Talk:Oxford Union

message: 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)
thread_title: The Queen and the Union

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Substituted at 02:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: You need to explain the formal ranks of secretary and president. And what about a list of those office-holders? Valetude (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  President/Secretary 

message: Before I started (16/11/21) making the substantial edits to this page, the previous version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Union&oldid=1051921539) had numerous "citation needed" annotations in the "Status and membership" section, and a "This section does not cite any sources" annotation in the "Notable speakers" section.  So I set about providing the missing references (substantially rewriting the membership details, and adding a handful of entries to the "Notable speakers" section), spending a considerable number of hours doing so.  So I do not appreciate all that work just being summarily erased by "Drmies".
While I also rephrased and reorganised a fair amount of the article so that it read better, beyond the necessary rewrite of the membership details I did not make any significant additions to the article, so to suddenly declare that it "may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience" is entirely arbitrary and prejudicial, and to object to the modifications I have made because I "appear to have a close connection with its subject" is ridiculous when all I have essentially done is PROVIDE REFERENCES FOR EXISTING MATERIAL.
I trust therefore that the work I have done will not now be discarded for no legitimate reason.
AlexAndrews (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifications November/December 2021