Talk:University of Newcastle (Australia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / New South Wales / Education (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon University of Newcastle (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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (marked as Mid-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.


Just added the infobox. The staff figures were 2004. The student figures are a bit rubbery. I have some official ones I will chase up. Andrew Kepert 01:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is pertinent to add information about the downsizing of the university here. Sumthingweird 08:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Seconded! Wow what an advert! Also some content from outside 134.148.x.x would be nice. 03:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


I have seen interiors of empty matchboxes that have been more exciting and imaginative than your userbox, Mattopaedia. And this talk page has become rather—squeezy, hasn’t it? Myles325a (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comments, Myles. Long ago, when I created it, the userbox had the seahorse logo on it, but in the subsequent hoohah about userboxes, logos, and all that crap, it somehow got changed (not by me) to the less inspired version you see now. I've been too busy to change it, so that's how it is. ...At this point I made some comments about you being part of the problem, not part of the solution, and on further reflection, I regret my sarcastic and deliberately hurtful approach. So I removed it. But listen, the point I want to make is: this is wikipedia, so if you don't like something, improve it! Its far more fulfilling than just complaining or insulting the work of others, and you're making the world a better place. Mattopaedia (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Paying attention to my own point...
UoN This user is a student, or graduate, or staff of the University of Newcastle, Australia.
And now I feel much happier because: 1.) I decided not to be a dick; and 2.) I fixed something that's been bugging me for about 2 years. Merry Christmas!Mattopaedia (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Well done. It looks sauve, cool, and refreshing. I've added it to my user page. Myles325a (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I won't comment as to the utility of non-encyclopaedia-related userboxen like this one, but — worthwhile or not — it and its brothers must never, ever be added to actual encyclopaedia articles. Thanks for your understanding, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah Fuddlemark.... these user boxes are created for the express purpose of inserting into one's user page. I wouldn't worry about them finding their way into articles. And your opinion notwithstanding, a lot of users do find them worthwhile. --Jquarry 21:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Autonomy Day[edit]

Mentions in 1988 and 1989 someone jumping off the roof and breaking his ankle... well I was there for Autonomy Day both those years, and I don't recall these events happening. Sure you didn't dream it mate? And before you say my memory is dodgy, I remember the following events:

  • Some idiot broke a glass in the fountain thereby stuffing up the Iron Man contest
  • In the same contest a guy ate his own puke so as not to be disqualified
  • Someone transposed the 'w' in old Commonwealth Bank sign (now the drama theatre IIRC), to read "Common ealth wank".

--Jquarry 00:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I regret[edit]

that i have just added some well sourced but unfortunately negative material. I added a real references section as well for inline references. DGG 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (as the printed source is available on line by subscription, I quote the relevant section: "Corrupt Conduct

Newcastle's woes began in December 2002 when a lecturer awarded a score of zero to 15 students who were then enrolled in Wira's M.B.A. program. The lecturer, Ian Firns, failed the students after discovering that large amounts of their work on an organizational-effectiveness examination had been lifted without attribution from the Internet.

"They have treated us as though we are fools," Mr. Firns wrote to the university in an e-mail message explaining his decision to flunk "the worst group of students I have encountered in any class." The lecturer had been "personally insulted" by the students' actions, he wrote.

Rather than failing the students, however, the university responded to his discovery by reassigning the disputed papers to another lecturer, who passed the students, in a number of cases with some of the highest grades in the class. All of the students went on to receive degrees. What's more, it was later revealed that some of Mr. Firns's earlier critical markings on the papers had been whited out, prompting a public spat between Newcastle officials and the lecturer, an educational consultant.

Describing Mr. Firns's response as a "gross overreaction," the university later fired him.

In June 2004, Mr. Firns took the matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, an official body in the state of New South Wales, which has since issued a report that vindicated him and severely criticized the university's role in covering up the students' misconduct.

The inquiry found that at least two educators with whom Mr. Firns worked had "engaged in corrupt conduct" by ordering the students' essays to be marked again without any reference to his earlier concerns. Its report detailed ways the university's plagiarism policies could be improved.

Although Newcastle initially fought the report's findings, it has now accepted them, administrators there say, and welcomes the closure it now hopes they will bring.

"This has gone on for years now, rumbling on and on, both locally and internationally," sighs the university's president, Nicholas Saunders, an outsider appointed to the position at the 23,000-student institution last October.... (Officials at Wira declined to be interviewed for this article.)"

Autonomy Day (again)[edit]

To the user who has flagged the Autonomy Day section for deletion... it is customary to put something in Talk to explain your reasons. Ok I guess it's obvious in this case (trivial, unencyclopedic, etc.) but courtesy might have been nice. --Jquarry 06:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Having said that, I support deletion, for the reasons I just mentioned and because I'm a b**tard. --Jquarry 06:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The real question is whether autonomy day (AKA Amalgamoney day after the amalgamation with the HIHE and Conservatorium of Music) actually has enough significance for information about it to be upgraded to the extent of being encyclopedic. Oh, and I'm having flashbacks to a former student named Jason, but can't imagine why. :) --Athol Mullen 07:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UoN logo square.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:UoN logo square.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo request?[edit]

I note that the article has a photo in it. Should the photo request now be removed? --Athol Mullen 00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My alma mater deserves better![edit]

As a graduate, I could hardly believe that this is the best treatment that you could accord my holy alma mater. Two stamp-sized piccies in the "gallery"! Staff and students, do you realize that most potential students would be looking up Wikipedia for additional info on the University, and that in many cases, the impressions formed there and in the associated talk page would have more impact than any number of glossy propaganda brochures? I remember a campus which could easily be classed as physically the most beautiful in Australia, possibly the world. And here I see two, count ‘em – TWO – blurry stamp-sized photos of some shrubs. And that’s in the section called GALLERY! I remember a Student Union building which was envy of the large Universities, a winner of Blackett prizes, short-listed as a candidate for one of the Wonders of the Modern World. And yet here it merits not a word. If you were set the task of designing a more drab and feckless article for a university, you could hardly improve on the one here.

Do you really just want to fade away? What is wrong with you? If you don’t have any pride in your campus, then wouldn’t even an elementary instinct for self-preservation argue for an account of your campus that does not make it look like a cross between an old-age home for accountants and a Rotary convention? And then I turn to the Talk Page. Yes, it is nostalgic to read that someone was permitted to enter some sport contest because he was resourceful enough to eat his own vomit. This is perfect practice for the Psychology Department, sure, but what kind of image does it evoke for the general reader.

And the great and much loved Professors Godfrey Tanner and Norman Talbot, amongst others – why do not these gods who walked the Earth and outdrank the students have articles in Wikipedia? For gorrsakes, my CAT is the subject of an article there! Is there really not a one of those who learnt at their knee who could put together a rousing portrait of such men and women? I am sorely disappointed. This is not the vibrant, idiosyncratic, wacky, beautiful campus that I loved and which made me the man I am today. LIFT YOUR GAME, and always remember I LOOK AHEAD. (forgot to sign before) Myles325a (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Modifications to provide a better overview of the university and its operations.[edit]

Some of you might have noticed that over the last few days I have been heavily modifying The University of Newcastle page to provide a better overview of the University. I am a N00B, so thank you to those of you that have been correcting the mistakes I have been making in regards to correct formating and referencing. I am still learning so lease be patient with me!

Just to provide an overview of what I am looking to achieve through my modifications:

  • Add reliable references to all content
  • Construct a more logical structure of sections to better reflect the university
    • Re-arranged order of sections: History > Faculties and schools > Campuses - Seems logical to me, great to hear your thoughts
    • Added section Facilities and services - Included
  • Add reference and structured content to History, Campuses, Student body and organisations, Facilities and services sections
  • Add Research section - overview of the university's research engagements
  • Provide more photos from across the university - I will be doing this gradually and eventually hope to have notable images from both the Ourimbah & Callaghan Campuses
  • Update the University logo appearing on page to be in line with that appearing on the university website

Basically my main goal is to bring the page up to a state that will provide a good base for other individuals to add more information. I am hoping that the my efforts will make future edits much simpler.

As well as this I would like to provide a number of notable sources I have found to be quite good for anyone else modifying this page:

Would love to hear any of your thoughts on what I am attempting to do. Thanks! Cortez2009 (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Great work, Cortez2009. Please date stamp contributions like this. You will see that my last one here was in 2007. In a few years' time, your reference to "the last few days" will confuse readers if there is no date. Thanks. Myles325a (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It's already confusing, as Cortez posted that over 17 months ago.[5] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The University of Newcastle Crest[edit]

The following is a multipart discussion, conducted at three user's talk pages regarding the corporate logo and the official crest. I've copied them here for convenience.


I refer to your recent edit of the University of Newcastle, Australia wikipedia page. In this edit you restored the University's coat of arms to the infobox and referd to it as not being obsolete. Unfortunately this is not true. The University has refreshed the logo for a "bolder and more contemporary design". A simple search of the website will indicate this. Also note that the usage of the Coat of Arms is being phased out and can not be seen in any recent publications or on the university's website. Please refrain from making edits to topics you do not know anything about. [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortez2009 (talkcontribs) 10:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

University of Newcastle[edit]

Regarding this edit that you made to User talk:Bev the great, while use in day-to-day branding is being reduced, this has absolutely no relevance to the Coat of Arms. The Grant of Arms is still in effect and therefore the University's Coat of Arms is still a valid, and the official heraldic logo of the university until such time as the Grant of Arms is withdrawn.

Regarding the final statement in your post, "Please refrain from making edits to topics you do not know anything about", you should note that this breaches Wikipedia's policy on civility. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, {{Infobox university}} states that "|image_name=" should be "preferably the university's official seal or logo", while "|logo=" should be "an athletics logo, corporate emblem, or similar image". This means that, technically, the two images in the infobox should be reversed, with the COA at the top and the corporate logo at the bottom. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The University of Newcastle Crest[edit]

I don't know WHERE you are getting you information but from what I have read the new logo is a modernization of the old crest and hence a direct replacement. The University has refreshed the logo for a "bolder and more contemporary design". A simple search of the website will indicate this. Also note that the usage of the Coat of Arms is being phased out and can not be seen in any recent publications or on the university's website.[[9]] [[10]] [[11]]

If you have any sources of the usage of the crest then please use them. --Cortez2009 (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already replied on your talk page about this, and civility to others. As for sources, I've just consolidated several references in the university article into one that deals specifically with the Coat of Arms. There is no such thing as a "direct replacement" for a COA, other than the COA itself. The new logos are a marketing tool, not a replacement. --AussieLegend (talk)

The consolidation of references that I mentioned in the third part was done with this edit and the reference is:

To summarise, File:University of Newcastle Logo.png is the university's corporate logo while File:Uni-of-newcastle-crest-150.png is the official coat of arms. The corporate logo can be modified, withdrawn or made obsolete at any time while the coat of arms remains valid until such time as the Grant of Arms is withdrawn. Even if it is not used in day to day operations it remains the official coat of arms/crest regardless of the existence of any corporate logo. The instructions for {{Infobox university}} state that "|image_name=" is for a "university-related graphic, preferably the university's official seal or logo" while "|logo=" is used for "an athletics logo, corporate emblem, or similar graphic". Since File:Uni-of-newcastle-crest-150.png is the official seal of the university and File:University of Newcastle Logo.png is a corporate logo, the images in this revision of the article are in the wrong fields meaning this edit was correct, while this reversion was not. Accordingly, I'm going to fix the error with a link to this discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

UoN Official - representing the Vice-Chancellor[edit]

Hello users and editors of,_Australia, we are University of Newcastle staff working within the Marketing and Public Relations, Vice Chancellor's Division. It is our role to assist in the management of The University of Newcastle's reputation. Working in collaboration with our Vice Chancellor, we would like to make some edits to,_Australia. We would really appreciate if you could contact us should you have any concerns about any future edits. Thank you UoN Official — Preceding unsigned comment added by UoN Official (talkcontribs) 23:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest you read WP:COI and particularly the section WP:NOPR. It would be best if you put your edit requests on this talk page and let someone else do the actual changes to the article; see {{request edit}}. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your expertise, Ariconte. It is greatly appreciated! We will read these policies and continue to communicate via Talk. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UoN Official (talkcontribs) 00:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Again, we would like to thank Ariconte for the advice and guidance provided above. The University of Newcastle is trying to communicate in a courteous and considerate manner in an attempt to correct some of the information displayed on this page. We intend to ensure that only factual content is displayed and hope that other users, especially those with editing capabilities assist us to achieve this goal.

As part of The University of Newcastle's (UoN) rebrand, and approved by the University's Executive Committee in 2007, the University logo as found on the homepage of the University of Newcastle website today, was developed to replace the Crest, also known as the Coat of Arms. As part of this process the Crest was replaced with the UoN logo across all official documentation, collateral, transcripts and graduation booklets etc. The Crest is no longer used to identify the University, and therefore the current display is causing confusion to readers of Wikipedia, students, staff and members of the local University community.

For this reason we would request that the Crest be removed as the primary visual identity and replaced with the current University of Newcastle logo. We also make this request for another reason, as content from Wikipedia is commonly used to populate sources like Google Maps / Listings. As these feeds are automatic it is difficult for us to correct, hence we need to make sure the Wiki page reflects the most relevant content. If users could please assist with this request ASAP that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcurls (talkcontribs) 21:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. Regardless of any corporate rebranding, the Grant of Arms remains in effect and the coat of arms is still the official coat of arms until such time as the Grant of Arms is withdrawn. The coat of arms is included in its current position because that is what is specified by the infobox instructions. Similarly, the corporate logo is shown where the infobox places it and can't be moved for an individual article. We need something more than a request by any single editor when there are reliable sources supporting inclusion. You need to show, using a reliable source, that the Grant of Arms has been withdrawn in order for the coat of arms to no longer be shown. A copy of the official letter indicating withdrawal of the Grant of Arms would probably be sufficient but, as far as I'm aware, no such document exists. --AussieLegend () 22:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, AussieLegend. May we further clarify why is it required to have an official letter indicating the withdrawal of the Grant of Arms in order to alter the content displayed? The Grant of Arms is a declaration of our independence. It is a part of our history and will continue to remain a part of our history, for example, references are made in our Great Hall. However, we are attempting to update our Wikipedia content to accurately reflect our University and how it should be viewed today and therefore using the coat of arms which has not been used for many years to visually represent our University is not an accurate reflection.

There are a variety of public sources available supporting the use of the current corporate logo and therefore justify the replacing the coat of arms as the main visual representation of our brand. In addition to the items mentioned previously; all official documentation, collateral, transcripts and graduation booklets etc, here are just a few of the public sources that also utilise the current corporate logo to best represent our brand; our website, our multiple social media pages, Google search listings, Newcastle City Council and other third party businesses etc. None of these sources reference the coat of arms, only our current corporate branding.

We understand and appreciate Wikipedia and its purpose; however, we believe it important to note that any Wikipedia article should be a ‘summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject’. It ‘should not be a complete exposition of all possible details’ and based on this interpretation we believe the use of our current corporate logo would be more appropriate than the coat of arms, especially as the logo is used to visually represent the University of Newcastle across multiple public sources and the coat of arms has limited reference in the Grant of Arms document and certain University buildings. Furthermore, there are multiple Wikipedia pages where the main visual representation references their current logo or images of the university buildings etc.

We kindly ask users to edit the primary visual to best reflect our brand, by replacing the coat of arms with our current logo. The coat of arms would be more appropriately referenced within the History section to support the content written within this section. Please assist this page to best accurately reflect a summary of our university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcurls (talkcontribs) 04:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the coat of arms is used, it is still the coat of arms, which is why it is displayed in the field designed for the coat of arms. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a marketing tool for any organisation, and we are required to maintain a neutral point of view. Even if the coat of arms were to be removed, the marketing logo would remain where it is now, as that is the field for that image. --AussieLegend () 04:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The template says the image used at the top of the info box should be the "University-related graphic, preferably the university's official seal or logo" at . Why not have the logo here and the crest by the history paragraph??? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Ariconte, we agreed that this would be a more appropriate representation of the page content.
AussieLegend, we understand that Wikipedia is not a marketing tool, however, this page should correctly reflect a summary of the topic and our current logo best supports our brand at this point in time, not our coat of arms. Also, there are other universities where their logo and images of their buildings have been used as the primary image. For example: It is hard to understand why we cannot do the same, especially as Wikipedia recommends that a “University-related graphic, preferably the university's official seal or logo” be used. Our logo is the official logo of our University and it takes precedence over our coat of arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcurls (talkcontribs) 04:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Ariconte, where there is an official coat of arms the image_name field is generally used for the coat of arms. See, for example, these other Australian universities:
or these other universities:
All of these have corporate logos which are, quite correctly, located in the logo field, which is for "an athletics logo, corporate emblem, or similar graphic" (emphasis added). The coat of arms is included here because, although it's not used for marketing purposes, it is still the official coat of arms. Gcurls, University of Western Sydney is not a good example because it doesn't seem to have a coat of arms. Again, Wikipedia isn't here to present any organisation's "brand", it's an encyclopaedia that presents facts about subjects in a neutral manner. What you call an official seal is still a corporate logo, so it belongs where it is in the infobox. The other issue here is that there is no actual evidence that the corporate logo is the official seal. All we have is your word, and Wikipedia editors are not considered to be reliable sources. Unfortunately the University of Newcastle Act 1989 doesn't specify the form of the seal. --AussieLegend () 07:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Info on Callaghan being Awabakal land[edit]

My edit adding info that Callaghan campus is built on Awabakal land was reverted for being 'non-notable trivia'. I'm still fairly new to editing Wikipedia so I wasn't really sure how to put something so that it's clear it is notable (and am still working on grasping the concept to be honest), but here are some sources that I think support its notability: - 55 page research paper commissioned by the university looking into whose land Callaghan was and is built on so that it could be (and has been) incorporated into University practice. - timeline on bottom half of page showing relationship between the University moving onto the land and the local Aboriginal people. - Wollotuka Institute, University of Newcastle listed as a stakeholder in Aboriginal advisory group in Newcastle. – University taking part in programs for Awabakal youth. - website for the dedicated Awabakal section of the University Cultural Collections division – links with Aboriginal community listed as a selling point of the University. ‘Political Performances: Theory and Practice’ edited by Susan C. Haedicke: a book which documents on p 312 research relationships between the Awabakal community and University based on the land - talks about a students perspective on learning at the University and the effects of being on Awabakal land — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelbird72 (talkcontribs) 07:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


University of Newcastle is often called UNCLE. Here's a link of proof- . As you can see, even the UAC (Administrating authority for Tertiary admissions) refers to Newcastle as UNCLE, so I think its fair to include it (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Disussion forum posts are not considered to be reliable sources. That it may be called UNCLE by a few people on one discussion forum is certainly not an indication that it is widely referred to as such. --AussieLegend () 12:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
This is what you removed:
As you acn see there is included a UAC (Universities Admissions Centre) reference. So it IS considered a reliable resource (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The forum post that you mentioned above is not a reliable source. What I removed is WP:SYNTH. The only reference to "UNCLE" on the page is "UNCLE’s Open Foundation Course/English Language Certificate/Newstep/International Foundation Program". Nowhere does it say that the university is called UNCLE. In fact there is no explanation at all as to what UNCLE is. --AussieLegend () 12:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)