Talk:Oxford University Conservative Association

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. More information: /  This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. University of Oxford Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

So the U is back; how do we return the wiki page's location and title to "Oxford University Conservative Association"? I think I've caught most other instances in the page where the U absent. Thanks. 94.172.18.103 (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Prez[reply]

Where can we verify that this is the case? I had a quick look but couldn't find anything about it. SmartSE (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the proctors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.187.255 (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cherwell - http://www.cherwell.org/news/uk/2013/03/27/ouca-back-in-business — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.18.103 (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's now  Done SmartSE (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new ybaotr section needs to be more balanced. The documentary was about Joe Cooke yet one oxford uni ip continuously removes any balanced discussion. The fact that the President of cf distanced cf from OCA is important, and shows oca's evolving position with the party. The fact that Cooke's credibility has been questioned must be noted. The documentary was about Cooke and so other media can be considered. Guido fawkes is the leading political blog in the UK so his coverage should be noted. Nobody said it, or any other media is correct, but it is major. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.39.114.252 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. However, it must be done in the context of the Association. Edited as appropriate. Agree with the 'removing ip address' that there is no need to mention the detail of why the bullying may or may not have happened, quails eggs etc. However, for balance one must show that his TV claims were disputed. Give0ver34 (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better balance now. Disraeli70 (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

86.156.80.167 has edited the section to apply positive spin. I have corrected this. It is now sourced again, and highlights both the Cooke's side of the story and the backlash resulting from the programme. Disraeli70 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section is ridiculous, with all sorts of stories that are hardly relevant to the Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.194.215 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that the section on the merger with the OUTRG be deleted? Its not particularly notable or interesting, rather being one of those things that student politicians get worked up about but really is a bit of a nonsense. Besides, the truth was that the society was shut down because nobody turned up to meetings, they barely had enough committee members to make quorum on a 100% turnout, and despite the valiant efforts of Mr Connoley to turn the society around, it had been chronically badly run for quite some time. The entire article is a mess, some cutting down and consolidation would seem appropriate, and this would seem a prime section that'd be worthy of deletion. --Thardman (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is far too long, largely because of the 'OUCA in the media' section in which people have sought to include every glib and passing reference of OUCA in the student press over the last ten years. Esp the 1-2 line entries such as 'strippers' and 'William Hague'. Not only are these MANY entries trite, trivial and uninteresting, but as anyone who went to Oxford will tell you the OxStu and Cherwell papers are about as accurate in their reporting as a blind man riding a mechanical bull would be in an archery contest. Can we please stick to (relevant) facts people! 129.67.62.56 (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.62.56 (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

I have restored these sections where they belong.

If the article is overlong, it is because it contains such "facile and irrelevant tosh", as you put it, as descriptions of OUCA organising speaker meetings, camaigning, and social events - all unremarkable things which every student society does. I am not going to remove these sections, but they are certainly candidates for deletion before any material from "OUCA in the media", which deals with OUCA's notabiity in the public eye, and thus constitutes the reason why the article exists. Having a documentary cover your activities is notable. Getting into a national paper for comparing yourself to the Hitler Youth is notable. Having a former leader of the Conservative party (and probable future Foreign Secretary) disciplined by the sociey for electoral malpractice is notable. And all this is referenced.

As for the side-swipe at 'accuracy', some of us know a lot more about the inner workings of OUCA than can be verified - its involvement in 2003's Krystalnacht, for example - but will restrict our contributions to what can be verified by third-party sources. We're not trying to write a hagiography here (no pun intended), but when dealing with an article on a student society, it's crucial that we beef it up with any and all relevant press coverage, to justify its very existence as an article. This should be done regardless of if such coverage is positive or negative - which is partly why the inclusion of the "Make Me a Tory" documentary is so important, to add a bit of balance. Politico234 (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks ridiculous to have a great long list of sub headings extending the page far longer than is necessary when most of the sections extend no more than a couple of lines eg 'Rowdy Behaviour', 'Make Me a Tory, Simon Clarke', 'Rees-Mogg', Wentz-Gardiner, Hitler Youth, Strippers etc. So what is one glib remark, or a three word quote from a STUDENT PAPER - *with accuracy highly dubious* , who cares no one wants to read it! Of the OXStu and Cherwell are really the fonts of knowledge you profess them to be and people relly give a dam about these table-scraps of content people can look them up in the papers' own online archives. Do other wikipedia pages list every passing references in the press that wapen to have been made in the last decade. NO !! Imagin how ridiculus that would be for any famous person, place etc so why are you doing it for this page?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Wikipedia is about free, quick access, to key facts for reference, it is not an archive trawl and a competition to see how many references one can cite. IMO there should not even be an 'In the Media' section, I am willing to let the more substantive entries stand. If the guff reappears I shall report it to higher moderators. 129.67.62.56 (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored some, but not all of the changes, explaining my rationale below, since this seems to be the only way to get to the bottom of this.

1. I have agreed to not restore the Make Me a Tory piece, which I included for the sake of balance, and was no doubt originally added by an OUCA member keen to plug the association.

2. Likewise, I have not restored the Rees-Mogg article, also originally included in the name of balance, because it is referred to elsewhere in the article.

3. I have also agreed to not restore the 'flag sale' story, as its interest is indeed minor.

4. I have (rather uncontroversially) restored the 2006 date on the Charlie Steel incident, which incidentally you had removed earlier. Given the wide coverage of the police investigation into electoral malpractice, including The Times, this is about as strong a case as can be made for inclusion anyway.

5. I have restored the 2002 Emily Wentz/Jamie Gardner story, because the referenced article clearly states that was a fairly momentous constitutional crisis in the society, and I happen to know quite a bit more that I cannot independently reference, but which only further supports this point (Anti-Catholic slogans...). Even without such information, the article makes its point.

6. I have restored the report of the Hitler Youth remark, with references. I can understand why the society doesn't exactly want to promote this image. But when this gets the society into the New Statesman, that's newsworthy.

7. I have the restored the lyrics of the Nazi Drinking Song. Again, I'm sure OUCA's committee doesn't want this up on the web, but the fact remains that along with the Christine Hamilton story that made the front page of The Sun, it's probably the biggest media story there is on OUCA. As well as being able to verify it myself (I have a copy), the TOS article offers independent third-party verification. I actually have more OUCA songs myself ("Singing Thatcher Reagan Botha Pinochet..."), but inclusion of these would probably contradict Wikipedia's rules on independent, original research - so I am limiting the songs mentioned to the one which has been published, and so is already verifiably in the public domain.

8. I have restored the 'abuse of Union staff' section - again, however you look at it, being barred from using the facilities of Oxford's main political society for abusing staff is a pretty major story.

9. I have restored the strippers story - this was major, headline news back in '89.

10. I have restored the William Hague story. William Hague is probably the society's biggest-name alumnus in politics today (Cameron was not active at Oxford). As such, almost anything involving his presidency would be noteworthy anyway - the fact that it includes a conviction for electoral malpractice only underlines this point.

11. I have removed the blatant plug for this term's forthcoming termcard, added anonymously near the start of the article, which certainly fulfills your description of "facile and irrelevant tosh". If people want the Trinity Term OUCA termcard, they can visit the OUCA website.

" what is one glib remark, or a three word quote from a STUDENT PAPER" - I wouldn't reasonably expect a student society to attract coverage in anything more than a student paper. The fact that stories (like the Christine Hamilton kissing incident, and the 'Hitler Youth' boast) have made the nationals only further underlines the case for some of these. I see no printed retractions to any of these stories, so there is no reason to doubt their accuracy. Whenever OUCA has recorded a defence, I have included it.

Fundamentally, OUCA is only a student society. It is notable for two reasons - (1) its alumni, and (2) its staple presence in the media. It is unfair to complain that the article lists more quotations of media scandals than other articles, because OUCA has a grater media presence than most other student societies - I can well remember some terms in the late 1990s when they were in for a fresh scandal literally every single week.

"If the guff reappears I shall report it to higher moderators." Please do. To begin with, it might help your case to actually start signing in rather than editing this anonymously from a communal Oxford University IP address. Which doesn't do your credibility much good. It might also help your case to not write with so many block capitals and exclamation marks. Oxford produced better in my day.

Politico234 (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the manner of this article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Instead of being a succinct account of what OUCA is, aims to do, and has been, it has become a catalogue of its errors. I don't believe this is useful for someone who genuinely wishes to learn about the association. Cf the articles on OUSU and the Union, both of which are hit by scandals at least as frequently as OUCA, yet they remain, as they should, largely an account of the societies themselves. The stories recounted may indeed be notable, and would of course be appropriate for an article titled 'the scandals of OUCA', but they should not be included here. JacobJHWard (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect. Wikipedia is full of useless leftist kunts too busy editing articles and setting up relations industries to keep themselves occupied. Hence they have no ownership of the means of production a few standout turds aside - Soros for eg. My advice? on't bother with it - get a 2nd hand copy of Britannica from the 60s - before subversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.176.22 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JacobJHWard, a member of OUCA, keeps deleting vast tracts of this article, ostensibly because of length, and because they are "irrelevant". This is highly questionable, and seems to be more aimed at airbrushing potentially embarrassing (but well-documented and verifiable) elements of OUCA history.

In particular, he seems to be just hitting the "undo" button when I've put in a considerable amount of research on new and extremely noteworthy material, involving OUCA alumni such as William Hague, Andrew Pelling, Jonathan Aitken, Tim Hames, and George Gardiner. Indeed, one of the complaints previously levelled against this article was a charge of disproportionate attention to the last 10 years because online citations for these years are more freely available. In going to considerable trouble looking up and posting this extra material, I've tried to compensate for this by filling up the information we have for the 1950s to the 1990s - much of it involving today's notable politicians.

If you want to trim the article because of length, then the first thing that can go are the rather vacuous and unremarkable descriptions of what kind of events the society runs (largely in keeping with the kind of events run by every Oxbridge society). Deleting things which are the most noteworthy parts of the article is not helpful, and really does err towards vandalism.

Politico234 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politico234 What is it that convinces you I am a member of OCA, out of interest? The section 'OUCA in the media' is several times larger than the rest of the article. Compare this with articles about other such societies (besides CUCA, which you have made to resemble this one). The article on the Oxford Union, for example, does not have a lengthy section documenting every instance of press coverage during its lifetime. Wikipedia itself says the following 'Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented.'. I do not think that what I have deleted matches at least one of these. Were I 'airbrushing' I would delete the entire section. Instead I'm cutting out some of the more irrelevant stories. Leave it to David Blair to document every instance of pathetic infighting, etc. It has no place in an encyclopaedic article Turning to your more substantive new additions: Why is it that you deleted the mention of a visit by a former Prime Minister? Or are you determined for every single mention of OUCA to be negative? Does it matter what the strippers used in their act? Your elaboration on Hague's malpractice, though sourced, is completely speculative. Random racist speaker not notable. Nor is a story about Damian Green being thrown into the river. Account of 'suspension of democracy' speculative. Andrew Dalton account completely unverifiable. 'Anti immigration' link an unverifiable accusation. Waldegrave account sounds like an after dinner witticism. Aitken/Maxwell title goes far beyond the un-noteworthy events described. Your two examples of postal fraud are, as your source admits, rumour. Wikipedia does not serve to titillate. JacobJHWard (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to add my 2p's worth the OUCA in the Media section appears to me to be "press clippings" section, with little or no encyclopaedic value, most of it focuses on what some migth call negative areas and looks to me to be very WP:POV'ish - it should be removed. Codf1977 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly I agree. JacobJHWard (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits on 8 May range from simple airbrushing to outright vandalism. If part of the article is inaccurate, change it, and ideally explain why. Simply removing material supported by third party sources must appear to be aimed at distorting the record.Mtpt 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sections 'OUCA Controversies' and OUCA Votebuying are not suitable for inclusion in an respectable encylcopaedia and ought to be removed permanently, and not just reverted to by Wikigimps. John 25 Febr 2005

Who is this Emily Wentz, rumoured to be the First Lady of OUCA? There is only one First Lady of OUCA: the ex-PO, St Hilda's! 129.67.55.152 17:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP just as it is - The 'OUCA controversies' section is by far the most noteworthy part of the article - indeed, the only part of the association to have gained national press coverage, and repeatedly so.

This article is obviously being amended by members of OUCA who are trying to give it the best sheen possible and turn it into an recruitment advert, rather than imparting the clear facts of what OUCA does and doesn't do, and what it receives attention for.

Regarding the OUCA songbook, a flavour of which is repeatedly given and then deleted by OUCA activists, the 'small contingent who may have sung songs' that it is dismissed in the article's history, happened to be the association's executive committee! The songs are well-referenced in articles in The Oxford Student over the years, and keep being reprinted every few terms - therefore, regardless of whether their being trawled on is politically motivated or not, they are what the society is identified with by Oxford students, and by tabloid-readers.

OUCA's 'largest student political body since the Hitler Youth' remark has been referenced in both The Oxford Student and The New Statesman (links to both those articles have been added to the article), and a quick crawl of Google's cache will reveal it was on the OUCA website, too.

The excuse given for airbrushing OUCA's history, that "they're a fucking embarassment to the Association", is not sufficient. Wikipedia is not, funnily enough, the propaganda arm of OUCA. Jeremy, 16 March 2006

All of the above is valid, but there are significant facts/claims in the controversies section are not supported by external citation. Moreover, the whole article is littered with (in)jokes, and language that falls some way short of the neutrality that Wiki articles are meant to feature. It would be consistent with the reasons expressed for reverting the previous and admittedly "airbrushing" edits to remove elements which cannot be supported (both "OUCA song book" and "largest student political body..." would remain) and generally neutralise the language. Mtpt 12:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In line with the above, I've revised the article in an attempt to neutralise the language, and have removed the various in-jokes that littered it. I have *not* removed any of the "controversy" claims; instead, I've made each supported claim a sub-section of the controversy section, and put all the others into one sub-section. Instead of simply reverting this edit, citations should be provided for the unsupported elements, and they can then be made sub-sections of the controversy section of the article. If nobody can support them in the next few weeks, they can simply be dumped.

Arguably, the "current office holders" section should be binned, as it fails to meet Wiki's criteria for inclusion. Alternatively, a proper "former officers" section could be put in. Views? Mtpt 23:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, your edits have made this far less messy, kept the material, and clarified what is and isn't reliably supported. Jeremy, 20:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Have moved the Kristalnacht item back to the unsupported section; the source cited ([1]) doesn't verify it. Have also revised some of the recent additions - the language used in the article wasn't NPOV, and also went beyond the content of the cited source in a number of places. Mtpt 21:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have replaced the preceeding edit with and addition to the existing comment on Robert Thompson's role. It's not clear from the reporting what did or did not happen to Thompson, other than that Avi Patchava's complaint did not include him (despite his contribution to Pang's article), and that this may have been for political reasons.Mtpt 18:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristallnacht presents problems in finding a verifiable source. That it happened can be easily established, and everyone in Oxford knows it was an OUCA thing, indeed I can provide links to several online gossip forum pages which say this, but nothing which would be an objective enough source for Wikipedia. The best I can find is [2], which does establish at least some OUCA participation, with a mention of, 'We’re used to OUCA, whose songbook contains such homages as ‘Dashing through the Reich’, and their fond memories of Kristallnacht as a wild party.' Agreed that more concrete citations are still needed to back up some of the details. Jeremy, 22:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Presumably a source for the Simon Clarke issue is coming? Also, are we really going to do real time edits of the office-holders list? Something like an acting presidency should surely be reflected in the text. Mtpt 21:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps consider merging the George Galoway and anti-semitism story, as they seem to be the same thing? In fact, the Galloway controversy seems to be a bit of a non-story (speaker doesn't turn up), and is only really notable for providing citations for the far more notable anti-semitism story. Jeremy, 20:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

They're making two different points - the Galloway one arose because OULC wanted OUCA to have expelled Cochrane, and forced him to make a public apology to "...anyone who took offence..." (I'm paraphrasing the OULC/OULD open letter). The other is simply about the original incident, which was dealt with by an internal disciplinary committee, and an apology from Cochrane to Stuart which Stuart apparently accepted. Anyway, the Galloway incident is just one in a long line of OULC attempts to intervene or capitalise on internal OUCA issues - which attempts could probably give rise to a section all of their own (I'm not proposing such an addition right now!). Mtpt 06:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should just get the controversies their own page - God knows they're the longest and most edited part of this one - and replace the existing section with a statement to the effect that "OUCA has repeatedly appeared in the press, and courted controversy"?

On which note: I've revised the Clarke/Steel thing again, to take account of Cherwell's correction of 12 May 2006. Frankly, changing "denied submitting" to "denied that it had been submitted" is verging on Clintonesque, and the Steele section of that correction is weird too - now they are saying she actually provided the cheque?! I'd love someone to tell me how you could read the original article as saying she "prompted" the forgery, but surely materially assisting with it (i.e. providing the sample signature - as Cherwell is now reporting) is worse than simply being complicit in it? Mtpt 18:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, was Samuels not "Acting President" for a few days during HT '05 while Smith was being impeached? Whilst the RO's decision was overturned, presumably for the duration of its interpretation this was both de facto and de iure the case?

There's a limit to how much we can/should cover - noting a resignation part way through is one thing, but an brief acting Presidency is quite another!Mtpt 17:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is a mess of in-jokes about current and immediately previous members of OUCA. Nothing about its interesting history and the notable political figures involved in it there. It needs a thorough cleanup. David | Talk 10:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, whoever is "cleaning" this page up is contradicting themselves. Having complained about the "in jokes" nature of this site, they have then proceeded to delete the link to the Oxford Student newspaper website, the only verifiable public source that can be used to back up the assertion that everything on here links to the wider world. I think that everything should be evidence through the citation of ALL newspaper articles, local and national. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.19.57.170 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 28 January 2006.

This seems to have been written by someone desperate to show OUCA up. This page as it stands is pointless, with no historical figures or an understanding of how the association works, just a collection of accusations against the recent sordid history, which, as Dbiv points out, is pointlessly esoteric. Can do better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.152.59 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 3 February 2006.

This page is obviously being edited by someone who hates the organisation and is, therefore, slandering it and all its members continually. It must stop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.9.93.236 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 17 February 2006.

I have removed this inacurrate politicing, since it should not play a part in a respectable encyclopedia. Peter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.7.41.197 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 24 February 2006.

This page has had the slander removed, and I hope that it will be allowed to remain so. John. 13.28. 24 January 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.177.1.238 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 February 2006.

Calling the permanent editors "wikigimps" is such a good way of making them sympathetic to your cause. What a brainwave. I hope you become a politician. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.70.10 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 April 2006.

Can a reference be found for the claim that "OUCA is successfully repairing its relations with the Conservative Party and over the last year has welcomed many Shadow Cabinet ministers and been subject to a page in the Mail on Sunday by Lord Rees-Mogg praising the Association for its forward-looking members" ? All I can find remotely like this is http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-1613989,00.html , which talks about Oxford in general, and how impressed Rees-Mogg was with the OU History Society in particular, but nothing by him on OUCA comes up on any search engine. Jeremy, 16 March 2006

The section on controversies is by far the most interesting part of the entry. It is about the only reason why anyone not from Oxford would care about OUCA and its notoriety around the country (world? I write this from Southern California...). 15 Feb 2012

If anyone can extend the list of Presidents back into the past a little further that would be a useful addition. 134.146.9.19 14:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the Bod and ask for that fine little text "The History of OUCA" (or some such), which inter alia contains a full list up to roughly 1996, as well as a splendid number of scandals which should fill this article to the brim. 129.67.52.32 19:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumbly someone ought also to label Ed Sutton as "deceased"? I would do it myself but don't want to be accused of editing the page - Matthew are you going to do it? 14:26, 11 May 2006

Done. Anatole? Mtpt 16:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's me, how's law school? I have been thinking about these controversies. For consistency's sake, I think you ought to include Nick Bennett's similar story (forged signature for council nomination in 2002, subsequent controversy over his appointment as RO in OUSU), and also the episode where Storrey, Atkins and Callaghan were thrown out of OUSU Council for going around goose-stepping and saluting General Pinochet? 10:23, 12 May 2006

Exam fever at the moment. Don't see why solicitors need accounts; I'm strictly the commercial type! What are you up to? Presumably not still in Ox? If you want to see those added, you should just stick something in yourself - if you can't find cites just stick it in the lower section for the time being. Worth registering for an ID if you haven't already. It would be nice to see some proper OUCA history on this page, but I'm guessing I'll have to get some books out of storage and write that myself!Mtpt 18:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of OUCA Presidents (and CUCA chairs) was deleted this year. This is extremely regrettable. Wiping substantive material from any article is almost always - put bluntly - just ignorance on the part of the person who "doesn't see why that's important". One of the little-known flaws in the wikipedia system is that an entire article on an esoteric topic, which has stood for 15 years, can simply be deleted on the say-so of 4 or 5 people, hanging out on discussion boards, quoting "policies" which they haven't understood (one of the original grounds for deletion was that it wasn't "V(erifiable)", which is obvious nonsense) and at least one of whom fairly obviously just "doesn't like" the topic in question (somebody dismissed them as "obsessive lists about people of no notability"). Feel free to ping me if anybody wants to establish a body of opinion to get them restored.Paulturtle (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced material may be deleted by any editor from an article. However, I have placed it below, so that any of these statements for which a reference can be found, can be put back into the article.

Other claims about OUCA

1. In Michaelmas 2004, OUCA ceased to have a functioning executive owing to lack of leadership^{[citation needed]}.
2. In 2004, OUCA members were involved in the attempted ‘liberation’ of a rock from the gardens of Trinity College^{[citation needed]}.
3. During the 2004 campainging tour, the OUCA group were denied entry to Michael Ancram's constituency of Devizes^{[citation needed]}.
4. Later on the same trip one member of the OUCA group remarked that his footwear was considerably more valuable than the domicile of the Labour supporter whom he was at the time canvassing.^{[citation needed]}
5. In 2003, a bizarre ritual of vandalism known internally as "Kristallnacht" occurred, leaving a trail of devastation across the University involving damage to the property of several colleges, as well as the destruction of a car – later identified as belonging to a key donor to Oriel College. This had followed one of the Society’s most notorious regular events, the so-called "Port & Policy" evening where the free-ranging and controversial nature of the "discussion" correlates directly with the consumption of fortified wines^{[citation needed]}.
6. In 2003, OUCA was known as "Oxford Conservatives" for one University term, after failing register with the University as an official student society.^{[citation needed]}
7. In 2002, a disciplinary tribunal, held at Oriel College following the appointment of Emily Wentz, lasted eleven hours and was noisily attended by protestors carrying placards bearing anti-Catholic slogans.^{[citation needed]}
8. OUCA's claim to be the '...the largest student political body since the Hitler Youth...' featured on its website.^{[citation needed]}
9. OUCA also has a drinking song sung to the tune of 'She'll Be Coming Round the Mountains'^{[citation needed]}:

"Singing Thatcher Reagan Botha Pinochet / Singing Thatcher Reagan Botha Pinochet / (Pinochet!) /

Singing Thatcher Reagan Botha / Trotsky was a floater / Thatcher Reagan Botha Pinochet! / Pinochet!)"

Tyrenius 14:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was floated right. I deleted forced placing of it, as it looks hideous on a low res screen (which I use). The writing to the left of it is in a narrow column, and it has the knock-on effect of compressing the "Officers, Trinity Term 2006" table to half its proper width, i.e. all the advantages of floating right create an even worse effect elsewhere. Please try it on low res and you'll see what I mean. However, this is my last edit on the TOC and if someone reverts it to floating right, I am not going to alter it again. Tyrenius 21:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been copied from Talk:Oxford Council election 2006#Discussion about which article should have the main section

Hello - Probably I didn't go about it the right way: I think the article on the controversy should be merged with that on OUCA, which it affected much more than the council elections. I see the view that it may be considered relevant to the elections, but it didn't seem so at all at the time. Also, similar contorversies in Tower Hamlets & Birmingham are not mentioned on those pages (principally though because the pages don't exist!).

Thirdly (changing topic a bit), I was a bit concerned that it was labelled as it was: no charges have as yet been brought, so perhaps it might be renamed "Nomination form controversy" or something to avoid the candidate being considered complicit in something perhaps not his fault. 129.67.53.94 16:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. To start with your last point, I will change the title to what you suggested. I agree that the controversy affects the OUCA (Charlie Steel being President-elect), but I don't think we should delete the section from Oxford Council election 2006. Perhaps a good compromise would be to designate either the section in the election article or the section in the OUCA article as the main section on the controversy (and the one to be updated if anything develops), and have the other just as a briefer summary and link to the main section. Which section should be the main section can be discussed at Talk:Oxford Council election 2006#Discussion about which article should have the main section, with the discussion copied here. I personally lean towards the Oxford election article for having the main section. Tamino 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds ludicrously implausible - can someone please give some citations or indeed evidence of any kind to support this please?

End of copied discussion

As a politically involved student at OU I can confirm that most of the rumours are true (once had the dubious pleasure of hearing the OUCA cover of 'round the mountain' - however it's all unverifiable so shoulddn't be included. What might be mentioned is that the only ward that the tories lost votes in during the 2007 local elections - was the one where OUCA canvassed.

Please be aware that the current publications officer of OUCA has been editing this article repeatedly. Jammy07 (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer an officer and never edited the article when I was. I supported an earlier edit which you have repeatedly undone without addressing the numerous issues with the information concerned which have been raised again and again in talk. The content you keep adding is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. JacobJHWard (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask when you were elected to the post and for which term you served? Jammy07 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the answer to that is no, appaz, judging from the guy's lack of response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.202.31 (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really 18 November 2008, even though the OUTRG was disbanded in December 2007? --Stfg (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oxford University Conservative Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110128210702/http://www.ouca.org.uk:80/about/ to http://www.ouca.org.uk/about/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page has clearly been edited by officers of the association - amongst them, McPherson and the sitting president Walford.

It's a clear conflict of interest, especially given that a lot of the edits lack proper citations - I'm not sure how they would be verifiable. FacileEditor (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears as if a couple of users - including User:Lockhill2994 - have been editing rather haphazardly. Unless they have something to say I'm beginning to suspect deliberate editing in favour of a POV.

--FacileEditor (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest User:FacileEditor guilty of deliberate editing in favour of a POV

- User:Durbot 15:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that Oxford_University_Conservative_Association#Financial_and_interpersonal_misconduct should be included. Issues of reliability aside (given the BLP implications of this subsection, we should really use better sources than this, see WP:NPF), this is ultimately a matter of dueness, or more specifically, WP:PROPORTION, which states that a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic (emphasis mine). The fact that something is verifiable does not mean that it should be included. The association receives plenty of coverage in student newspapers and there is no reason to include this over other minutiae, unless we believe it to be more important - but this should be reflected by coverage in sources better than student newspapers. 192.76.8.90 (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! First of all BLP does not apply here, BLP is for person while this is an organization. I have taken a look again at the material removed, and I think your removal is good and my revert is mistaken, as "allegations" and "accusations" should not be on the article. I will restore your edit, I apologize for my previous revert and have a nice day ahead! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that we have come to an agreement. To clarify the BLP part: BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Applicability_of_the_policy). The policy page could feature this information more prominently, though. Have a nice day too! 192.76.8.90 (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]