Jump to content

Talk:Oxford Union/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

'Debating' section, third paragraph

"Chamber debate... tends to be less formalised (even if more formal[clarification needed]) than competitive debates"

Does this really need a clarification? It seems good, well-written English to me and quite clear. Formalised refers to rules and procedures, formal to social custom. The words suggest that meaning of themselves.Stuart midgley (talk)

DSC

Why is the Debates Selection Committee the only committee that is not listed in the governance section? It is listed in the Standing Orders as a Committee of the Union, and indeed, its Chairman now attends Standing Committee, with a section for his business, on the same basis as the CCC and RO, i.e. without a vote...

The CCC is a member of Standing Committee, which the CDSC is not, so it really isn't the same basis. Furthermore, DSC does not play any role in the governance of the Society; it selects individual members to represent us at external debating competitions. This is a fairly modern offshoot of the Society, and is essentially a group of those members interested in debating self regulating their activities (admittedly with constant infighting).

Images

This is the ugliest image layout I have ever seen! Mark Richards 22:27, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Truly horrible. I've been bold and cut two of them. Markalexander100 02:10, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Lord Dufferin

An anon user cut Lord Dufferin from the list of past presidents. I have rolled back this edit. Please provide the reason on the talk page if you wish to make such a redaction. Fawcett5 00:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

That was me. Lord Dufferin may be a past president but he's hardly famous. His greatest achievement? Becoming a mediocre Viceroy of India. I'm sorry, you may have a particular interest in his life or his times or whatever, but how can you possibly argue that he's as worthy of inclusion as William Hague. He's not famous and, given the list of past presidents the Union boasts, he's decidedly second-rate. To quote the ex-President, New College, he's distinctly budget. 82.44.213.192 18:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The Viceroys link shows he was one of about 50+ Viceroys/Governor-Generals of India. Big deal. He is a complete nobody compared to the other people mentioned on the list. He stands out like a sore thumb since the majority of readers would never have heard of him. REMOVE 62.254.64.14 01:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
As the ignoramus who claimed that Dufferin isn't famous, I stand by my point. He may be well-known in parts of Canada, but he's certainly not universally famous enough to deserve a place on that list. If you object to Hague replacing him on there (and I disagree but I'm happy to take on board other people's ideas), then I suggest removing Dufferin full stop; there's no need necessarily to replace him with someone else. Nevertheless, I really think he should go (I can't even find a portrait of him in the Union buildings, for goodness sake, whereas any ex-President judged to be notable gets a bust or a portrait). 82.44.215.251 18:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It certainly seems that the above anon editors have a temporally foreshortened and geographically circumscribed notion of who and what is historically significant — what goes on in the "colonies" may well be beneath your notice, but I never suggested that Dufferin replace Hague, they can both stay here. It was someoneelse who originally replaced Dufferin with Hague. And seriously, Hague's most impressive accomplishment was to more-or-less learn to sing the Welsh national anthem. Sheesh. Fawcett5 14:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why Dufferin counts as the next most eminent or well-known president after the ones listed? Why Dufferin in particular? I wouldn't listed have Dufferin as an especially eminent president when better known or more eminent figures such Tariq Ali, Hilaire Belloc, John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir (well-known writer and Governor-General of Canada, George Nathaniel Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston (a particularly eminent Viceroy of India), Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone, Michael Heseltine, Anthony Hope, Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, John Allsebrook Simon, 1st Viscount Simon, F. E. Smith, 1st Earl of Birkenhead, William Temple, Jeremy Thorpe, William Waldegrave and Brian Walden aren't listed. Perhaps we should limit ourselves to famous writers, party leaders, secretaries of state, cardinals and archbishops? Alternatively we should take the approach used for the Cambridge Union Society and have a table of all the Presidents of the Union. Mpntod 15:15, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I am now in favour of eliminating the list of well-known presidents altogether, since it has become clear that any such listing is going to be hopelessly POV-dependent. I'm in favour of creating a separate list page of the presidents in chronological order to accompany the category. Fawcett5 16:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a complete list would be helpful. But I still think it's helpful to have a list of famous presidents - since this clearly illustrates the way in which the Union has acted as a start point for notable careers. Perhaps a list of ex-President Prime Ministers and famous living ex-Presidents, since all these are likely to be recognisable and meaningful names to the bulk of people reading the article. This would leave a list of Herbert Henry Asquith, Benazir Bhutto, William Ewart Gladstone and Edward Heath as the Prime Ministers, and William Hague, Tony Benn and Boris Johnson as living ex-Presidents who are genuinely well-known today. Mpntod 18:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Brennan as former president

Presumably the British politician not the American comedian? How modest of him not to mention his Union presidencey on his website. Flapdragon 16:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Mike Dowling

I note Mike Dowling, who google informs me is the current Treasurer, made it into the article and swiftly out again. I should make it clear, should anyone look at the article history and think otherwise, that I am not he! Dowlingm 04:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Debating

I added some information to the Debating section to explain voting and how it's done. I did this mostly to explain the concept of an "Oxford Union" debate to Americans, who despite their education probably equate debating with the nonsense seen in election years. I freely confess that I have never been to Oxford nor attended a Public Business Meeting; I get my information from an American colleague who studied at Oxford, belonged to the Union, and participated in both formal and less formal debating. Jmalin 18:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Officers names

The names of Officers will now be included on the Oxford Union page, which seems entirely sensible and ought to have been instigated a long time ago. Previous attempts to stop this appear motivated by some in-fighting amongst candidates. (unsigned)

I beg to differ - In-fighting aside, looking at the pages of other societies of similar nature (e.g. Cambridge Union), officer names are not to be found anywhere. It is highly unlikely that any of the current officers are notable in any way at this point in their life and as such that information is irrelevant. (unsigned)

Totally agree with the above comment. Wikipedia is NOT a directory and the content of articles should only consist of encyclopedic content designed for a general audience. Current officers are not in any way notable enough to warrant a specific mention. A solid rule of thumb that certainly applies here is that if they are not notable enough to get their own independent biographical article in Wikipedia then they're not notable enough to deserve specific mention by name. (e.g. if nobody knows who they are, apart from internally within this organization, then talking about them in the article adds nothing content wise for Wikipedia's target audience... everyone else). This sort of information about current officers is best kept on the organization's own site. If people want to know that sort of thing, they'll know to look for it on that site. Regardless of any 'in-fighting' that may have occurred within this organization, previously removing the names was the correct thing to do. Ac moet 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(Update) The names have again been added to this article without explanation. It would be pertinent for anyone who feels such temporary, trivial and non-notable information belongs in this organization's article to review the following guidelines: What Wikipedia is not WP:NOT (e.g. not a place to list temporary details regarding an organization), What constitutes notability WP:NOTE (e.g. these people are not notable outside of this organization). If these individuals subsequently become famous then it may be relevent to mention their involvement with this organization, but at the moment it would appear that this is just simple case of vanity posting WP:COI. (AC) Ac moet 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Having read WP:NOT, I can find nothing to suggest that the officers' names shouldn't be included - and to say they shouldn't only suggests that current information should not be found on Wikipedia, which is absurd for an encyclopaedia, which strives to provide as much information as possible. Frankly, I find being instructed what Wikipedia is not by someone who can't even sign their own posts to be rather amusing. Since I believe that Wikipedia should contain as much information as possible, and refuse to be bullied by someone throwing WPs everywhere in their posts, I will replace the deleted information. There is no 'consensus' here, simply the opinion of one or two misguided individuals. Will2710|Talk! 20:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for the heated rhetoric... it's a perfectly valid issue and deserves attention and discussion. The comment from Will2719 when adding the information to this page by saying it's relevent "NOW" is exactly the point. The above comments about reminding people to review the consensus guidelines are directly to the point and one of the things highlighted in the notability page is that "Notability is not temporary." The fact that these positions exist is not temporary, but the current office holders are. As such, there is no point in listing such temporary and non-notable information. What exactly do people propose the names of individuals in these temporary posts adds for the general reader given that nobody knows, or cares, who they are? Information for current members of the organization is for the organization's own website. Ac moet 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

David Icke speaking in November

Conspiracy researcher David Icke has announced that he is speaking to the Oxford Union in November. I'm leaving it to others to consider this for inclusion in the present article. __meco 21:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Griffin/Irving Controversy

This portion needs to be re-written and edited. It seems to fall into notion that every minute detail of that evening needs to be recounted in the vein of "they did this and others replied thus" mode. It is reminiscent of a Peter and Jane book. 84.12.22.235 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I honestly couldn't care less whether or not next term's officers are included. An editor called Legrasp seems convinced that the Hilary officers should be in the article; someone else seems to think this term's should be kept. Since Michaelmas term is over, but Hilary hasn't yet begun, there's no clear way to answer it. I hope the Union page doesn't fall prey to the hackery that the Union has. In any event, whichever version is currently favoured, can we please remember to change the 'Officers of the Union, X Term Y' accurate? ghostmoonEVPhauntings 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is largely to do with the fact that there are currently appeals about an election tribunal - this has meant that officially the set of officers for next term (Hilary) cannot take up their positions, and that the RO has been acting as President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Product1517 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody also keeps adding in 'Presidential advisor' into the table, which is not an officership and not elected and therefore not suitable for the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Budgie89 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Protected

This page has been protected from editing. This edit[1] keeps being inserted and removed. Discuss it on this page and reach a resolution. Editors who keep inserting and removing material are edit warring and may be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Edit warring. Ty 13:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am one of the people who has been removing the 'Presidential advisor' from the table of officers. This is because it is not an officership but an appointed position. It is certainly not senior to Librarian. Rule 13(a) states: "The Junior Officers of the Society shall be the President, the President-Elect, the Librarian, the Treasurer, the Treasurer-Elect, the Secretary and the Steward. The Senior Officers shall be the Senior Librarian and the Senior Treasurer."[1] . If we were to include all appointed officials in this table then the Press Officer, Guest Liason Officers, Web Officers etc. would also appear. Appointed officials are not even members of Standing Committee! Budgie89 (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I passed through the doors of the building, but I agree that there's no good reason to include unelected "advisors" in the infobox. As far as I can tell, the information is being inserted by one person and repeatedly removed by more than one person. Perhaps the editor in the minority would care to explain why this advisor is so important that he ought to be mentioned in the infobox and why everyone else is wrong, or alternatively accept that consensus is against him on this. BencherliteTalk 17:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't take any part in this conflict because I had never heard of the office of 'Presidential advisor'. Now that it's been explained, I agree that Mr Rogava doesn't need to be in the infobox.
I'm curious, does anyone know how this post came about and what it's for? In my day, the presidents of the Union weren't above taking advice from lots of people, even including me, but no one person would have been singled out as a formal 'advisor'. Frankly, it strikes me as a bit childish. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no Presidential advisor mentioned on the Union's website[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Budgie89 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The person who keeps adding in 'Presidential Advisor' has done so again on February 2nd. Is there a way to block this from happening? Though he is now listed on the Union's website, he is only an "appointed official" and not, therefore, an Officer. The Officers are listed specifically as President, Librarian, Treasurer, Secretary, Junior Steward, President-elect and Treasurer-elect. There are several appointed officials, and none of these are listed on Wikipedia, nor are they elected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.46.213 (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There is broad general agreement that this 'advisor' post is most certainly not an officership and does not belong on the page. The most recent revert to incorrectly include the 'Advisor' post as an 'officer' was made with a public IP address. That IP address can be traced back to mr243.qeh.ox.ac.uk or the Queen Elizabeth House (Department of International Development) where Irakli Rogava, the person in question, is a student. It's impossible to prove, but the evidence strongly suggests that this is a case of vanity posting by the individual in question. It would appear the famed Union hack's desperate desire for limelight is as alive as ever. --Starr 1990 (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree and will join in reverting this continual ego trip. Following the link provided in the edit summary we find a list of six 'Appointed Officials', including a 'Web Officer' and an 'Old Members' Officer'. Some of these titles I find almost as bizarre as that of 'Presidential Advisor', but in any event these are all 'Appointed Officials', who so far do not seem to include the 'Lavatory Attendant'. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The advisor post was quickly added back again. Once again the IP address used strongly suggests that the only person who feels it pertinent that the world knows who the 'Presidential Advisor' is is the Presidential Advisor himself (this IP address traces back to Linacre College in Oxford, where the person in question is a member). The note of the revert again points to the Union's website. I don't think anyone disagrees that such a position happens to exist at the moment, but it's most certainly not an officership and serves no place is this list of officers. --Starr 1990 (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.oxford-union.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/3074/Oxford_Union_Rules.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.oxford-union.org/members/officials

Revisit Inclusion of Officers names

Could we revisit this issue. Current officers are not notable. Lists should be lists of notable people. Other similar articles, such as those in the "See also" sections" do not list officers. The names are, I presume, listed on the Oxford Union's own web page. Can we delete this list. I have a mild conflict of interest as a Life Member of the Union but have not been in the place for over 50 years. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree – unless an independent source publishes an article about them, the entire section is unnecessary (it is customary to simply list the president in the infobox so the entire 'leadership' section can be removed). User:Sergeymann talk — Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner as a speaker

The unsourced claim that Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has been a speaker has been repeatedly removed. The only source I have found for this is that she hass been invited to speak at a future date http://en.mercopress.com/2017/04/27/cristina-fernandez-invited-to-give-a-conference-at-oxford-university . Unless there is a reliable source saying that she has already spoken at Oxford Union she does not belong in the article. If and when she speaks she may be added to the list. Meters (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Oxford Union. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Minor conflict of interest

Just a quick note that I'm editing this article while also (along with several hundred thousand other people) being a lifetime member of the organisation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Me too!! --Bduke (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
So I created this:-Template:User Oxford Union to indicate your conflict of interest. --Bduke (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Heather Marsh section

I've holding back from editing the article directly in case of an appearance of COI, but I strongly recommend changes to this section because:

  • Of the five references used in this section, two are posts in a self-published blog. We have to avoid self-published sources and in fact the article history shows that it has already been decided that the polemical blog is not an appropriate source.
  • Extensive quoting from sources on one side of the controversy fails our requirement to be neutral.
  • We shouldn't be using bare URLs as references.
  • This section is unduly long compared to the article as a whole.

I don't object to there being a section on this controversy, but it doesn't merit those two long paragraphs: it needs radically cutting down. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: I agree that the section needs work. Current version is POV and excessive in length for its relevance to the topic. I have zero COI to declare, and only got this article on my watchlist because I added information about the admission of women. Update, it didn't take much Googling to discover that the Oxford Union had replied to the multiple accusations by Marsh, a reply completely missing from what was in the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oxford_Union/Archive_1&oldid=1090368545"