Talk:Collegiate secret societies in North America/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

I would oppose GA status for this article in its current state

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

IMHO, there are simply too many unsupported statements and observations, in addition to serious organizational and encyclopedic tone issues. This article is not (and perhaps can not ever be) one of WP's best articles. The nature of the subject is that it will inherently contain sketchy and thinly-referenced information. An excellent example is the alleged Skull and Crescent society, which does not have sufficient independent back-up. While several editors have put in quite a bit of solid, good faith work on this article, I regret that I would not support this article's being given GA status in its current state. Soundsgood2me (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree (mostly) with these points. I think that, generally, it's worth taking a look at a few things about the article:

How we define "secret society"
How each society on the list meets those criteria
How we reconcile #s 1 and 2 with WP:NOTE
The quality of references that are provided for each society.

I also think our quick rebuild of the article has really been too quick for more than a handful of editors to provide feedback of the sort that "societyalum" has provided. More time is needed for a lot of eyeballs to flush these issues out of the article. And a few of the editors, possibly including myself, are possibly too close to the subject to be objective about it. So let's take some more time.

I'd recommend a pass through the entire reference list as a first step. Let's see what we can do to clean it up from a quality perspective.

I disagree that the article can never reach GA, however. I think Skull and Crescent is an aberration rather than a representative case, and it's one where other editors have already indicated concern. Tjarrett (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A Perspective

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

1st) I have been following these secret society pages for awhile now, and let me say a few things. First off, I don't believe that Purdue's group is a hoax- hoax accusations about that began with Theta Nu Epsilon last year, they have a thing out for Purdue, because Purdue does/did have a chapter of TNE that may have also been an "Alpha" chapter- and that current Wesleyan group is an upstart that has legitimacy issues. Check their talk page, which I have also contributed to-U of I also recognized that there was some group of Skull and Crescent attached to a TNE group, and it was Wesleyan TNE that was behind the whole hoax accusations about Purdue in the first place last year, that got the S&C articel removed quickly without even fullly looking into things. I think Skull and Crescent was always legit, and got removed for nothing, alot of people from Purdue and others talk about the group and are passionate about the group- too many people for it to have ever been a prank.

2nd) Societyfinalclubs knew a whole lot about this topic, and I found everybit of his writing sourced and as good as anyone can expect- so I don't see why Friendlifer, who has been blocked now, went on some rampage to remove everything- I think Wikipedia has big probs with all of this hoax accustions stuff. Societyfinalclubs rebuilt these pages- he deserves a round of applause not a block.

3rd) Lets talk about the controversial Purdue society and lets also talk about nationmaster. Nationmaster is in accordance with the CIA world Factbook, and is fact checked by the CIA- you can't get more solid than that- they also don't post with out fact checking- so even if there was some article about Purdue's S&C on wikipedia, and nationmaster wanted to add it to there own body of knowledge, they would take what was written, fact-check it and then post it. It is a very solid source to use.

My proposal, is unblock societyfinalclubs, and let the sourced S&C article be included. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to go fact check everything in it the way nationmaster does, it is just Wiki's responsibility that information in it is coming from an established source, and when it comes to secret societies, there has to be some flexibility, who knows what really goes on in Skull and Bones etc. It may be a lot more or even a lot less than what we all think. I think a sourced article about Purdue's Crescent is a welcome addition to the secretsociety groups- than not having it at all, nationmaster is still sticking to their guns about it and wiki should too, but if it is decided to let Societyfinalclubs crete an article- let it be known that it has been approved and not always end up at this same point all over again- we go and build it up, and go and break it down- it is very foolish.Jonesbig (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Jonesbig/Societyfinalclubs,

Look, if you wanted to work on your article, you had the chance to do so in your user space. Why in the world are you playing these silly sockpuppet games? Actually, looks like you've been doing this multiple-account thing for a while now. Why do you refuse to understand that you were not blocked for creating a hoax, but for edit warring? You do not have free reign to create whatever you want, it needs reliable sources. If you have some, great. If you don't, I'm sorry. We can't take your word for it. Your behavior tonight is just baffling, and I don't appreciate having my time wasted like this when I, and several other editors, have bent over backwards tonight to give you the benefit of the doubt. Pick one account, stick with it, and create an article if you want to create an article, don't if you don't, leave if you want to leave, but stop the games. And stop whining. --barneca (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not societyfinalclubs, will everyone stop saying that- go check the Theta Nu Epsilon talk page- for once- I have been following this rivalry between purdue TNE and Wes TNE- that's itJonesbig (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am staying out of this. I reverted back to what the previous person before me had- I thought that I could add some insight with the whole TNE situation, but instead I get accusations of being Societyfinalclubs. Also, for the record, I saw that soemone flagged the page for being a hoax, don't lie, and nationmaster is a reliable source. My advice, if you value societyfinalclubs contributions you should send him a message to continue his work on the article- and insure that it will be protected from hoax accusationsJonesbig (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues with Blocking

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I see that I have been unblocked, and now would be a good time to address some issues. This Jonesbig fellow above is not me- so talk of sockpuppetry is mute. Now, when I helped restore this page, I enagaged in a lengthy conversation about all of these issues in talk that was already archived- I will not keep going over the same talk again. I also was blocked for no good reason. When I started to finish completion of turning all red links into blue and was about to complete the Skull and Crescent page, I got some post that says to speedily delete- then through talk, I was made ok to clear, and that since I received a go ahead to continue with the article that it would be best, to revmove the deleting talk from the discussion page, then I get some administrator from England who is stuborn to leave it there becuse its the "rules", yet I knew it would be problamatic-so I start on the article, and what do I get, a wave of people reverting all my work done on it, so I go back with an explanation why it should be removed, and removed it. I start working on the article again, and I get some guy who says its a hoax and posts a hoax flag on the page saying the article was deleted last year, but on this talk page I already cleared that up that it wasn't a hoax because I have seen info on the microfilm first hand, and that the nationmster aricle is taken word for word form that, and I even described the group's symbol and bage which appeared within the article, talk of this can be found on talk on this archived page. Now I see, someone removed the elizabethan club logo, yet the group is a secret society-on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being most secret, I rate that club a 1-2, not so much but with still secret elments only known to insiders and therefore a secret society, also all of those honor society listed on the page all began with secret roots and therfore also deserve to stay. I also posted a link for the ivy club, that has a secton within in it talking about the "secret" elements that are only known to menbers- therefore secret. Now, I will try one last and final time to getting this article and related blue links where they should be, I truly wish that people who don't know what they are talking about with this topic stay out- and if I hear one more time about Skull and Crescent being some hoax- that will be the end of it. If you had some article about this group last year and removed it because it was a "hoax"- you removed a perfectly good article- nationmaster is a very legit source to use for it. When I am done with the restoration AGAIN, if someone does not archive talk on this page- I will just delete it- it has no value anyway, it is just clutter about BS again.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nationmaster is not a legit source. It is a mirror of Wikipedia, and the article they are mirroring is the Wikipedia article from last year, which was deleted in an AfD. You have to come up with verifiable, reliable sources. If having people add tags and talk page comments bothers you, I very strongly urge you to work on this new version in your user space instead, as was recommended to you by several people last night. Requesting that your article be left in peace for a while, with no one else able to comment, is not how wiki editing works, and interestingly enough, is exactly what the person who created the article last year complained about. --barneca (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

BULLSHIT, Nationmster takes info from a bunch of different sources that is fact-checked by professionals and posted- they do not write their own articles, you can learn about them and the CIA factbook from within their own site. I also talked about additional sourcing which can be checked, but for the sake of Wiki I was using a link so people would have "immediate gratification" of where info was coming from- and urged all people really interested with the group to check "first hand" the original source- check the archive talk of this page (why do you peple archive if you don't even check it). Also, YOU were all fools for removing a legit article in the first place- all based on Wiki's "mob consensus" rules of removal rather than true facts. I also have more additional sourced info to add if you would ever let me finish- but my answer now is GO FUCK YOURSELF. I restored all of these groups on this page, I invested the most time on this article- and I gave my final warning for a LAST effort.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. The [http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/The-Sacred-Order-of-Skull-and-Crescent NationMaster article] is an exact duplicate of the article that was deleted from Wikipedia on 9 July 2007. Hence why the NationMaser article says it was last updated 314 days ago ... because it is a mirror of a now deleted wiki article. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Inclusivity of definition is not the accepted norm

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

People here must argue a case for a "liberal and inclusive" definition of what a secret society is and why high school societies should be included on a page that is about "college" secret societies", why honor societies are included etc. I am not opposed to a liberal definition, but that has not been established at this point- a conservative version of the article must remain until these issues have been resolved- it is the correct position- it must be discussed first.Schooldoc (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Other Issues

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

If one takes off the Ivy Club off- one must also take off every Harvard Final club- they are almost exactly like Pinceton's. One is "punched" and the other is "bickered", people who are nonmenbers also participate with Harvard groups too for certain functions. Some, just want to include Havard on this list- but they should not- if the definition in narrow- Harvard must go.

Also, I think high school societies should go too, this background does not pertain to the article listing specifically as "collegiate" secret societies, just a background of it, another articel of high school secret societies can be created. I also believe that the "big ten" section must go too- those groups are now honor societies, even if they began as secret societies- to use Purdue as an example, that school still has an honor society called "Skull & Crescent", but I would not include it on this list, nor would I include all the other honor societies that once were secret- pruning must be done, and I amsorry but I will have to do that- this is a nice pretty article, but not in accordance with what the title states Collegiate scret societies in North America- not the history of them, or the ones that once were, or groups that have some secret aspect to them, etc. They must come off the list- the article is too broad right now.Schooldoc (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have created a version that is based on solid material that must remain, untill further issues are resolved. With all do respect, Purdue's group was removed, but why than should other groups that only have a webpage about them be allowed- that does not make sense- so if I creted a webpage about purdue that would be enough for legitimacy- I can't buy that, also the arguments for Harvard final clubs and honor societies also stand- they are not "true secret societies", untill a vote is passed here, of why they should be allow, and why high school societies should be allowed etc- I can not see an "inclusive artcle" as the acceptable norm. The most conservative version must stand- untill all issues are resolved.Schooldoc (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The page as it stands now, is what most conservatively fits the title of the article and what are fully regarded as "secret societies"- until broader definitions are included by a vote, final clubs, honor societies, high school background, etc. can not be left as the final version of this article- seperate articles about "Collegiate final clubs in North America","High School secret societies" etc. can all be created. I also would have no problem about an article labled "Collegiate Secret Society Legends" that can talk about S&B's Geronimo skull being stolen or even Purdue's group of Skull & Crescent- they do have documented info that can be cited by nationmaster- they are a documented legend at least, if not a real society. I think that would be great to have a page on collegiate secret society legends that are sourced. Give me your thoughts on that.Schooldoc (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this page. I was one of the first people to doubt the legitimacy of the "Skull and Crescent" as well as Nationmaster and was shouted down for it. I also appreciate that the group decision has also been to remove the private boarding school groups that serve no place on a page about "collegiate secret societies." We need to be open to adding more groups here as more are discovered, but they NEED to be WELL SOURCED and DOCUMENTED. I am getting tired of people who are just here to promote small and unknown groups to prominence. A round of applause for all the people working hard to keep this page clean. Thank you.... Cornell1890 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting content that has been cited and sourced to reliable, third-party, published sources is lunacy. This sort of POV-pushing and disruption will not be tolerated. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore all of this sockpuppetry stuff and get to what's important

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think we should stay closer to what the actual title of the page is "collegiate seceret societies in North America", I'm not saying that info about high school societies or final clubs or honor societies aren't well sourced or not good info to have- just not appropriate for this particular article. Just because people have issues with this article doesn't make people sockpuppets, and if we are going to have a "liberal definition" of secret societies that must be argued for hear convincingly. Wikipedia administrator's always concern themselves with issues of no importance- like their irrational fixation on hoaxing- which half of the time is not even true- I'm not convinced that Purdue is a hoax. Purdue's group may of not really been a true collegiate secret society, they sound more like a secret Masonic lodge, to me, that just happens to be functioning in a collegiate environment- I don't know, but even if that was the case, it still would not, in my definition, be a true "collegiate secret society", that would be a masonic group, which many masomic groups had different organizations and functioning- that is what I suspect really is the deal with that group, you can have a masonic lodge for university students too and still not be a traditional, "collegiate secret society". Having said that, I find the current version up now- to be highly inappropriate- the most conservative version is what should be the standard, until some further agreement is accepted. I think administrators just don't want to take it down, because it was a "good article" nominee- but reason would have to say- it must go absolutely.Schooldoc (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Suspecting sockpuppetry

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I have filed an RFCU here, in the hopes that this will sort out all of these new accounts who seem to know an awful lot about wikipedia. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And, at roughly the same time, I was busy filing an SSP here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Societyfinalclubs. Jinx! --barneca (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry has been confirmed, and a bunch of accounts, too! Justinm1978 (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That should put a crimp in these hoaxers. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking back over the last three months, I don't see any other accounts that seem like sockpuppets of this user that were not caught, tagged, and blocked yesterday. So, although you can never be sure, I think the disruption of this page should be over, or at least die down quite a bit. Based on the long history of disruption, AfD vote stacking, and hoax creation of that group of sockpuppet accounts, and the now-clear evidence most of it was a hoax, I think in the future any account that shows up lobbying for inclusion of Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent, or creates that page again without a new, independent, reliable source, can immediately be identified as a another sockpuppet, per the WP:DUCK test, without going through the days of good faith assumption we've extended this person before.

Finally, it appears this user was extremely active on this article, was mixing good edits with bad edits, and it is often hard to differentiate between the two. I suggest the regulars of this page (who, unlike me, have some knowledge of the subject) may want to go back through his contributions, throw out anything that can't be sourced, and add a citation for anything that is missing a citation but can be sourced, to remove any lingering questions.

Good luck with your article. --barneca (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerns

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You have blocked Mctrain which is a legitimate account with the Chicago Public Library, and I believe that there may be cross-over between legitimate users and those who are not, or possibly non-legitimate users also signing in on a legitimate user's account.

I thought you should be aware of this, so there is no confusion between what may be hoaxing material and what is legitimate added material. Mctrain's focus is European history and architecture, not this subject matter. I will notify the other pages you flagged as well, so there is clarity on the situation, and a lookout for what may be hoax material. FYI, the IP's you narrowed are with the CPL. I will also notify public users to create accounts that are not associated with the CPL, so there is no further confusion in the future. Thank you very muchGeniejargon (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Penn State Skull and Bones

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sigh ... well, while the newly added Skull and Bones at Penn State appears at first glance to be a legit organization, it looks more like a fairly open honor society -- rather than what we are calling a secret society within the meaning of this article. Anyone have any comments/reactions? My thought is that it doesn't belong in this article. Soundsgood2me (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Case Against Including Princeton Eating Clubs

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Princeton Eating Clubs are veritable institutions that deserve their own articles, as they have collectively and individually on Wikipedia right now. They provide social life and meals for most Princeton students and are a subject of considerable controversy as that school strives to become more diverse in its social life and student body. However, they are not secret societies. As a contributor has summed up nicely, secret societies in the traditional mode meet a couple of times a week and focus on self development, introspection, and often arcane rituals in the object of some goal. In contrast, Princeton's eating clubs provide daily meals, weekly parties, occasional large social events, educational events, and other opportunities to members, and sometimes to the guests of members. Yes, people are "punched" and go through secret initiation rituals, but as we have established, this is not enough to qualify a group as a "collegiate secret society" as we have identified in this artictle. Most of these groups have web sites (http://theivyclub.net/) and many of the web sites identify officers and members publicly (http://www.princeton.edu/~cotclub/current1.htm) as well as post pictures of events (http://www.princeton.edu/~capgown/capbashphotos.htm). These organizations aren't secret societies more any than private clubs for adults like New York's University Club are. Ivy Club should be removed, and similar organizations should be removed as well.

PS- I'll make a similar case against final clubs probably this weekend

-societyalum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.57.6 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Beginning some clean-up

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Following up on the suggestions above, I've made a few of the most obvious changes. The Elizabethan Club is not a secret society in the same way that the others on the list are. I understand that we are dealing with a spectrum rather than a clear line. However, by any measure, the Elizabethan Club (as described in the well-sourced article on WP) is very open about its membership and activities, entry to its premises is available to significant numbers of non-members, does not follow the usual Thursday/Sunday ritual structure, etc. I have also moved the high school material to the end of the article, with the intention of asking again here whether this material really belongs in this article in this length. At least these options are available: (1) leave this section at this length in this article, (2) condense it substantially, and move the bulk of it to footnotes (or delete entirely), or (3) create a new stub article about high school secret societies, with a brief reference here. Thoughts please. Soundsgood2me (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've clarified the definition of secret society to more closely bring it into focus. The traditional model of the secret society (as that term is commonly understood) is twice-weekly meetings, etc. Soundsgood2me (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted a driveby edit where I presume the editor didn't read the talk page.Soundsgood2me (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Twice a week? What, has someone given us a datebook? I think this statement (which I fact-tagged) needs to be supported or removed. Also, for the more secret of the secret societies (Seven Society), I don't think we can generalize about things like "personal revelation," though I do know that's claimed about Skull and Bones. Tjarrett (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, twice a week with personal discussions is the standard pattern at many secret societies, and is well-known on campuses. I haven't gone around yet to find support for this, but you can start with these items - Elihu, Wolf's Head, Manuscript Society and Scroll and Key - for the twice a week schedule with personal discussions. I'll get you outside support on this, but rest assured it is the standard pattern for at least the traditional secret societies (as the sentence states). Soundsgood2me (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Further proposed clean-up of list

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The last column of the big list doesn't convey any useful information to me. There is no explanation for the title "Active or Honorary" and the entries in that column (1) are similarly unexplained, and (2) don't really match the title. I am proposing deleting this column unless someone has an idea what the column is supposed to convey. Soundsgood2me (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As I stated (in the archives), I'm strongly in favor of removing this column unless a meaningful definition comes forward. Tjarrett (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Soundsgood2me (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Further proposed clean-up

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

An entry on the list related to Dartmouth Phyrigian does not appear to have independent support, and does not appear on an official Dartmouth list of senior societies. I propose removing this entry unless independent support can be found. Soundsgood2me (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Soundsgood2me (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The The Senior Skull Honor Society appears to be a legitimate open honor society at the University of Maine, but not a secret society as used in this article. I propose removing this entry from this list. Soundsgood2me (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

sorry editors this is a quick fail. An interesting article concerning a subject I knew very little about but

Presence of any correctly applied cleanup banners, including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}} or similar tags. See WP:QFC
editor wars - most recent 14th 15th May 2008, (after the nomination) resulting (for a short time)in a need for protection, due to vandalism and sock puppetry.

A bit of house keeping required before you decide to resubmit. For example: links four years at yale and secret societies remain veiled in mystery I could not find. I would also recommend that statements like ...There are many collegiate secret societies in North America... be referenced in some way. Sort out the editing arguments and (this one could be difficulty) how to describe what is a secret society with the minimum amount of non-referenced statements as possible. Please do then consider re nominating the article. I wish you well with your endeavours. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 15:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxer societyfinalclubs

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

This page needs to be verted back since it has been compromised by hoaxing content of societyfinalclubs.JoshLevine (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed, this page has been edited considerably since the blocking of societyfinalclubs and his socks. If there is anything dubious, go ahead and revert it, but most of the work the societyfinalclubs put into this pages seems to be legit. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I re-reverted it back to include the content from societyfinalsclub. Even though he ended up being a blocked editor, the stuff he contributed that didn't relate to his block was legit. Justinm1978 (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not corrcet to have material by any such editor remaining- all other articles created by the sock have already been removed, the friars, ma-wan-da, etc. This article must also be reverted. It would be in conflict to Wiki policy of allowing a blocked editor to keep writing under a sock, and it would be in conflict to the other society articles already deleated- the policy must be maintained and reverting is policy.JoshLevine (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Show me a policy that says every contribution made by someone that ends up having socks must be removed. Two editors here disagree with your assertion that all of this content must be removed. Being that I re-added it, along with Daniel J. Leivick, that should lend some legitimacy to the existence of said data. Furthermore, you seem to be a new user, and being that your only edits are the same ones as the aforementioned sock, I'm having a bit of a hard time assuming good faith here. Justinm1978 (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked editors should not be editing under another sock when blocked- that's a rule. Their work does not get to stayJoshLevine (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Work from blocked editors does not automatically get reverted. If you can point to unsourced or info please remove it, otherwise do not revert without actual evidence. The page has been edited significantly since the socks were blocked. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand? Why was all the other society pages by the same sock all removed? There seems to not be any rule at work under Wikipedia- just picking and choosing then? Help me understand your policy because Skull Society, Friar Society, Coffin and Keys, and Ma-Wan-Da etc. have all been removed? This does not make sense to me- why those should go, that were created by the same sock, and were equally valid and sourced? JoshLevine (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Clubs

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are also some problems with Harvard and Princeton Final Clubs etc.- They are not truly collegiate secret societies, granted they have some secrets, but we are forcing these groups into this secret society page- when there is already a Final Club page. There is no need to have a similar societies section.JoshLevine (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Redlink Problem

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Some people have taken it upon themselves to delete any addition to the list if it is redlinked. It is understandable if any society be listed be verifiable, (especially here where people seem especially prone to making up garbage). However, this creates a catch-22 situation. The list purports to be a list of all college secret societies, and clearly is it not, it is only a list of non redlinked societies. Other societies do exist, we know they exist, there are all but testimonials to their existence, and yet, since they do not have wikipedia pages of their own, people blindly delete all of them because that are redlinked. Not that I should blame him in particluar. In the archives of this discussion page, there is plenty of debate on this same subject. Let me be perfectly clear, the only criteria for this list is, by implication, to be only that a society is verifiable. However the criteria for a wikipedia article is more than that, an article has to be verifiable AND notable, AND whatever else. I can provide plenty of verification for the existence of one society, it even owns it's own building to meet in, (which most of the societies on this list do not). And yet, one admin, Gwen Gale, is determined to delete an article on the society based on some two-year old discussion about that article. I have brought this situation to her attention, but it's like talking to any admin here in wikipedia. My point being, the description of the list here creates a false impression of inclusiveness because of the Leivick Problem, and I will adjust matters in the article accordingly.OoooooNaaNaNaOoooNana (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The list should be for verifiable seceret societies. Concensus was form about a year ago. We decided that all societies must either provide have an article, or have a link to a reliable source confirming their existence. If you can provide a reliable source, there should be no problem whatsoever. In the future, you might want to keep things less personal, don't talk about me, talk about the content--Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

All my links to reliable sources confirming existence were in the article that was deleted. The article should not have been deleted, that's where the problem lay. "List of selected North American collegiate secret societies" is an inaccurate title, there is no selectivity in the list. "Partial list" would apply. Criteria for the list should be specified. Creating the impression that it is a comprehensive list should be avoided. "Consensus formed about a year ago" is an argument I've used in the past, and no one takes it seriously coming from me.OoooooNaaNaNaOoooNana (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are having problems with the article being deleted, you should take it to deletion review or discuss it with the admin who deleted the article. As for this article, would you be ok if we changed the heading to "Notable secret societies"? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful!OoooooNaaNaNaOoooNana (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, a several months ago, I added a sentence "The list below is not an exhaustive list of collegiate secret societies. New secret societies are formed every year, and many older groups are not listed." I think adding this back would be good as it notes the fact that some groups are left off and that a truly complete list would be impossible to compile. -societyalum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.57.6 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The importance of verifiable content and the redlink problem

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Folks: In case anyone missed it, we had another sock puppet infestation this summer. OoooooNaaNaNaOoooNana, DampToeFungus, P22575R15, and LesleyAnnWarren, all of whom had been active in editing this page, were all sock puppets of Thaïs Alexandrina, as established by Checkuser.

Given that this page seems to attract editors who go out of their way to obfuscate their actions and create unverifiable content, keeping unsourced redlinks off the page is doubly important. I've removed a few this morning and left notes on the contributors' talk pages.

If you are planning on adding content to this page, please make sure it's properly sourced (in accordance with WP:CITE) or that it points to a properly sourced article. Thanks.

-Tjarrett (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The importance of understanding that secret societies do not fall neatly into our cookie cutter inclusion/exclusion guidelines

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I strongly believe that school newspapers should be sufficient to purport notability. The article on skin cancer doesn't have a group of doctors trying to make it secret. Finding sources is easy and breaking the analogy, there is no "pubmed" for some of the items that were removed and I believe both sides should compromise a bit here. I imagine that we are all educated aren't we? Can't we justify a 15% leanient application of WP:IAR. We have lost 3 important societies and I can't find the proper WP:VER to warrant inclusion. Maybe a change of heart is in order from the current editors of this article? Sentriclecub (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Not only do I believe school newspapers are sufficient, I also think they are the often BEST sources available for society information.

- Societyalum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.57.6 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Baylor University

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Baylor has its "Noze Brothers". They've been banned off and on again, but have maintained their traditions throughout. We've already got an article on it: The NoZe Brotherhood. Would this qualify for inclusion here? Rklawton (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Summary of further proposed changes

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I propose that:

1) That the high school material be moved to a new article, with a link from here.

Done.

2) That (non-secret) honor societies be moved to a new article, with a link from here. For example,
- Lion's Paw Senior Society (Penn State)
- Skull and Bones (Penn State)

all appear to be honor societies that do not meet many of the criteria as a secret society and I propose they be transferred to this new article. This new article could be expanded to include for example the (real) Skull and Dagger honor society at USC.

Close calls (have some aspects of secret society but may not be close enough),

- The Senior Skull Honor Society (U. Maine)
- Order of Angell (Michigan)
- Friars senior society (Penn)
- Friar Society (Texas-Austin)

There is an existing article (Honor societies) which is broader than collegeiate honor societies, but which covers collegeiate honor societies extensively; the two Penn State refs will be moved to there. Anyone have any input on the "close call" groups as to whether they qualify here?

3) I understand that the Harvard final clubs and the Princeton eating clubs are not exactly in the same model as the Yale (and elsewhere) secret societies. They are, however, the closest analogy which exists on those two important campuses to the standard secret society. I suggest that this article should find a way to keep the Harvard and Princeton material in this article - perhaps through a "closely related" heading?

Done.

Soundsgood2me (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: #2. My understanding, as a UT student, is that the Friars are not in any way secret. --aciel (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

New York University

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There is one or more posters who post that there are two or more secret societies at NYU, the Eucleian and the Philomathean. The NYU university archives clearly show that Eucleian died in 1943^[1], and Philomathean in 1888.^[2] This was a pretty extensive hoax, with several poster names contributing, and false references to non-existent outside pages or short outside blog pages. It has also been going on for more than a year. I have corrected most of the two article pages, and this page, but I expect the party or perties concerned to return with more of the same in the future. Fair warning.Theophrastus Eresus (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Corrected paragraph above to 1943 from 1909.Theophrastus Eresus (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Errors in this Article

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is mistitled. The undergraduate groups mentioned from Priceton and Harvard, for example, are just clubs, not societies. Awful editing by the powers that be at this site. SLY111 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)SLY111

if you read this article before attacking it, you would see that your concerns were already addressed. Feel free to try improvements. And your comments belonged at the bottom of the discussion page, not the top. Try reading that, too.Theophrastus Eresus (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Errors in this Article

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

1. The Elizabethan Club, whose logo serves as the intro to this article, is not a secret society. Membership is known, and guests are permitted inside of the club (particuarly for its afternoon tea). It is an undergraduate, graduate, and faculty literary club. You have to be nominated and apply to get in, but its by no means a secret society. The photo should be removed.

Image removed. Thx. Soundsgood2me (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Elizabethan Club is often seen as analogous. If you can find a citeable source that draws distinctions more clearly, feel free to make adjustments.Theophrastus Eresus (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

2. The Ivy Club, mentioned in the bottom table, is not a secret society, but an eating club. The eating club system is unique to Princeton, and serves as a mechanism that allows a large number of students to dine, hang out, and socialize in like minded groups. It is not a secret society in the vein of Skull and Bones, Wolf's Head, etc. Members apply and selected at the end of their freshman years, and they serve as true "clubs" as opposed societies, which typically meet a two or three times a week.

Princeton eating clubs are often seen as analogous. If you can find a citeable source that draws distinctions more clearly, feel free to make adjustments.Theophrastus Eresus (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

3. The Porcellian Club should be reviewed. While it meets a lot of the secret criteria, it's not viewed as a "secret society" on its own Harvard Campus, rather part of the "final club" system that is unique to that school and is more comparable to fraternities at other schools than to secret societies at UVA, Dartmouth, or Yale (the three schools which seem to have the most developed secret society system).

- societyalum

Final clubs are often seen as analogous. If you can find a citeable source that draws distinctions more clearly, feel free to make adjustments.Theophrastus Eresus (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Princeton University Phi?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where is the reference for this? The entry seems awfully detailed, but I can't find anything that verifies this exists/existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crankingorfe (talk • contribs) 17:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yale Rumpus a Reliable Source?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As usual, the Yale Rumpus (which calls itself a college tabloid) has published a list of Yale secret societies and the names of members in this year's class.

http://www.yale.edu/rumpus/archives/0809/apr09.pdf

Would this be considered a reliable source? I can personally verify that many of the societies listed in the paper do exist. Many of them (Truth and Courage, Spade and Grave, Nine Ball, Aurelian, etc) are notable, and I would be able to write small, individual Wiki articles on them if the Rumpus could be considerd a source. Can we include them in this article and in wikipedia in general?

--Societyalum (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that if the Rumpus is the only source, it is pretty thin. We should be looking for sources known for their accuracy. --Leivick (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

East Carolina University

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a large amount of content being added about East Carolina University. There are no sources (other than citing Wikipedia and the page itself in a "Reference" heading) and I've been unable to find sources to verify any of it. Can any of it be verified? If there are no sources for any of it, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Ethereal Static (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Collegiate secret societies in North America. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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} 16:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Collegiate secret societies in North America. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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} 00:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Collegiate secret societies in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Collegiate secret societies in North America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Hi,

I have written to two editors. I am a member of a secret society at Yale and would like to simply add this society to the list of societies at Yale.

However, because of the secret nature of the society, and the fact that it is relatively new, we do not have any online sources to cite. However, I notice that many of the other societies listed also do not have sources cited. This is the case with Desmos, Nathan Hale, Cup and Crown, Cage and Feather, etc. Would it be possible for me to simply add my society to the lists? I do not want to make any other changes.

Thank you very much for considering this request. 130.132.173.74 (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Without reliable sources, we are unable to ascertain whether or not your claim to memebership is legitimate nor if the proposed society meets the criteria as per WP:NOTE. — IVORK _Discuss 23:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Collegiate secret societies in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928112053/http://www.dogstreetjournal.com/story/2049 to http://www.dogstreetjournal.com/story/2049
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930180325/http://www.flathatnews.com/variety/2284/peeking-into-closed-societies to http://www.flathatnews.com/variety/2284/peeking-into-closed-societies
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430172050/http://cornellsun.com/node/21711 to http://cornellsun.com/node/21711
Corrected formatting/usage for http://dukemagazine.duke.edu/issues/030411/depret.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20060328%2FNEWS%2F603280335%2F1003
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/05/15/23715/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/04/local/me-33704
Corrected formatting/usage for http://dailytrojan.com/2011/04/17/skull-and-dagger-pranks-need-to-have-limits/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usc.edu/libraries/locations/leavey/wallofscholars/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://repo.lib.virginia.edu:18080/fedora/get/uva-lib%3A178665/uva-lib-bdef%3A100/getFullView
Corrected formatting/usage for http://uvamagazine.org/articles/wrapped_in_mystery
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080519003025/http://scripta.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-textwg/cavdaily.pl?str=pumpkin&offset=35976732&fileid=19701030 to http://scripta.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-textwg/cavdaily.pl?str=pumpkin&offset=35976732&fileid=19701030
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070227153048/http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/01_03/popup/landmarks/22.html to http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/01_03/popup/landmarks/22.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709064237/http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/01_03/groups.html to http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/01_03/groups.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404050959/http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2004_09/old_yale.html to http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2004_09/old_yale.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Collegiate secret societies in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Collegiate secret societies in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't Episkopon

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why isn't Episkopon on the list? The article is NA not just the united states but all entrys are from the united states. Episkopon fits much more into what people think of as a secret society as opposed to many of these which are just honors frats at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.163.200 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Good changes

I think the article is much improved since a couple of weeks ago. What's really good is finally we have a good description of what a collegiate secret society typically is, which makes the article a lot more useful. Thanks a lot, guys...

-societyalum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.57.6 (talk • contribs) in revision of 19:28, 19 May 2008

(This section should have been included in Talk:Collegiate_secret_societies_in_North_America/Archive_4.)

Response to Societyfinalclubs; Should we define what we are talking about?

About your Elizabethan Club comment, the best source would be to simply ask those who are in the club whether it is a secret society. Knowing many members, none of them would describe the club as such; many Elizabethan Club members are tapped by true senior societies at Yale. Elizabethan Club is a literary club. Non-members often attend tea there. It may have secrets, but so do sports teams, newspaper editorial boards, every fraternity and sorority house, and even some college dormitories and houses. They are not included here and rightfully so. Having secret initiation rites does not qualify a group a secret society, at least in the sense we should be trying to describe in this article. Same issue with the Ivy Club; members of the Ivy Club typically don't describe their group as a secret society. Ivy Club hosts parties where non-members can attend and serves primarily as an eating club.

This gets to two points:

1. This article doesn't attempt to describe what a collegiate secret society is or does. I can help to provide a definition but I'm not sure people want one in here.

2. Sourcing. The best source for all of this information is college students themselves. I haven't followed all of this Purdue stuff, but if student web sites, publications, etc are saying a group exists, chances are it does. - societyalum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.57.6 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 14 May 2008

(This section should have been included in Talk:Collegiate_secret_societies_in_North_America/Archive_4.)

[1] ttp://dlib.nyu.edu/findingaids/html/archives/eucleian.html

[2] ttp://dlib.nyu.edu/findingaids/search/?q=eucleian&collectionId=

[1]

[2]