Talk:Secret society/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Publicized Societies and Order of the Hippo[edit]

"Secret society" organizations that engage in alleged criminal misconduct are some of the most noteworthy of public concern. The decision to remove an organization based on a reviewer's opinion that an organization is "not secret," despite large publicity of an organization's activities, neither relies on the verifiability of the listing (a credence of Wikipedia) nor serves the public good. (Posted unsigned.)

If this is related to the Order of the Hippo, the reason it can't be included is that it is not a secret society. It is "an administration-sponsored society ... that does not make great efforts to keep its meetings and rituals a secret." [1] Tom Harrison Talk 21:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under the interpretation provided by Mr. Harrison, organizations including Phi Beta Kappa, the Knights of Columbus, and Masonic Order should be removed throughout the article for "not mak[ing] great eforts to keep its meetings and rituals a secret." Masonic Order members reveal membership publically, and an incident a few years ago in which a member of the Masonic Order accidentally shot and killed a member during a ritual highlights a prime examle of a failure to "make great efforts to keep its meetings and rituals a secret." Many Greek-letter organizations were founded by members (or former members) of the Masonic Order that used the texts to develop the ritual of the organizatons (such as Accacia), which are published and produced regularly to members of those organizations (who are not Masons). Meetings of the Knights of Columbus are public, with the only secrecy involving initiation rites. However, the artile cited does create noteworthiness, which might be better placed in a separate article for the organization. Mr. Harrison, please use your best discretion in addressing these issues. (Posted unsigned.)
Someone just added a category link to Secret Societies on the Knights of Columbus page, so I've come digging to see if that is proper. That trip lead me to this page, where I see the KC's are already listed here. I do agree that there needs to be some sort of differentiation. The KC's do have closed meetings and the initiation ceremonies are kept secret to the membership. So, in those senses, the KC's would qualify. But, the work and membership of the order are not secrets by any means. Quite frankly, just the name of the article being Secret Society seems to suggest something sinister involved, and that would seem to be the case with some of the organizations listed. How to resolve these different degrees/types of secrecy is an issue that I don't have an answer to.Ultimate ed 17:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Knights of Columbus is really a secret society, and so should not be listed here. The Masons should probably be retained on the list for historical reasons. I'll give it a few days and then remove the Knights, unless there is a consensus to do otherwise. Tom Harrison Talk 18:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, the Knights were a secret society. see the book Faith and Fraternalism.--Vidkun 19:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with removing the Knights of Columbus and retaining Freemasonry. As Vidkun points out, both organizations were historically "secret societies", but you can not really say this about their modern forms. Their membership lists are public knowledge, and their rituals have long been exposed. If one goes - so should the other, and if one stays - so should the other. Blueboar 15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(NOTE) This is my first Wiki entry and if this shows up in the wrong place, I sincerely apologize. I am still learning my way around.

Mr. Harrison... As a Master Mason I must dispute your claim that Freemasonry is a secret society. Granted, the definition used for this entry would place Freemasonry in that category, but argument could be made for any entity that does not publicly post its transactions and/or meetings. IE: Any company that has a Board of Directors that conduct private meetings, any church that has Deacons who meet behind closed doors to discuss church business, etc. A case could be made that a Board of Directors discussing private company matters on a regular basis is acting in a fraternal manner. If we explore the definition used for this entry, I think you will be able to see my point (The definition criteria used in bold):

A.) The organization is exclusive: A Board of Directors for any Company is exclusive.

B.) It claims to own special secrets: While actually claiming a secret may not be done by a Board of Directors, many secrets do exist in such a setting. If one were to walk into a Board member's office and ask to see the Profits & Liabilities Statement for the company, the Board member would quickly convey the confidentiality (secretiveness) of those records.

C.)It shows a strong inclination to favor its own: While "showing" is the operative word here, members of a Board of directors would fall under the old adage,"Birds of a feather flock together." While this is true of Freemasonry, it is also true of most any setting that includes humans."Favoring" one's own is something that is inherent to the human race. It starts as early as Preschool, when our first social cliques are formed.

D.) It has "carefully graded and progressed teachings": Again, in a sense; a Board of Directors does exactly this. A junior member of a Board will have no reference point as to how things are done within the confines of the board room. This junior member will be watched (graded)until such time as the Board majority feels that the junior member is educated (taught) enough to become a full member.

E.) Teaching are "available only to selected individuals": Not just anyone can be a member of a Board of Directors.

F.) Teachings lead to "hidden (and 'unique') truths": Once a junior member of a Board of Directors has gained the trust and confidence of his/her peers on that Board, He/She will be granted authorization to see those "SECRET" Profits and Liabilities Statements mentioned previously.

G.) "a further characteristic common to most of them is the practice of rituals which non-members are not permitted to observe, or even to know the existence of": Any standard mode of operation is could be considered a ritual. If our Board of Directors always has 2 pitchers of orange juice, 1 pot of coffee and 1 tray of bagels available at every meeting, this is a ritual. If every meeting is started with the Chairman reading notes from the previous meeting, this is a ritual. If every meeting concludes with the Chairman stating,"Board dismissed." Again, we have a ritual. Anything used in a solemn (note serious) manner on a repetitive basis is a ritual. It does not have to be religious in nature. It does have to be repetitive and it does have to have order.

I have often read articles and entries on Freemasonry on this site and felt compelled to correct the many blatant misconceptions often attributed to the organization. Freemasonry is not a secret society anymore than a large corporation or a church. What happens in a Mason Lodge behind closed doors is the business of that lodge and no one else. Just as what happens in the bedroom of a married couple is their business and not anyone else. Freemasonry is about self examination and love of your fellow man regardless of his religious affiliation (as long as a Supreme Being is involved). As a Freemason, it is not our place to determine the validity of one's beliefs. As has been said over and over and over again, Freemasonry is not a religion nor a substitute thereof. It is designed to promote growth within the individual on all levels, spiritually, emotionally, physically and mentally. As a Freemason, I am not required to defend Freemasonry, but the misconceptions surrounding the organization compel me to do so. Mmcraft (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Business, NGOs, etc[edit]

HeirarchyPedia edited the article earlier this week to throw disclaimers on the list of business, international and non-govenrmental organizations that are generally categorized as Secret Societies. All well and good, but the list part of this article isn't the place for such a debate. The disclaimers offered are best positioned in each of the articles for the respective groups, not in a list portion of the article on Secret Societies. Otherwise it'll just clog up the article with disclaimers just because someone mistakenly thinks a list is a place to argue the issue. —ExplorerCDT 08:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reorganization?[edit]

I'm beginning to think the list is becoming rather unwieldy. Before I act to organize it, I'd like to achieve a concensus. Should it be reorganized into Criminal Organizations, Fraternal Organizations, and Student Societies. Because as the list is formed now, it does not give a consistent point of reference to what these listed societies are.

  • If I don't hear anything in a day or two, I'll just go ahead and try to reorganize the list. —ExplorerCDT 15:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • REORGANIZED 3 DECEMBER 2004. I've discarded most of the redlinks that I couldn't categorize (and I'm not about to go out an research what looks to be a slew of non-notable or dubious groups). If you find something on them, and can categorize them (or better...write an article on them), great. I've also discarded some organizations that were listed and had nothing to do with secret socities. Over the next day or two, i'll finish writing the history section that I put up, and perhaps add a few more secret societies to the list. —ExplorerCDT 20:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bantu[edit]

Aren't secret societies fundamental in the organization of Bantu peoples?--Error 03:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed black secret societies[edit]

I know nothing about this, but Google tells me the following:

Bwiti[edit]

  • The Religion of Iboga or the Bwiti of the Fangs: According to Raponda Walker, the Bwiti of the Mitsogos may be defined as "a male secret society that has its rites, its regulations, its secret sessions and public sessions".
  • map of Gabon: A syncretic religion called Bwiti (based on an earlier secret society of the same name) came into existence in the early 20th century and later played a role in promoting solidarity among the Fang.

--Error 01:09, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • Bwiti is the ceremony, not the cultural group that practices it. It lacks organization required to be a "society" —ExplorerCDT 01:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abakua[edit]

--Error 01:09, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Abakua is a dance. Not a society. The society has a different name, one I couldn't find. You find it, feel free. But Abakua isn't its name.—ExplorerCDT 01:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Abakua or Abakuá (various spellings are used) is an Afro-Cuban men's initiatory fraternity, or secret society, which originated from fraternal associations in the Cross River region of southeastern Nigeria and southwestern Cameroon. Known generally as Ekpe, Ngbe, or Ugbe among the multi-lingual groups in the region, these closed groups all used the leopard as a symbol of masculine prowess in war and political authority in their various communities. Ekpe and related organizations in the Calabar region were heavily invested in the slave trade emanating from the Bight of Biafra, though high-ranking officials were themselves ultimately captured and sold into slavery in Cuba, where the society re-emerged. The term Ñañigo has also been used for the organization's members.
--Error 00:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Link to the Most Ancient etc may become obsolete. -- Rajanala83 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Ancient_and_Most_Noble_The_Order_of_Purple

Template Idea[edit]

Hello, would it be appropriate to design a template similar to Template:Current to warn readers that the content of secret society articles is often difficult to verify. The template could say something like:

This Secret Society related article may include information about a secret society which is difficult to verify.

Let me know what you think.

John Cross 17:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) Why not add that the article doesn't list secret societys that we don't know about because they're secret, of course. Rajanala83

Would the Eleusian mysteries be included in this?

The trust link[edit]

The trust link at the bottom of the page is wrong

Business ...[edit]

these groups qualify through a quantitative denotative interpretation. - WtF does that mean? And how do any of these listed organizations qualify, when their membership is known? Zoe 07:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

With the utmost of respect I can't see how a secret societys only "secret" asset would be its membership. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 14:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I would certainly expect a secret society to have other secrets, but if their membership is known, they're not a secret society - they're just a society with a secret. DenisMoskowitz 15:08, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
Oh-kay. How would you title an article listing societies with a secret/secrets? -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 16:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
The examples in that section are all groups that some allege have more power than they claim to. Their existence and membership are not secret, but (if their accusers are correct) their goals and abilities are. Perhaps conspiracy? DenisMoskowitz 17:25, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
Well, I think secret power and or abilities or goals are certainly central to conspiracies, but without claiming to read the mind of those persons that keep listing those organizations on this page (an act I may or may not agree with), I think the strongest case for their listing on this page stems from keeping the content of their internal deliberations secret, and more significantly (as that is common in very many mundanely democratic bodies) the secrecy that pertains to the manner of induction in to at least some of them, meaning who chooses them, and who chooses the choosers. I think this is often the basis for the accusations of being a secret society. Crucial is whether we accept some "scientific" classification of what is a secret society, or if we consider the matter as more nuanced, taking into accord popular perceptions, and to what degree. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 18:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Leaving anything else aside, I have no idea what "a quantitative denotative interpretation" is. I suppose their inclusion is appropriate because they're often thought of as secret societies, even though they aren't. Could we just say that? Or should the definition of secret society be expanded to allow their inclusion without a disclaimer?--Tom harrison 22:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merovee Philosopher's Guilde[edit]

I've researched this and the only references that I can find for it are on the Secret Societies page and its copies on various websites. It's merely listed as an example of a secret society.

I've attended UNCG for undergraduate and graduate school and have never heard of this supposed society. Does anyone have any evidence that this "secret" is a reality?

I am also very curious as to the origin of the the Secret Societies page here in Wiki land. It appears to have been copied to or from several websites.

FYI - for all of you playing at home, Merovee is better known as Merovech, Meroveus II, Merowig, etc. See Merowig.

If you see Merovee Philosopher's Guilde, there is no information given.

Not much is known about him other than the legend that he is the offspring of a sea monster and a human.MiKellie 21:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basis for listing[edit]

Is there some standard for inclusion on the list of secret societies? If not, I propose this: don't include a secret society here unless you include a citation to some reputable source alleging its existence. This would probably involve trimming back the list quite a bit, and would mean lots of reverts as people try to add "Brick and Chisel, Western Podunk State Teachers' College" to the list. Alternatively, we could keep anything that wasn't obviously bogus and put the unverified disclaimer at the top of the page. Any thoughts? Tom harrison 12:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No any "unverified" here; it will open the door wide to variuos trolls and pranksters. Wikipedia:Verifiability is the foremost rule. "Unverified" is the last resort for important topics which are valid, but the contributors were lazy to provide verification and there is a fair belief that such verification exists, so that the label is just a reminder to go diligent. mikka (t) 00:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Tom harrison 00:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A workable practical system would be the model that the list of Lesbian, gay and Bisexuals has taken. A list of verified, and a separate list of unverified entries. The list of unverified entries might be kept on the talkpage. This modus operandi would serve to allay accusations of censorship, and facilitate transparency, giving those people whose additions have been removed, an oportunity to argue the case for inclusion in the article proper. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 03:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why does somebody keep removing Gryphon from the list? I've added it three times now (and am personally able to verify its existence, as a graduate of the society itself several years ago). It is a well-known society on campus. Please stop deleting!
Sadly, we can't just take your word for it. Please point to a reputable source as requested above. DenisMoskowitz 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed alleged societies[edit]

The following whole section is removed. Wikipedia is not a place for speculations. Only those societies will be allowed existence of which is discussed elsewhere and a reputable reference to this discussion is provided (preferrably a wikipedia article). mikka (t) 00:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged student societies[edit]

(Either existence, or secret society status, is subject to significant doubt)

More removals[edit]

I intend to work my way through the list of student societies, verify what I can, and remove the others. If they have pages, I'll recommend them for deletion. The standard I plan to use is: there must be citations; they must be verifiable; they must not rely on (or include) original research. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Hippos is real, but not exactly secret; Crux Orbis and Cloak and Dagger???[edit]

I would point you to the following article in the George Washington University Hatchet. As a Georgetown alum, I can verify that the Order of the Hippo exists. However, as this article points out, it is a misnomer to call the Order a secret society.

[2]

As for the "Order of the Cross and Circle (Crux Orbis)" and the "Order of the Cloak and Dagger", supposed secret societies at Georgetown, it would seem that the only references to them anywhere on the internet are citations of this Secret Society page. And I have no recollection of either group existing on campus during my time there, nor are there any references to them in campus publications.

--Joe Hoya 17:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

As a student leader at Georgetown I have had some limited contact with cloack & dagger. I have received two sealed letters from them under my door. The first congradulating me on winning an award for a documentary I made and the second contained a whimsical poem and two tickets to the Kennedy Center Opera. I cannot really speak to the existance of Crux Orbis besides the fact that I've seen their symbol a lot.

-Jane hoya, march 2006

Cross and Circle[edit]

I have removed Cross and Circle from the list of student secret societies. I can find no citations to support its existence. This was discussed when the seperate article for Cross and Circle was up for deletion. The page was deleted, and I can see no basis for including Cross and circle here unless citations can be provided. Tom Harrison (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Cross and Circle forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.206.50 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torch and Talon[edit]

I have removed this as uncited; If anyone can provide citations they would be welcome. Again, Wikipedia does not publish original research, so personal knowledge is of limited utility. Tom Harrison (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gridiron Secret Society[edit]

Gridiron absolutely exists. For how long and for what purpose?...thats why it's a secret society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.159.187 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all societies are secret![edit]

Several links, such as that to Oxford's Bullingdon Club do not belong here. Whilst the societies deserve, and usually have, good articles, they are not secret. Societies which have an invitation only membership or are extremely expensive to join, are not the same as a society which keeps its rules, membership and activities quiet. The Bullingdon Club certainly does not do anything quietly or secretly! Grunners 15:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Troubling Paradox[edit]

Doesn't being featured in Wikipedia automatically make you a former secret society? =P --AceMyth 05:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC) secret societies[reply]

Great point AceMyth, I agree. If the society is on this list, then it's not secret anymore! Now, I think secret in this case just means, as mentioned in the section above by Grunners, a "society which keeps its rules, membership and activities quiet". Maybe that explanation should go to the top of the page? -- djKianoosh 13 February 2006

I agree. The rule I've followed is, 'There has to be some element of secrecy;' For example, the society may have some public existence, like a board of trustees, but an effort is made to keep the list of members secret. It's kind of a fine line between 'uncited' on one hand and 'not secret' on the other. Some discussion in the intro might be a good idea. Tom Harrison Talk 23:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fiction[edit]

Following the model of Illuminati and Illuminati in popular culture, I am going to create Secret societies in popular culture and move all the fictional societies there. Tom Harrison Talk 15:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Secret Societies[edit]

Does anyone have any good information on any supposed Druidic or Mithraic surviving secret societies? I read a few great books on the idea of the former a few semesters ago, but can't seem to find the books.

Veiled Prophet Organization[edit]

Why did Mikkalai and Tom Harrison delete this entry? The Veiled Prophet organization is a secret society in St. Louis, Missouri, established in 1878. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch covers its ball every year. In 2000, Thomas Spencer, a professor at the University of Missouri, published a whole book on the subject entitled The St. Louis Veiled Prophet Celebration: Power on Parade, 1878-1995. The entry that I posted contained a source (from the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial's website, no less, which is maintained by the US National Park Service) and wiki-links to some other good information about the VP. The VP is not a "hoax," as Mikkalai claimed, and I have backed it up with citations. I have re-instated the VP's entry accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.28.2.172 (talk • contribs) .

I don't doubt that the fair happens, but I don't see how this is a secret society. It looks like the whole thing started as a promotional hoax. Can you provide some citation to show that there is actually a secret society? Tom Harrison Talk 21:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not secret[edit]

The Friars Senior Society is not a secret, and so does not belong here. Tom Harrison Talk 17:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tom, for clarification. Removed were senior societies with known memberships:

While Cobra, Dragon, Phoenix, and Sphinx were left, since they are truly secret. Skog 13:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your work. Tom Harrison Talk 13:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secrecy[edit]

Should something be said about the fact that there are two clear uses of the term "secret society": a society whose existence (name, etc.) is secret, and a society that isn't in fact secret but which keeps certain facts secret? The latter vary; some keep members' identities secret, others are relaxed about that, but keep ceremonies, activities, etc., secret. The original (and I'd have said primary) meaning is the former, though most examples given (for obvious reasons) tend to be of the latter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'd like to see a longer discussion and shorter lists. We need three or four good print references that we can use as the basis for the article. Tom Harrison Talk 14:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find some references (it doesn't really fall into any of my main areas of interest, so I'll have to look outside my own shelves). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential references[edit]

  • Heckethorn, Charles William (1997). The secret societies of all ages and countries, embracing the mysteries of ancient India, China, Japan, Egypt, Mexico, Peru, Greece, and Scandinavia, the Cabbalists, early Christians, heretics, Assassins, Thugs, Templars, the Vehm and Inquisition, mystics, Rosicrucians, Illuminati, Freemasons, Skopzi, Camorristi, Carbonari, nihilists, and other sects. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 1564592960.
  • Whalen, William Joseph (1966). Handbook of secret organizations. Milwaukee: Bruce Pub. Co. LCCN 66026658.
  • Axelrod, Alan (1997). The international encyclopedia of secret societies and fraternal orders. New York: Facts on File. ISBN 0816023077.
  • Roberts, J. M. (John Morris) (1972). The mythology of the secret societies. New York: Scribner. ISBN 0684129043.
  • Robbins, Alexandra (2004). Pledged: the secret life of sororities. New York: Hyperion. ISBN 0786888598.

Order of the Arrow[edit]

The Order of the Arrow in the BSA is not a secret society. While the group encourages members to keep details of the ceremonies quiet, they do not swear an oath to do so. Anyone making a reasonable request to know about our ceremonies and initiations will be told all of what will happen. My own lodge has met with concerned parents as well as religious unit chartering orginizations when they have asked what we do. We disclosed this information to them, including showing them the scripts of the ceremonies and the guide to ordeals. Gentgeen 23:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Secert Service[edit]

Back in the civil war age, the Secert Services objectives were so secert that agents had to mask their Identy (thus secert service). Seeeing this as an histrioal fact, US SS should be mentioned on this page

I see your point. I wonder if Secret police or American Civil War spies might be a better place to list them. Tom Harrison Talk 02:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, since they were ment (back in the day) to stop conterfitters of US Currency, and only recently, transfered from the treasury to Homeland KB1KOI 2:51 (UTC)

This seems to involve an unusual (to say the least) extension of the term "society". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Service wasn't/isn't an independent entity. It is a extension of a larger organization. 98.77.104.249 (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret societies in tribal cultures?[edit]

I've read somewhere that there exist (or existed) secret societies in divers tribal cultures around the globe. Some serious information on that would be great, if somebody has the necessary anthropologist or similar background. Thanks. -- 84.130.6.200 11:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Opus Dei/Knights of Columbus a Secret Society?[edit]

I'm a Catholic who's a member of the Knights and I also support Opus Dei. When I was surfing Wikipedia, I came across a lsit of secret societies. Do either of these organizations qualify as such? I feel the Knights are very open (I may be biased?) and I thought their practices were fairly well known.

I could see why Opus Dei would be included, in light of the Da Vinci Code and other sources. I don't want to remove either from the list without a consensus.Trevor 18:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Opus Dei does not publish its membership list but its members do not generally make their membership a secret from their friends & relations (or the public at large, if they are public figures). That doesn't qualify it as a secret society. The Esperanto Association of North America did not publish its membership list, perhaps partly out of privacy concerns; this turned out to be a misguided decision (members were unable to make contact with one another except through the central organization, which became disfunctional in later years) and the successor organization the Esperanto League for North America made it a deliberate foundational policy to always make the membership list publicly available for noncommercial use, but that doesn't mean EANA was a secret society. Certainly the Knights of Columbus are not a secret society, though they may not publish membership lists either -- the various Knights I know make no secret of their membership. IMO both organizations should be removed from the list of secret societies. --Jim Henry 21:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although don't both conceal various rituals, especially initiations? That would qualify them (if true; hard to tell if they're a secret!). But be careful with this discussion, "secret society" can be a loaded word.Baccyak4H 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My impression (from reading Vittorio Messori's book on the subject) is that Opus Dei does not conceal its initation process, but my reading of it is not recent and I might be mistaken. --Jim Henry 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we move this discussion to the talk page for the actual article in question? Thebike 23:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Allen has the latest. After detailed research Opus Dei cannot be called secretive was his conclusion. Members do not deliberately hide their membership from families, friends, and close associates, but like any normal guy, they're discreet in telling the media things media need not know. Arturo Cruz 06:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, that definitely takes Freemasonry off the list for good as well.MSJapan 15:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei not a secret society[edit]

John Allen, Jr., CNN's Vatican analyst, concluded that Opus Dei cannot be called secretive: they give abundant info, they have press offices, members tell their families, friends and close associates their membership status. They are not monks hiding under an cloak of normality. They are normal, lay people who want to be holy. The whole story of this accusation is only due to a failure to understand OD members are not monks. All started in the 1940s. A black legend started by its opponents. Now Allen said all of this is myth. All this is now history. Arturo Cruz 06:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the people watching this page a discussion took place on the Opus Dei talk page concening this. It really should have taken place here. I have copies that discussion underneath this post. Thebike 07:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opus Dei is a secret society, because its official founding charter, which defines its structure, allegiation and operating principles is not entirely published. As soon as they publish their regulations and have it audited, they will cease to be a secret society. 195.70.32.136 09:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statutes of Opus Dei and oath[edit]

John Allen's coverage on the issue of secrecy is here: http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005d/102805/102805r.php

Some important quotes from the book:

  • The 1982 “Statutes,” which took the place of the 1950 “Constitutions,” prohibit “secrecy or clandestine activity” and say that members are to act with naturalness, but “without hiding that they belong to the prelature.”
  • From my experience, I’ve asked hundreds of people over the last year whether they were members of Opus Dei, and I’ve never found anyone unwilling to answer, though occasionally members outside the Anglo-Saxon world are bit surprised by the directness of the question. This book itself is one piece of evidence for their openness, since I quote more than 100 members of Opus Dei, almost always by name, and identify what kind of member they are (numerary, supernumerary, and so on). Compare this to the fact in February 2004, when American TV journalist Tim Russert asked President George W. Bush about his alleged membership in Yale’s famous Skull and Bones society, Bush said he couldn’t answer. When a journalist put the same question to a spokesperson for Sen. John Kerry, also allegedly a Skull and Bones member, the answer was: “John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. Sorry.”
  • The 1982 edition of the Statutes, which is the one currently in force, appears as an appendix to the book, The Canonical Path of Opus Dei...The Spanish original of that book appeared in 1989. (p. 153). The Statutes are in the web in the Opus Dei website. http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=12491

See these links as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei#References_and_external_links

From all of the above, you can see that there are no oaths to secrecy and there can never be such oaths in Opus Dei. The obligation to secrecy is what defines a secret society. Marax 03:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

You know, I'm looking through the list of groups listed here, and I wouldn't particularly consider the Crips, Bloods, etc., to be "secret societies." I think the definition is unnecessarily vague, and the first paragraph tries to justify itself more than anything else.

The reason that I point this out is that there are two distinct definitions one can use for a secret society: one is to "conceal certain activities from non-members", which makes just about any club or group secret, because there's no allowance for intent. The problem is, if said group has a lot of public activities, are they really secret? Fraternities that run car washes for community service certainly aren't concealing anything; they even put signs up to advertise. Gangs certainly don't operate in secret all the time. They may stay out of the way of the police, but if they were really secret, no one else besides them would know that gang colors and tattoos exist.

Every country club should be classified a secret society. Do you know what goes on in the clubhouse? Probably not. Would you call a country club a secret society? Probably not, since there aren't any on here. Is MENSA a secret society? I mean, if you're not a member, you don't know what goes on at meetings. In short the definition we have here is too vague, and is thus applicable to any group that requires membership. A secret society is not defined as "a group certain people can't join for whatever reason", but that's in effect what the current definition says.

So, we need a definition that isn't ridiculous and all-encompassing, which brings me ot the other definition I found: Princeton WordNet gives a society that conceals its activities from non-members; the removal of "certain" makes a huge difference as to what qualifies, and I think this definition will create a more useful article. Thoughts? MSJapan 17:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no comment for over a week, I will undertake a rewrite using the Princeton definition. MSJapan 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ in ref to the above, I have a small point to make. someone is reverting the definition to include "innocuous" fraternities and "mythical" organizations that are all powerful, etc. Whether one perceived take on SS is innocuous and the other mythical should not be in the definition itself. (One good way might be to is to create a controversy section.) Someone is continually reverting to include these adjectives, but doing so is completely one-sided. One could reciprocate it and say "deceptive" fraternities and "evident" organizations. Exclude the debate in the definition. simply presenting both views by removing "innocuous" and "mythical" gets both takes on the matter just fine. (as an example, you don't have to say crazy "left wing", and "virtuous right wing", or vice versa, but rather just describe what each entail.) Frats being innocuous is also contested b/c there are those that claim they are fronts for SS. and indeed, PKA, in which two of my friends are in, is both a frat and a true secret society, at least according to them. Thus the lines are sort of blurred between a frat and an SS. this is just one case in point of the idea that the the definition is not good, as it stands. Another point is that if frats truly were innocuous and the conspiracy theory's take on SS are truly mythical, then why even offer the second definition? And finally, there are plenty of sources to back up both viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.34.252 (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the term "secret society" has undergone a shift in connotation... at least by the general public. In the late 1800s, the term was commonly applied to innocuous bodies such as collegiate fraternities, the Masons, the Elks, the Knights of Columbus, etc... Anyone who held some sort of ceremony behind closed doors. The term held connotations of men in silly hats hazing new "initiates" with paddles or making them ride a mechanical goat. However, in modern times the term has shifted its connotations... it now makes people think of grand conspiracy... secret (and frankly non-existant) all powerful groups, out for world domination.... The Illuminati, the New World Order, International Jewry, SPECTER, etc. Because of this newer connotation, most of the innocuous bodies that were once labled as "Secret societies" now expressly reject the label (while a few have embraced it because it makes them seem more "mysterious" and important than they are).
Compounding this shift in connotation is the fact that formal definitions are often composed "bass-akwards"... starting with a pre-concieved list of organizations that the author desires to dub "Secret Societies", and then creating a definition that will include these organizations... rather than dispasionately creating a definition and then seeing whether the groups meet that definition. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret, or not?[edit]

Thanks to 2 of Dan Brown's famous novels, I have heard of the illuminati, opus dei, the priory of sion, so how are these societies secret? Now they are all on an encyclopedia? So what happened to them? Are they secret, or not? These societies could come rioting to Dan Brown and the encyclopedia for exposing they're secrets. But what if there are other secrets out there no one has exposed yet? Think about what I just said. -WikiSpaceboy 21:12, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Well... as for Opus Dei, it is not really a secret society (dispite what Dan Brown says). However, the Illuminati and Priory of Sion were. Neither of these last two are still in existance (thus, no one to come and rant to Dan Brown about exposing secrets)... but in their day they certainly fit the definition. Blueboar 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Flaw[edit]

Does anyone else here see that any secret society is, by definition, secret? The true measure of a society being truly secret is its being unlisted on wikipedia, or anywhere on the internet for that matter. On top of that, any loyal member of a secret society would be disavowing its existence, not trying to add it to this list. Just a point I thought I'd bring up. 71.134.224.179 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever wrote this is quite wise. We're not listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.4.198 (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical flaw: the existence being known is only one point on a spectrum of secrecy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.34.252 (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Columbus[edit]

Back in November '06, User:Revtor07 questioned whether the Knights of Columbus (KfC for all you fried chicken lovers) should be on this list, but the discussion veered off to Opus Dei. The Knights are no more secretive than the Boy Scouts. Yes the ceremonies to induct members are kept secret so that they are more meaningful, but so was the ceremony for Order of the Arrow when I was a Boy Scout. Most KfC chapters meet in church halls, same as many boy scout troops. Even Chapters that have their own building open it to the general public whenever they have a fundraiser dinner. Knights appear in costume in parades and in front of supermarkets begging for medical charities. President Bush spoke at their 2004 annual convention and the speech was widely covered in the media. Nothing secret here, move along, move along.

Disclaimer: I was a dues paying Knight until last year. Ghosts&empties 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue of KofC was settled on "Not Secret"... similar to the Masons, Elks and other fraternal societies. Such societies are often called secret societies by their detractors and various conspiracy buffs, but it is awfully hard to defend that position when the societies in question meet in prominent meeting halls, announce their meetings in the local paper, have membership rolls that are available to public scrutiny, have had their "secret rituals" published multiple times, etc. It's sad really. These societies do great work, and membership statistics and attendance would probably increase if they had a bit more mystery and secrecy (if for no other reason than people were curious). Blueboar 18:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPECTRE[edit]

is there a reason a fictional secret society is on this list? - DaoKaioshin 02:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why isn't CHAOS on it! clearly systimatic bias towards the big screne. Blueboar 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

inclusion?[edit]

I'm not certain if this falls under the description, but do widely known organizations with a public face yet secret rules and rites fall under the category 'secret society'? For instance, religious cults or groups like Scientology, that, by design, are secretive? - DaoKaioshin 03:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening definition[edit]

In the opener, there is the inclusion of "fraternal organizations that may have non-public ceremonies" under the definition of Secret Societies. I question this. What level of "non-public ceremonies" merits inclusion. Are we talking of fraterities that have private Initiations? Business meetings held behind closed doors? or what? The most businesses have non-public ceremonies, as do the US Supreme Court, the White House, and Parliament... does that mean they are all "Secret Societies"? This question stems from the constant back and forth inclusion and exclusion from the list of things such as the Knights of Columbus, the Masons, Elks, Rotary etc. At the moment they are out, but I am sure it is simply a matter of time before they are re-added. I do understand that such groups are commonly referred to as secret societies... and that all of them object to the label. Can we call a group that meets in a prominent building, with meeting dates and times published in the local newspaper, and membership rolls that are available to public scrutiny "secret societies"? I suppose my question is what is OUR critera for inclusion. My personal preference is for a strict interpretation... a group that simply has "closed door" meetings and ceremonies is not enough to merit the label. Blueboar 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could limit it to societies that go to some lengths to keep either their members or activities secret from non-members ? Rod57 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of secret societies removed[edit]

I removed the entire list of secret societies from this article, because all it is useful for is revert-warring, vandalism, and addition of nonsense. This article should be about secret societies in general, not who is and who isn't. MSJapan 19:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what a member of a SECRET SOCIETY would say, isn't it? Which one do you belong to? Are you an Illuminati? I'll bet you are... 63.167.255.156 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this article should link to a list of secret societies so one can find eg Triad (underground society) - I was looking for a list of Chinese secret societies. Rod57 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sub rosa[edit]

Historically, secret societies have been the subject of suspicion and speculation from non-members since the time of the ancient Greeks, when meetings were held "sub rosa" (Latin, "under the rose") to signify the secrecy and silence of the Hellenistic god Harpocrates.

This is a bit confusing... The Harporates article does not mention anything about meeting "under the rose" or anything along those lines... We need something that ties the Hellenistic Harpocrates cult to the Latin term "sub rosa"... I will borrow from Sub rosa, but it probably could be better written. Blueboar 19:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Gamma Delta[edit]

Most all college "frats" have some basis in secret societies. Most of those have been lost in time due to lack of new members. Now, few of the frats today were in fact started in secrecy and most were jsut spinnoffs of other groups. So, FIJI should not be listed as an example. Bias for Fiji being on the page. cough cough. freatguy 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium discussions[edit]

Citizendium has some interesting discussions about their article on Secret societies. See Secret societies, and Talk:Secret society, where they are discussing what should and should not be included there. Cirt (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What should be discussed in this article?[edit]

Clearly, a number of religions have at some point in their development possessed several of the characteristics mentioned in the "definitions" section. Personally, however, I would argue that they do not qualify as "secret societies" per se, as that term is rarely if ever used in that context. This is not saying that the majority of religions, in their early days, may not have been secret societies. Personally, I would love to see someone produce a source which clearly states that they were, because I believe that such religious organizations and their actions served as the basis for the more modern secret societies, and that is relevant. Also, I wonder what other groups should be included. Many street gangs possess many of the characteristics of secret societies, including initiation, denial of membership, etc., but seem to lack some of the other "secrets" used as a defining characteristic, so I would assume that they don't qualify. Other groups, however, clearly do qualify. Our own article on the Mafia states that it is a secret society in its opening sentence, and has many of the other characteristics as well. Also, there is a question as to whether organizations which deal with religious/spiritual matters, such as Scientology, which also seem to include more clearly defined "levels of initiation", should be explicitly mentioned as well. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry[edit]

Under the Definitions... I have edited the following paragraph:

  • The term "secret society" is often used to describe fraternal organizations that may have secret ceremonies (e.g. Freemasonry), but is also commonly applied to organizations ranging from the common and innocuous (collegiate fraternities) to mythical organizations described in conspiracy theories as immensely powerful, with self-serving financial or political agendas, global reach, and often satanic beliefs.

I have cut the reference to Freemasonry... while I understand that many people call Freemasonry a "Secret Society", it was a bad example where it was... Freemasonry does not have secret ceremonies. The ceremonies are published and can be reviewed by anyone.... For example, see:

  • Emulation Lodge Of Improvement (2007). Emulation Ritual. published by Lewis Masonic. ISBN 0-8531-8244-2.

I suppose Freemasonry could be included in the common and innocuous category along with collegiate fraternites... but even they are more secretive than Freemasonry is. Blueboar (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex[edit]

There is information in the Heruli article that indicates that sex, in specific homosexual relations or rituals, may have been a part of historical German secret socities known as "Männerbünde" (term redirects here). Since the term sex is totally absent from the present article, perhaps this would be where to start developing this theme. __meco (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think for us to mention homosexual (or heterosexual) rituals in this article, such rituals would have to be a common theme in Secret societies in general. The vast majority of secret societies do not involve sex at all... hence, this is not the place to discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such practices were not exclusive to Mannerbunde, but can be glipmsed in historic accounts of male hunter or warrior fraternities across Old Europe, and these seem to have more in common with initiatory Mysteries in the classical sense than the fraternal lodges or exclusive clubs like Skull and Bones or the Bohemian Grove today - none of which, to the best of my understanding, employ homoerotic ritual sex as a method of imbuing its initiates with virtue. 72.49.43.222 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with "mannerbunde" or connotations therof, but I'm not sure there's sufficient evidence of sex-ritual (homo or heterosexual) in secret societies generally for there to be any reference to it here. I second Blueboar. XVI Chancer (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Secret_society/Archive_1&oldid=1137178773"