Talk:College Historical Society
|WikiProject Debating||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject Ireland||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Age and other quarrels
Right, I'm tired of reverting edits to the Hist and Phil pages. The text I try to insert is - in my opinion - neutral and fair-minded, at least compared to what others replace it with. I revert this page (and the Phil page) whenever petty attempts by either society are made to denigrate the other, or to unfairly boosterise themselves. I will say though that the Phil have been less energetic with the biased edits, but we've had them, and I've reverted them. Since both societies claim to be older, and both have a good claim, neither society's page should say that it is oldest, just that it claims to be oldest. Anything else is not NPOV. Check Wikipedia's policy document on NPOV for more details.
If anyone thinks they have a fairer text for the dating issue, please post it here. If not, please let mine stand for now.
Vandalism from each side on this issue makes both of the societies look chilish. Article6 15:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to revert those changes which were just made because
a)The UPS and the CHS share equal ownership of the part of the GMB owned by societies. Their stake is the same, no one pays rent to another.
b)The College Theological Society has a stake in the Bram Stoker Room in the GMB, and therefore shares the building with the Hist and the Phil
c)The Hist has provided a model for many other societies, as you can see, for example, by the number of societies which today have an 'Auditor'
d)The CHS was founded in 1770 and as such is the oldest undergraduate debating society in the world. If you want to argue about this, the way to do that is not to vandalise their Wikipedia article. - Toropets 12:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the "oldest undergraduate society in the world" section again. To say that both societies claim this and that they hvae equally legitimate claims is misleading. The dispute between the CHS and the UPS is entertaining enough but this really isn't the place for it to be played out. I think that if anyone wants to revert this one again, the very least they can do is to read the Budd and Hinds book "The Hist and Edmund Burke's Club", and to take a trip to the archives of the RDS to investigate the connection between it and either the DPS or the UPS. You will find that there is none. If anyone can present evidence that contradicts these sources or that might add to the historical debate rather than the petty rivalry then please present it. Otherwise we should accept that the CHS is the oldest undergraduate society in the world and as such leave this section of the entry as is. Toropets 16:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I wonder how much time that took to compose. Better than talking to yourself in the mirror all night again though, eh?
It's not true to infer that since the Phil is not older than the Hist, that means the Hist is the oldest undergraduate society in the world. The Unions in Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, etc. could argue that the interruption in the society "as it was" constitutes a discontinuity. If we don't act encyclopaedic about this, we end up with problems like the Phil/Hist one, but larger - where everyone has their own criterion and everyone calls themself the "oldest society" without qualifying it. I think the claim should be qualified - probably not removed, since it is of interest and probably a fair claim. 220.127.116.11 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
There does seem to be a disagreement between the Hist and the Phil as to what criteria should be used in judging which is the older society. I don't think that this should lead to a broader danger because most people outside those two groups accept what the criteria on this should be. If a society has, for a number of years, a consistent set of laws that are amended within their own terms, if it elects a committee or council within these laws every year and if that body carries out the functions of the society, then it should be said to have existed for that number of years, regardless of what other bodies it is affiliated with. The Hist has done this for far longer than any other undergraduate society, including the Unions of Oxford and Cambridge Toropets 13:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
College Historical Society (Trinity College, Dublin) → College Historical Society – Rationale: This is the only notable society with this precise name. --Kwekubo 19:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Support as proposer of move. -Kwekubo 19:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Add any additional comments
Does it realy make sense to have two different naming structures for the two prominant Trinity College societies? The Phil is called University Philosophical Society (Trinity College, Dublin) so it would seems logical to expect The Hist to have the same naming style as it has now. ww2censor 21:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- That in itself shouldn't be a reason in itself, as they same reasoning could be used for renaming the other page. I'd be slightly against though, as there are other societies with names quite similar. William Quill 11:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Result: no move
There recently was an unsuccessful attempt to move this article from 'College Historical Society (Trinity College, Dublin)' to 'College Historical Society'. However, I've never heard it referred to as anything other than 'the Hist' except when speaking formally. I've just added it as a redirect but I would suggest moving the article altogether to 'the Hist'. Also, there are currently no articles in Wikipedia which are vying for the name 'College Historical Society' or 'the Hist', therefore once we decide which is the better name, I strongly suggest we should move to one of those names. The policy is that we don't use brackets in article names until after there exist multiple competing Wikipedia articles. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 14:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Requested move 2
anyone wanna pimp this
Main article: list of College Historical Society Medallists
The Society can award a Gold Medal for Outstanding Contribution to Public Discourse to Public figures who fulfill certain critera
...This award dates back to ?? and has been awarded to F.W. deKlerk in 2008 and John Major in 2007, amongst others
There is ambiguity in the laws regarding Officers being elected, and the debates convenor being an Officer. This has been shown from the editing wars regarding the DC which has gone on in this aricle. Any suggestions on resolution? Bogger (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There isn't much ambiguity. Since the position has been on-committee, the DC has always been treated as an officers and has a chapter in the Laws setting out the duties of that office, just like every other officer. Indeed, Chapter XII frequently refers to "the holder of this office". In addition, the DC is eligible for Marked Thanks in the exact manner theat other Officers are, but general members of committee are not. On a day to day basis the DC is expected to have officer's business in committee meetings and attends officer meetings. There really isn't a question that the DC is an officer of the Society. The only uncertainty that exists relates to Chapter V of the Laws refering to the election of Officers. As far as I can gather the only reason why the DC is omitted from this list is because the list is merely for the purposes of establishing which positions are subject to the electoral laws in the rest of the Chapter. As the DC is not elected, the Office has been omitted from this list. So, based on the Laws and on day-to-day Hist activities and precedents I see no reason why someone should continue to revert the section to say that the DC is not an officer. Nancy24 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be some doubt in some circles as to the name of this office. However if one were to be bold, as per wikipedia policy and read the Laws of the College Historical Sociaty CHAPTER IX one would be left in no doubt!!! Bogger (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Over the course of the history of the article all mention of the awarding of the Gold Medal has been removed. There is no explanation of what the Gold Medal is nor why it is awarded. The only remaining references are to a few individuals who have received the award. This is something that I feel should be corrected. IrishStephen (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)