresentations of the 42 member figure in your edits contravene the policy of this website. It is not an 'ad hominem' to point out that your contribution history being solely made up of edits to this one topic are cause for concern in relation to Misplaced Pages's Single-purpose account policy, suggesting some degree of advocacy or a conflict of interest. As I have already presented credible evidence in support of my argument I no longer see any use in continuing this back-and-forth, and will leave the discussion open to other users. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Credible evidence has not been provided, only repetition of claims asserted without sufficient evidence to support them, and those claims have been answered by me. I do not believe it is in any way coincidental that IPs and certain user accounts have sought to insert statements contrary to fact as verifiable by NPOV media sources and to wrongly remove NPOV sourced content to that effect from the article since the publishing of that YouTube video, the only person to have made such statements asserting 42 as a membership number is the YouTuber in question. I do not believe stating this in any way misrepresents anything, that figure stems from assertions made by a non-credible non-NPOV source. The insertion of such content into the article is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, my pointing this out is not. The fact I disagree with claims made by this IP and have sought to undo outright vandalism of this article in recent days (including even attempts to vandalise the name of the article itself) does not amount to any credible basis to claim I have a "personal angle", any more than the persistence of the IP in seeking to make the same claims over and over again and now even seeking to deny me the right to participate in Misplaced Pages purely because I do not agree with them. I should also point out these claims are coming from somebody via an IP who is not a registered user of Misplaced Pages. I believe no credible dispute exists about my rights as a Misplaced Pages user and no argument for flagging neutrality of the article exists. JayBee00 (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I repeat for the umpteenth time that the credible evidence for the 42 member claim is the official registration of the organisation by the Victorian Government. I do not know what you keep referring to in relation to Youtube. At no point have I 'sought to deny you the right to participate in Misplaced Pages', this is merely a dispute about the standards of the article in question, aside from me taking issue with you deleting my comments on this talk page. I note that I have made a grand total of 2 edits to the article (3 if you include me undoing one of those) and I'm simply trying to resolve the dispute here. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Seeking to challenge the validity of my account as per Misplaced Pages policy certainly appears to be an attempt to challenge my rights as a registered Misplaced Pages user, and once again I point out that a) repetition of a claim does not add any weight to said claim, b) claims made are coming from an IP, not a registered user of Misplaced Pages. I believe no credible dispute exists. JayBee00 (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to follow-up as JayBee00 seems to be going back to edit his original comments to disrupt the logical flow of the conversation from an outsider's perspective; claims that "IPs falsely inserting flags about supposed lack of neutrality or notability without even seeking to raise any issue here first" are unfounded as I clearly wrote my concerns about neutrality days ago in the talk article below. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not sought to disrupt the logical flow of the conversation, I have not intended to change the meaning of any of my posts during this conversation in any editing I have done which was purely to improve syntax, other than this edit on this response of mine here, as a not hugely experienced Misplaced Pages user, I have sometimes made posts without being able to word them as I thought best. I unfortunately did make some posts otherwise here without having included all the information on them which was necessary so acted to fix that. I responded to the IP about this issue of neutrality, what he referred to as the article somehow being "totally off-balance", days ago as anyone can see for themselves, I responded to the claim in question and he did not seek to further argue this issue, he has still not provided any further basis to argue this issue. I believe no credible dispute exists. JayBee00 (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If any real concern is raised about this page, I'm more than willing to add info from the range of news articles from major media sources over time reporting the activities of AUWU if need be, I'm sure others are also more than prepared to do so. The only attempt to dispute notability and/or balance, comes from a user who has wrongly added reference to unsubstantiated non-NPOV comments made by somebody during their YouTube video (hardly "a better quality of cited sources", in the words of said user), into the article, and there appears general consensus otherwise that such comments definitively do not constitute a "credible source". I note nobody else has sought to dispute notability or balance in the three years since this article was published. Clearly that user's claims about either notability or balance are invalid. Moreover, circumstances make it arguable such claims stem from a bias against AUWU. As far as I can see, no real dispute exists. JayBee00 (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I notice no credible source, let alone a credible NPOV source has ever been referenced disputing description of AUWU as a union, while numerous references exist easily available from many credible major media sources describing AUWU thus. Hence I believe there is no basis for Locochoko to challenge this description. I would also point out Sally McManus has a long-established personal animus against unions not affiliated with either Australian Council of Trade Unions or Australian Labor Party, seeking to deny their legitimacy. She's previously implied on Facebook that Retail and Fast Food Workers Union somehow isn't a "real" union, an implication also easily proven false. I saw her make such comments directly on the day in question. Many Australians believe, with strong justification, based on a massive body of media reportage, that Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association is not a real union, due to their manifest failure to genuinely represent those who believe they are SDA members, having been successfully sued not long ago owing to said failure. I doubt Locochoko is calling for removal of either of those articles, clearly rather selectively applying such an intepretation of "notability" and "union" to AUWU. Meanwhile AUWU has a sizeable public profile, easily proven to be so, and its activities widely reported throughout Australian major news media over an extensive period as such, where, again, AUWU is recognised as a union. Aside from other trade unions who certainly also recognise AUWU as a union. JayBee00 (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned on the talk page previously, this page was written by a member of the AUWU. Most of the references are from their website. The entirety of their membership is only 42 people, they don’t seem to have really achieved anything (happy to stand corrected on this), and Sally McManus declared on Twitter that they’re not a union. I don’t think Lee Rhiannon once saying she gave them $300 necessarily means that they pass the notability test. If this organisation somehow does pass the test, this article needs to be far more balanced and have a better quality of cited sources. Locochoko (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Take your pick. https://www.google.com/search?q=auwu&safe=off&rlz=1CDGOYI_enAU887AU891&hl=en-GB&sxsrf=ALeKk02mq1rs1LxzctbfqaPCjWpjwH_rUw:1598591682237&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjA_PCKkr3rAhWQSH0KHdIbCVkQ_AUoAXoECBYQAw&biw=1269&bih=2219&dpr=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D059:9A00:C18C:B31C:3B64:673D (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Please try making a good contribution to Misplaced Pages articles instead of adding google search links. Many people work hard on maintaining article standards. Cheers. Locochoko (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the page is totally off-balance and appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for the organisation itself. The majority of the sources are just links to their own webpage, and there's no credible evidence anywhere apart from media reporting on their on website that they have their stated member count. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Given the large body of media reportage about AUWU, if anybody considers more information from notable and NPOV sources to be necessary for balance, that's pretty easy to fix. There clearly is more than enough credible evidence corroborating AUWU's membership total as stated, two credible NPOV notable media sources are referenced now on the article confirming the stated AUWU member count, and as of now the majority of sources referenced are NPOV credible media sources, the majority of sources are no longer just links to the AUWU website, I believe that removes any reasonable basis for argument about the page somehow being off-balance. JayBee00 (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is the subject of a dispute between several users regarding its neutrality. The article appears to rely heavily upon a mix of sources of questionable quality (pop news websites such as Pedestrian.tv and Junkee) as well as many citations linking directly back to the organisation's own website. Sections of the article read more like a brochure rather than a neutral description of the entity. The membership figure is disputed, with no reliable source confirming a '16,000 member' figure with the Incorporated Associations Register from the State Government of Victoria showing far less than this. Discussion on the talk page has not been fruitful as the official records from the Victorian Government are being rejected as not credible by single-purpose accounts. Further to this, SPAs have blanked other user comments on the talk page and attempts to place a neutrality template on the article in an effort to promote discussion and improvement of the topic have been reverted. Any outside comment on this matter and the editing activity would be much appreciated for clarification and hopefully resolution. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The membership figure is not in dispute, not by any credible NPOV source, NPOV reliable, published, credible media sourcing including News.com.au clearly confirms a "16,000 member" figure, however the IP appears to be refusing to recognise News.com.au (or Pedestrian.tv) as a reliable, published credible media source, though both clearly are as per Misplaced Pages policy.

The IP's claims to the contary are entirely reliant on the "Incorporated Associations Register" link he refers to, and no evidence exists to support the claim that said link is applicable to the organisation that is the subject of the article, other than comments made by a YouTuber in the course of his video, a video which was clearly non-NPOV and not a reliable source. The IP has wrongly sought to assert my account is a "single-purpose account" purely because my first actions as a registered Wikpedia user during recent days have been to address what I see as being clear vandalism of this article that I have responded to, even the article name itself had been vandalised prior to my involvement.

I wrongly blanked one other comment on this talk page, by the IP, I apologise for doing so. The assertion that multiple comments on this talk page have been blanked is categorically false. The assertion that any comments by a Misplaced Pages user have been blanked is categorically false. The neutrality template placed on the article by the IP was done without any attempt by the IP to make any argument about article neutrality for two days prior to his actions in that regard, after I responded to the argument in question as clearly viewable by anyone here. Hence the neutrality template inserted on the article by the IP was removed under clear provisions as per Misplaced Pages policy referred to in the note on my edit undoing the template. JayBee00 (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed by multiple IPs and multiple users as can be seen above - the discussion being ongoing after 3 days does not mean that it has gone away. My discussion of the neutrality of the article along with another user was available to see prior to the placing of the neutrality template. Despite clear misrepresentations of the facts in the previous comment, I am unwilling to further prolong unproductive debate and will leave other responses to external comment. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue has not been discussed by multiple IPs or multiple users. Only one IP is seeking to dispute neutrality, no other Misplaced Pages user besides me has discussed anything on this "Talk" page since August 28th except me pointing out the completely invalid and incorrect nature of claims made by the IP.

No explanation was given by the IP here in "Talk" prior to his attempt to place a neutrality template on the article. No attempt was made by the IP to respond to my reply to his previous claim about neutrality back on August 30th before he sought to place a neutrality template on the article. Hence no clear basis exists for the neutrality template, no satisfactory explanation given for it by the IP, therefore it was removed by me with the appropriate note left in edit history also stating this.

The IP has not even attempted to provide any credible basis to dispute my statements that a) the membership figure is clearly backed by NPOV credible, reliable, published media sourcing; b) the validity of the IP's claims to the contrary relies heavily on comments made by a YouTuber during the course of his video making assertions without meaningful basis; c) multiple user comments have not been blanked, in fact no comments by Misplaced Pages users have been blanked here. Once again I believe no credible dispute exists. JayBee00 (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Start-Class Australia articles
• Low-importance Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Start-Class organized labour articles
• Low-importance organized labour articles
• WikiProject Organized Labour articles