Talk:University of York Conservative and Unionist Association

Order of positions

There is clearly an issue over what the order of committee positions, specifically in the executive. This is based over an unfortunate discrepancy in the order given in the YUSU constitution, and the Association constitution. It is therefore necessary to resolve which constitution takes precedence.

It is quite correct that the association is affiliated with YUSU. However, that is not essential. The association can be de-ratified, and indeed has been in the past, but has always continued to exist. The Association constitution allows it to function outside of YUSU, which the YUSU constitution does not. It would not make sense to operate under a constitution which denies the association the ability to function in the event of de-ratification.

Also, the point of the YUSU constitution is to ensure that the Association complies with the SU's guidelines. This is why the Association's constitution is more in depth and is the document amended in AGMs and EGMs, with the YUSU constitution only being amended if amendments to the Association constitution mean that the information in the YUSU constitution is now outdated.

The bottom line is that while affiliated with YUSU, both constitutions apply, but that if not affiliated, UYCUA continues to exist and operate under the Association constitution, so it has to take precedence. Stuart Newmanite (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

potentially unpublished source

@Stuart_Newmanite As far as I can tell, citation 2 appears to be an unpublished source. Wikipedia requires that all sources have been made available to the public in some form. Has the source been made available to the public, and if so where? Alyxbb (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This source has not yet been made available to the public. Stuart Newmanite (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Stuart Newmanite, if the source is unpublished it can't be used on a Wikipedia article - see WP:VERIFIABILITY. (Also, you having access to an unpublished seemingly-internal document suggests you may be a member of the organisation - I'd recommend you read the page on conflicts of interest before editing this page further.) Sincerely, Marksomnian. ^{(Talk to me or {{ping}} me)} 13:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've boldly deleted the paragraph that references that source - no issue with re-adding the material there (Special:Diff/1193759056) as long as it can be cited to a published source. Sincerely, Marksomnian. ^{(Talk to me or {{ping}} me)} 13:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

History section Bias

Much of the history section feels biased. for example in "the Hagueathon was attacked out of concern that it encouraged binge drinking", "attacked" feels like a loaded word. additionally in the line "In 2017, controversy arose when the association invite the Conservative MP Philip Davies to give a talk. Opposition centred around past statements of his being labelled as 'misogynistic'." it feels like the fact that misogynistic is quoted is being used to create bias. "In 2020, the Fox Hunt caused further controversy. On this occasion, the Conservative Party publicly condemned the event." feels like a fairly important part of the history but is one of the shortest paragraphs in the history section Alyxbb (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't read very smoothly in places. For 'attacked', do you think that 'criticised' would be a suitable substitution? 'Misogynistic' was quoted to carry the emphasis of both of the source on the incident, which quoted the same word in their titles, Students are outraged at a 'misogynistic' MP being invited to speak at their university and York Tories under fire for inviting "the most misogynistic MP" to campus. As for the 2020 incident, it is really of no more importance than the other incidents where the Fox Hunt was condemned. I'm also not sure of what else could be made of it, since for most of the incidents the same points and replies are made and quoted. If you do think that something more needs to be said, or have found a better source, please be bold and edit the incident. Stuart Newmanite (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I do think criticised is better than attacked. Regarding the 2020 incident, there are several sources I've found regarding the incident, it might be worth making a sub section about the fox hunt as it's mentioned in several paragraphs in the history. It does feel like the 2020 incident is a fairly significant part of the fox hunt history seeing as the Conservative party got involved. Also these specific examples aren't the only case of bias, they were just a few specific examples. the entire section feels biased Alyxbb (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Most of the history covers events that the association either planned to hold, or held, which there was then some level of reaction to, sometimes followed by an aftermath. This format inadvertently comes across as biased since most of the sources report the events in a negative light, and any response by the association is defensive. The tone of the sources gives the section its biased feel. I do not feel that the fox hunt merits its own section in the history, since the events seem to replicate themselves and lack the details to fill the section out.

As for the 2020 incident, saying that the 'Conservative party got involved' takes it out of context. The statement in the article reiterates that the social is not endorsed by the party because the association is not affiliated with them. Stuart Newmanite (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)