This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges 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.
Where is it in the source document? The endowment is listed as A$1.67 billion as at 2014. However, I cannot identify how this figure is arrived at when looking at the source cited - the 2014 Annual Report - Volume 2 (Financial). I have no accounting background so I may have missed something, but could someone identify the basis for the figure, by reference to the particular page in the report. Preferably use the 2015 report so we can update the figure. - Legal-bob (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
File:Flag of UNSW.png - Flag of UNSW? No source for the flag. The source cited for there being a UNSW Flag, and in the form pictured here, is inadequate. The website itself is not official and the only evidence of there being such a flag is this photo of some guy supposedly in the Antarctic. At best, this shows there might have once been such a flag (whether it remains so and whether it was official or not remaining unclear). There is no reference I have found on any UNSW document or website which verifies there is an official flag, and in this form. The actual image of the flag was created by a user. Can we therefore find an official record of there being such a flag? - Legal-bob (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I edited the article to remove marketing puffery, copyrighted content and unsubstantiated claims. User:Jamesprof has reverted my edits and claims no conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for now attempting to comply with the policy on conflicts, which requires you to start a discussion thread when you delete parts of an article on that basis, rather than just deleting them as you did originally and adding a conflicts tage.
In relation to your apparent concerns:
1. Your latest three edits on study abroad, selection and entry, and university rankings are perfectly proper and carefully targeted. There is indeed a need for sources. I take no issue with them.
2. In relation to the edits I reverted earlier, the reasons for those reversions are explained in the edit log, namely:
(a) Rankings statements are facts and generally NPOV provided they aren't taken overboard. Pretty much all university pages have a few of them. If you want to start removing them altogether, you might want to start policing the articles on Harvard, Oxford, McGill, Melbourne, Shanghai Jiao Tong, Heidelberg, Sorbonne, Moscow State, and Auckland - to take a random smattering of some top universities in different countries.
(b) You deleted an entire section on governance, when that section's content was on its face was reasonable and written neutrally. You should have just added a source needed flag before wiping it out altogether. Hence my reversion and my addition of the source needed template.
(c) Your deletion of the campus description statements on the basis of copyright misconceives the nature of copyright. Copyright protects expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. There was about one sentence which used the exact same wording as the source, and in my reversion edit I rewrote it not to do so. But other than that, there is no real other way to describe the actual propositions in the source about the campus. There is no copyright issue there.
3. In relation to conflict of interest, I don't have any conflict.
I hope that addresses your concerns. Jamesprof (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)