Talk:Oxford University Conservative Association

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thanks that's now  SmartSE (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The U 

message: 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)
thread_title:  YBAOTR

message: 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)
thread_title: OUCA in the media

message: 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)
thread_title: OUTRG

message: 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)
thread_title: 8 May Edits

message: 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)
thread_title: This article needs cleanup

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  President List 

message: 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
#In Michaelmas 2004, OUCA ceased to have a functioning executive owing to lack of leadership.
#In 2004, OUCA members were involved in the attempted ‘liberation’ of a rock from the gardens of Trinity College.
#During the 2004 campainging tour, the OUCA group were denied entry to Michael Ancram's constituency of Devizes.
#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.
#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. 
#In 2003, OUCA was known as "Oxford Conservatives" for one University term, after failing register with the University as an official student society.
#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.   
#OUCA's claim to be the '...the largest student political body since the Hitler Youth...' featured on its website.
#OUCA also has a drinking song sung to the tune of 'She'll Be Coming Round the Mountains': 	
:"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)
thread_title: Unreferenced material

message: 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)
thread_title: TOC

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Oxford University Conservative Association#Simon Clarke/Charlie Steel - Forgery|Simon Clarke/Charlie Steel - Forgery]] 

message: Please be aware that the current publications officer of OUCA has been editing this article repeatedly. Jammy07 (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask when you were elected to the post and for which term you served? Jammy07 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  OUCA officer 

message: Was it really 18 November 2008, even though the OUTRG was disbanded in December 2007? --Stfg (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Lamb and Flag meeting 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Oxford University Conservative Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interest 

message: 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  (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good to see that we have come to an agreement. To clarify the BLP part:  (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)
thread_title:  Allegations of misconduct