Talk:Oxford Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject University of Oxford This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, which collaborates on articles related to the University of Oxford.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high importance within University of Oxford.
Comments:
War with logic This article is part of WikiProject Debating, an attempt to standardize coverage of regional and world debate related articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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).

[edit] The Queen and the Union

I removed Queen Elizabeth II from the list of speakers in this article, because I'm 99% sure she has never been involved in a debate at the Union. It's possible that she has, at one time or another, been present at a function held in the building, and maybe even made a speech, but that is quite a different thing. However, if anyone can quote chapter and verse of when and under what circumstances she appeared, I'll be happy to eat my words. Deb 22:57 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, Deb. It is highly unlikely that the Queen would ever become involved in any university debate. At most, she might have attended a function, or maybe delivered a speech, but not in a debate setting. I'd say you'd have as much chance of Her Maj taking part in a debate as you would have the Pope or Saddam Hussein. JTD 23:08 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)
Hmm...I don't think either of them has been invited to speak at the Union yet.Deb 19:02 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)
Deb & JTD: I am not sure if there was a previous list of debators to which you are referring in your exchange, but if the Queen was simply listed as a speaker in the article's existing sentence, "the famous debating chamber, which has played host to such figures as the Dalai Lama..." then this was entirely correct.

Broadly, the Union has two primary speaking sessions: debates and the speaker series,.

In the debates, students are joined by famous individuals for an adversarial discussion on a given subject (e.g., the infamous 1930s debate about not fighting for King and Country); I am sure that you are right that the Queen would never participate in a debate.

However, the most famous speakers at the Union (including those listed in the article, such as the Dalai Lama and Kermit the Frog) do not attend to participate in debates, which are high-risk ventures filled with students eager to make a name for themselves. They come instead as part of the speakers' series, in which they address the Union's members for 15 to 30 minutes, and sometimes take questions. The Queen has spoken at the Union in the speakers' series on several occasions (but never takes questions). As the article says, speakers (in both debates and in the speakers' series) address the Union's members in the debate chamber. Automaton 00:50 11 July 2003

Her Majesty has never adressed the Union - she attended a debate when William Waldegrave was President (not sure of date), and the Chamber had to be re-arranged so that she could sit on the cross-benches so as not to indicate any personal preferences. Hackloon 04:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • Only an ignoramus would assert that Dufferin is not famous — quite aside from being Viceroy of India (!), he was the Governor General of Canada and played a very significant role in the history of Canada — you can't spit in some parts of that country without hitting something named for him. His place in history is secure, unlike Hague, who has faded permanently to the backbenches and will soon be forgotten. Besides, Dufferin's article is a featured article and well worth linking. Fawcett5 23:45, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Trivia

Something a little lighter on the subject Union rules such as: RULE 51: DOGS Any Member introducing or causing to be introduced a dog into the Society's premises shall be liable to a fine of £5 inflicted by the Treasurer. Any animal leading a blind person shall be deemed to be a cat. Any animal entering on Police business shall be deemed to be a wombat. http://www.oxford-union.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1212/UnionRulesMT07.pdf 80.6.86.147 (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Tom


[edit] 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)