Talk:Quill and Dagger/Archive 1

Archive 1

General Concerns

We understand this is a sensitive issue but remember it is a sensitive issue not only to those in the secret society but to those outside of it as well. You may think the claims made in the article are baseless but I am not going to put anything in that is not true. I can't speak for others who edit this article but I hope they will stick to the truth as well.

External Links

Wiki rules state "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable." External links should follow the same rules. They also should have a neutral point of view. The Uncle Ezra link is clearly a Cornell University affiliated source and should be acceptable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2afterblue (talk • contribs)

It's an external link to a personal website about the subject. It's not a source for anything in the article. It's inclusion is perfectly appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If any personal, unverifiable, website is acceptable to link to off of an article does that educate the community? If this is to be a worthwhile research tool lets provide users with links that have verifiable information and that don't appear to have an underlying agenda.2afterblue 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The link seems somewhat informative, on a subject where information is limited. The author's underlying agenda is not obvious to me; What is it? To balance the article I would rather add a countervailing opinion than remove one. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You have more experience with this than I, but if Wikipedia allows the propagation of information that is not verifiable, and for all we know could be completely inaccurate how is that worthwhile? For a topic in which information is limited it is all the more important to make sure what is available is from a trusted source. I wonder about the agenda from what is said at the top of the page in question.2afterblue 21:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This phrase? "The creator of this site believes that clandestine societies are antiethical to the democratic principles upon which Cornell University was founded." So broadly, the author is against secret societies. Find some resource in favor of them and link to that. We routinely link to sites that contain contradictory and unverifiable opinion. We just don't use them as sources for what we say in the article, or we use them carefully with attribution. Although sourcing the article isn't the issue here; We're not talking about a reference, but an external link, so the standards are even lower. To take an extreme example, Illuminati includes an external link to someone's...thoughts about The Illuminati and the Galactic Federation. That doesn't mean we endorse his opinions. We include it because it might be useful for a reader interested in the Illuminati as a pop-cultural artifact. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of how this site works must be incorrect, as it seems in cases Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but a clearinghouse for misinformation, which is what Google is for. The public perceives information found here or linked from here as fact, which poses a problem. I have seen papers citing information found off Wikipedia articles that is completely false, granted the researchers should know better. After seeing the Illuminati link you posted it is discouraging to know that any random internet site can be considered worth linking to off of a article. If this is acceptable policy what is in place to prevent Wikipedia articles from becoming rife with external links that read like the National Enquirer? I could make anything up put it in a webpage, and if it is not known to be false it is ok for it to be linked to off of an article on Wikipedia. That is a shame. 2afterblue 23:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"what is in place to prevent Wikipedia articles from becoming rife with external links that read like the National Enquirer?" Just you and me, and whoever else wants to help. You do know, don't you, that the link you object to is not now in the article? It's I that am trying to persuade you that it ought to be added. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, content must not violate copyright. The link under consideration is questionable at best, as it likely violates copyright infringement for the display of copyrighted material from a text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.249.237 (talk • contribs)

It's easier to follow the conversation if each of us signs his comments. You can do this with four tildes: ~~~~ That displays Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything posted here must not violate any copyright. Contributions must be licensed under the GFDL. That doesn't mean we have to verify the status of every site we link to. For example, we can link to an image that's copyrighted without violating copyright. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, lyontower.blogspot.com, is the website that is under discussion here. Please add your thoughts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.160.215 (talk • contribs)

Who is editing this page and what is their affiliation with Q&D?

The anonymous edit used the term "posing" and I am not sure that is right. Multiple people are contributing to this page. We encourage all those with true information to add it to this page and encourage the debunking of fallacies. Nevertheless, we ask those to not vandalize the page out of spite or self-interest.

"Qanddatcu" is editing this...

...And is really doing PR for a rival society called "Sphinx Head" - this is evident in (1) making consistent changes/comments about "Q&D neophytes" vs "Q&D members" and (2) suggesting that there has always been heated competition between the two societies, when in fact, Sphinx Head was disbanded for many years and only recently refounded.

You can have all the conspiracy theories you want but the actuality of the situation is that we don't know who 'Qanddatcu' is. They could be from SH but you'll notice no edits on the SH page. "neophytes" was a word used before Qanddatcu started editing this page (go look in the history yourself). I also don't understand what your problem is with the word "neophyte" because it isn't a bad word for the context. You are probably correct that SH has recently been re-colonized and at no point did anyone suggest that there has been "always heated competition."

Voice

There has been some debate about whether people who might be in Q&D and editing this article should speak in the 1st person. I think we should agree to use the 3rd-person to keep everyone calm and to be consistent.

Interesting Facts

I have found Quill and Dagger Society's history book recently and it clears up a lot of discussion on this board. It is entitled "A History of the Quill and Dagger Society of Cornell University" by Clark Sutherland Northup '93, Professor of English, Emeritus and printed privately in 1948. To quote a few excerpts 1. "The Quill and Dagger Society was founded in the spring of 1893. A Sphinx Head man, now dead, is said to have suggested the idea to our founders. He believed in the friendly rivalry of two senior societies." (Pg. 1) Also, the book makes no mention of any of Cornell's children participating in it's founding. I think this adequately clears up the origin of Quill and Dagger. 2. "Q and D was founded as a secret organization, but in 1894, it was made a non-secret society. For a time in 1897-1899, it was again secret. But in 1899 the members arrived at a conclusion that if Q and D continued to be a secret society it might lose men who would be valuable members. And Q and D could accomodate its objects quite as well by becoming non-secret. There has been no change in policy." 3. One student was a member of both, William P. CHapman Jr. 1895 4. "The Society was incorporated on May 28, 1912." 5. "Members may display the rooms to members of their immediate family, friends not connected with the University, alumni graduated 30 years, and Senior men not members of Sphinx Head. Visitors are required to register in the guest book provided for that purpose."

That's pretty covers all of the points of contention on this post. Please read the History as it is very interesting and much detail about the organization and their alumni members. It seems that Quill and Dagger was organized for the purpose of the betterment of Cornell and from the looks of it, they have done a good job.

Where is one to find a copy of the book? The only copy I know of appears to be under lock and key in the library archives...

Unsubstantiated and Incorrect Postings

There have been a recent slew of unsubstantiated and incorrect facts posted by people who are not members of the society. These will continue to be removed.

The following text was removed because it is opinion and cannot be substantiated."Quill and Dagger recognizes exemplary leaders on campus who have shown outstanding leadership, impeccable character and dedication to service. Almost every Cornell President including Hunter R. Rawlings III, Jeffrey Lehman, Frank H.T. Rhodes and Dale R. Corson has been a part of the society. Quill and Dagger stands alone as Cornell's only secret senior honor society that has endured and thrived continually since its founding over a century ago."

Something doesn't make sense here -- how can we know that Quill and Dagger is the only secret senior honor society that has endured if it is very possible that other (more secret?) societies exist. Besides, 'endured' and 'thrived' is most definitely opinion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.160.215 (talk • contribs) .

Ha! I think you have me there. "the only secret senior honor society that..." is like saying someone is the shortest spy. I should have caught that one.Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The portion regarding who Quill and Dagger recognizes can be substantiated by several sources. I also doubt the other portion regarding the list of President names is opinion. 2afterblue 22:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Janet Reno graduated before Quill and Dagger started tapping females into the society. If anything they might be considered "honorary members" and I have deleted their names from the entry.

Concerns by Prodego

I am writing this to document an ongoing dispute.

1. 23 April 2010: Prodego (talk · contribs) made these edits removing content. Edit summaries: "snip, largely uncited, promotional"; "rm, uncited, irrelevent"; "and clean up by removing building disc"
2. 23 April 2010: Cornell2010 (talk · contribs) reverted those edits with the summary "rv vandalism"
3. 23 April 2010: Prodego wrote this message on Cornell2010's talk page:
   

   I see that you undid some of my cleanup edits to the article Quill and Dagger. The edits I made were to remove promotional and/or uncited material, in accordance with the content guidelines, particularly WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. If you disagree with edits another editor makes, you should discuss them with that editor. Undoing another editor's actions, claiming they were vandalism when they were explained in the edit summary is not acting in good faith. Additionally, after reviewing your edits its seems the vast majority of them relate to the Quill and Dagger organization. It is not appropriate for clubs, businesses, or other organizations to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. If you are in some way affiliated with this club, see WP:COI as well. If there are particular concerns you have with my edits, please explain so that I am able to address them. Prodego ^talk 21:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

   Cornell2010 did not respond.
4. 25 April 2010: Prodego made these edits with the edit summaries "rm uncited / promotional, attempted to discuss w/ user, no reply in 48hr" and "war mem entrance"
5. 25 April 2010: Notyourbroom (talk · contribs) reinstated the deleted prose with the edit summary "Only some of that is uncited, and it's unreasonable to say sources are impossible to find. See WP:USI"
6. 25 April 2010: Prodego added this message to Notyourbroom's talk page:
   

   I would argue that information is entirely promotional, unsourcable (e.g. "Its members often hold more than half of the positions on the "25 Most Influential Undergraduates" is not going to be sourcable, "A large number of alumni in administrative positions at Cornell University have held membership" is unsourced, "Since its founding, Quill and Dagger has been well-connected with the presidents of Cornell University." is subjective and unsourcable, "Society influence appears to be strongest in the U.S. government and large corporations." is extremely promotional and unsourcable. The article does not read neutrally, and that needs to be corrected. Prodego ^talk 18:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

7. 25 April 2010: Notyourbroom made more revisions to the article with the edit summary "some cleanup".
8. 25 April 2010: Notyourbroom wrote back to Prodego:
   

   I did some cleanup to make sources and connections between prose more explicit. Honestly, though, most of your concerns can by chalked up to stylistic issues. Most of the unsourced sentences you mentioned are followed immediately by supporting cited prose. You're disputing statements that act essentially as section headings. I did remove the sentence "Society influence appears to be strongest..." for being superfluous and feeling a bit like an WP:OR conclusion, however. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep future comments on this page. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that your edits are certainly an improvement Notyourbroom, although I still am concerned the article is quite neutral. Specifically there are still a number of weakly or unsourced statements such as "A large number of alumni in administrative positions at Cornell University have held membership", or "For example, although membership comprises approximately one percent of each graduating class, typically around 15% to 20% of the Cornell University Board of Trustees[9]and Cornell University Council[10] are Quill and Dagger members. More than 30% of the individuals in the Cornell Athletic Hall of Fame hold membership in the society.[11]" which though it has references, none of them refer to the Quill and Dagger, suggesting the refs are misused. In fact, out of all the references, only one is a true secondary piece about the Quill and Dagger, and that was published in 1926, and mispells the name as " Twill and Dagger". Prodego ^talk 21:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Could we get a better photo of the Quill and Dagger Pin?

Article has a photo of E. B. White wearing his Quill and Dagger Pin. In this photo, the pin is too small to be clearly seen. It would be good to have a better photo of the pin in this article. Wideangle (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Quill and Dagger. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060902182619/http://www.hbs.edu/leadership/database/leaders/888/ to http://www.hbs.edu/leadership/database/leaders/888/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070319160358/http://ezra.cornell.edu:80/posting.php?timestamp=840686400 to http://ezra.cornell.edu/posting.php?timestamp=840686400#question1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061018141256/http://www.news.cornell.edu:80/stories/Oct05/Fuller.gift.html to http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct05/Fuller.gift.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100521043909/http://www.rso.cornell.edu:80/sandb/warmem.htm to http://www.rso.cornell.edu/sandb/warmem.htm

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) 08:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Ezra Cornell did not participate in the founding of Quill and Dagger

Ezra Cornell died in 1874, long before Quill and Dagger was founded. Ezra Cornell (11 January 1807 – 9 December 1874)

You are correct. Thank you for that observation.

Ezra Cornell the 3rd presided over the alumni board for many years.

So can anyone else confirm this so someone can put it in the article?

Member Lists

The member lists were removed today because someone felt they are "self-promotional" and "incorrect." One thing is for sure: whoever posted the list posted accurate ones. If you believe it is incorrect, I ask you to elaborate here on what is wrong rather than just trash them. As for being "self-promotional," these names are public and relevant. I don't feel there is any self-promotion involved.

There's nothing factually disputed about it. And 199.29.247.143 certainly isn't providing any details about the alleged concern.

FYI - The Fall 2005 tap list is most certainly incomplete.

Have you any suggestions as to what is incomplete? It looks rather complete to me ;-) Qanddatcu

the names are incomplete....and regardless, they do not even matter and change every 6 months. They are not relevant to this entry, which is about Quill & Dagger as an organization and its history. Besides, the alumni is what matters. Why list a random set of names? Encyclopedia entries are about factual history that you add to - not delete every year and replace with new names.

If you want factual history, why not add to it rather than delete it? Incomplete? Maybe ;-). The names aren't random and are actually very relevant. I think putting the alumni names in would get me in some trouble. I know my friends find the names VERY relevant. I want to know how they can be "offensive" and "self-promoting" ("promotory" isn't even a word) at the same time? This information is the public record and the Wikipedia is part of that public record. If we don't want this information published, maybe we should change the rules.

it is clear that there is no "we," and this person publishing names is not part of this organization, because if they were, they would know not to publish names beyond the singular ad, and they would know that membership is about quiet leadership. All history indicates this. Some young undergrads get this, and some don't and miss out later. They will certainly never learn what the alumni experience is like, as they will have failed the test. Feel free to post your name, but leave others out of it. This is Wikipedia, and you have no proof or respect for history.

Just because I "know not to" doesn't mean I don't believe this information should be public. I hope you enjoy being as exclusive as you are because not all of us do. It must be a hard being so exclusive. Wait, who am I kidding? It probably comes naturally, especially where you work. Failed the test? There's a lot more to life (especially after Cornell) than Q&D and I won't forget that. This it the Wikipedia, I do have proof, and a respect for history. A powerful combination, in my eyes.

FYI - full disclosure: Qanddatcu is an undergrad in a rival student group on campus. He should know not to do things for self-interest on Wikipedia.

You have no basis for this claim. You are the one who is self-interested, not me. My interest is larger than me.