Talk:United Firefighters Union of Australia

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firefighting

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal United Firefighters Union of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

NSW Fire Brigades Employees Union split

I notice that there is a lot of reverting back to the minimal stub. Can the user doing the reverting please explain exactly what is wrong with the information presented, or ask for a 3o review?

p.s. for this page I choose to remain anonymous to avoid trouble from members. I am not a member of the UFU, and I'm annoyed that the FBEU, which had a very public split, is now regarded as the NSW branch, ignoring the UFU's own financial statements. 203.174.137.222 (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you only had a concern that the FBEU was referred to as the NSW Branch, you would remove them from the list without vandalising the article.

The information used in this particular Wikipedia article was sourced from the legitimate web address of the title organisation.

Upon reading the response from the FBEU, there is now no reference to NSW in this article, as they may be referred to elsewhere. Atriskboy (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove all the objective information about the UFUAs recent actions, given that they are now part of the UFUA history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.137.222 (talk • contribs) 02:37, September 6, 2017 (UTC)

Speaking from NSW - I suggest leaving the data in about the split NSWFire (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As no-one else appears to want to do anything constructive, I will ask for adjudication as this is getting silly. NSWFire (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Youre essentially trying to use this article as a defamatory tool, which is not why wikipedia exists, and creating a profile in order to attempt to legitimise your behaviour just doesnt hold water. - FF83 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefighter83 (talk • contribs) 04:54, September 6, 2017 (UTC)

Rather than personal insults, let us wait for a third opinion. I refer you to wikipedia guidelines on dealing with the content facyually, and leaving emotive words like 'defamatory' NSWFire (talk)

I would point out that reverting to the first version brings it more attention from google than leaving it alone until adjudicated. NSWFire (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NSWFire (talk • contribs) 05:21, September 7, 2017 (UTC)

There is no requested change, and no link to a preferred version of the article. The article is currently fully protected but that does not mean the current version of the article is acceptable. The editors involved need to discuss the article content and attempt to reach consensus. Blanket reverts to preferred versions are not acceptable. Meters (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"NSW Split" and "Victorian EBA dispute" sections

Pinging the SPA editors involved in this: User:Firefighter83 user:Ethicschecker NSWFire Atriskboy user:203.174.137.222 user:Moronchecker user:PhysicsBoffin.

The article is currently temporarily fully protected. That does not mean that the current version of the article is preferred. It does not mean that the edit warring can start up again when the protection ends. It appears to me that all of the above users may have a conflict of interest in this article. They should read WP:COI and if it applies they should propose changes on the talk page for discussion rather than making them directly.

Also pinging other editors who have recently made content edits to this article user:Jim1138 user:Kleuske who might be willing to participate in this discussion. Meters (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NSW split

This is a significant event for the UFUA and should be covered. The NSW portion of the union has left and formed a new union. Say so, with reliable independent sources to back it up, and keep it on topic and neutral. There have been several versions of this section over the last few days, but none of them have been even close to acceptable.

For example, don't quote the NSW Fire Brigades Employees Union website. It's not independent, and it is itself quoting a source. Use the original source if you want to use that statistic.

Don't make unsourced claims such as "The dispute went to the federal court, but was unable to be resolved." In my opinion that entire section (the personal dispute between Peter Marshall and Jim Casey) is poorly sourced and WP:UNDUE and should be removed. Why would Wikipedia report on a personal dispute that happened to occur at the same time? If reliable independent sources say that the union split was related to this disagreement then say so and source it, otherwise don't mention it.

"The UFUA currently lists a debt of over $250,000 in it's annual reports, described as being directly linked to the non payment of membership dues by the NSW branch." is both unsourced and WP:POV. Meters (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one has any response to the problems I mentioned in this section I'll just clean it up. Meters (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the reference of Bakilas reverting my edits to the NSW section of the article, this is why I have edited the section, as the version you keep reverting to is the exact version of the NSW split text that is here described as not even being close to acceptable, please refrain from further reversions to the unacceptable version of this section. Firefighter83 —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian EBA dispute

Much of this material appears to be WP:UNDUE. This article is about the UFA. I don't think we need to cover the detailed material about the Country Fire Authority (CFA). Similarly the Victoria State Emergency Service (VSE) material, the Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria material, and the Enterprise Agreement material seems out of place. I'm not convinced that we need section at all.

There seems to be some POV in this section too. For example "For many years, the UFU has been in dispute" is sourced to an article which says "more than three years." I don't think 3 and a bit years is "many". Terms such as "sacked" are not neutral, and neitehr are lines such as "Although no Enterprise Agreement has been signed ... firefighters received salary increases totalling 19%". Mentioning unsourced allegations concerning Joe Buffone's resignation is completely unacceptable, particularly since t he source we do have actually mentions him denying the allegations. Meters (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was removed prior to the protection. I'm happy to leave this section out if no-one wants to support restoring parts of it. Meters (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3O

The Third Opinion request made in connection with this has been removed (i.e. denied) because like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough back-and-forth talk page discussion before seeking assistance (and discussion through edit comments will not suffice). If any editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC) (Not watching this page)[reply]

Not to mention that there were multiple editors involved, and the editor who opened the request had not attempted to discuss the issue. Meters (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]