Talk:University Philosophical Society
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Disputed Starting Date
- 2 Proposed changes
- 3 Reference to Dublin Philosophical Society
- 4 Section in Controversies
- 5 Recent edit
- 6 Honourary Patrons
- 7 2007 Controversy
- 8 POV sentence about Niall Lenihan
- 9 File:Elbaradei.png Nominated for Deletion
- 10 Founding date
- 11 Foundation Date and Reformation Date
- 12 Vandalism, Blanking, and Edit War
- 13 Edit request on 14 May 2013
Disputed Starting Date
January to August 2005
Something needs to be said about the different incarnations of the society, and why it has two foundation dates in the College Calendar. I might add a NPOV tag if no one with authorative information does that. User:Henry Williams 11 Jan, 2005, 11:15 (UTC)
I just made a small change, correcting the name of the 1731 society. I have noticed that some more significant changes have been made in the last few days, but I think that the current version is fair and accurate, and I don't think that any further changes should be made without some form of justification being given in the discussion section.
Certainly the inflated age should not be reentered until some evidence can be given of a connection between the Dublin Philosophical Society and the DSIHMOUA/DS/RDS, and also between these societies and the University Philosophical Society of 1843 to the present. -Toropets 17:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
While the dispute about the date will never be solved the Dublin Philosophical Society Did not allow undergrads to join, and they were not allowed to join until 1843 which is far later then other student societies have started letting undergrads in, and it can not therefore beclaimed that the phil is the oldest undergraduate society in the world.
1: Delete the Oscar Wilde references. As any Trinity historians worth their salt know, Wilde didn't care one iota about the traditional societies. The most that could be said about a Wilde-Phil link is his relationship with Mahaffy, which should be on the Mahaffy or Wilde page, if it deserves mention at all.
2: Controversial one here: The society's claim to be dated from 1684 should be at the heading of the page. Otherwise the claim that it is the oldest society of its kind loses context. It is a salient issue, so it should be there, as it has been in all the edits previously - even the most biased ones mention that it claims to be dated from way back. I think evidence for or against should be put in the History section.
Deleting the members of the Dublin Philosophical Society is just childish, since nobody disputes its being included. I'm restoring the list of members, since this is the article where people will come to see them. 220.127.116.11 14:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I changed "most" to "some" sources in the dating section, because the only reputable historical source that acknowledges the claim is the University Calendar, which at the moment publishes both dates. If there are others, please cite them. I also deleted a repeated phrase in that section. Toropets 10:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Removed reference to feminist groups, as the group cited at the time does not and did not exist, and no protest was made. Toropets 15:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Modified references to visits by Irving and Haider: there were factual errors in both. Desertcircus 20.05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Reference to Dublin Philosophical Society
The second paragraph is now about the Dublin Philosophical Society (1863~1708). There is a reasonable and factual comment that it was quite different from the society that currently exists, but this was altered. If anyone believes that it is inaccurate to state that "that society was very different, not being an undergraduate society or connected in any substantial way with Trinity College" he or she should make their case, but with evidence. It's all very well to pretend within College that a society is older than it is, but Wikipedia is meant to be factual and unbiased. William Quill 11:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
There is also no evidence that I can find of the supposed feud and death of the Junior Dean. I've read RB McDowell's Academic History and there is a reference to the death of a Fellow in 1735 from a feud. This was four years after the foundation of what became the RDS and 27 years after the Dublin Philosophical Society last met, which was in 1708. William Quill 11:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The death was of a Junior Fellow, Edward Ford. He was killed in 1734. Court records are available online. The students involved were ineligible to be members of the Philosophical Society, as they were undergraduates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamseline (talk • contribs) 19:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Vast number of Trinity students, graduates, fellows and several Provosts were members.
- Had it's first meeting in Provost's Lodgings at Trinity College, and continued to meet there at various intervals throughout the years.
- Written and documented evidence of the Provost assuming a role of assitance and protection (i.e Patron).
The link between it and the University Philosophical Society must be acknowledged due to similarities:
- A paper reading society, almost exactly the same in nature (obviously slightly different due to change in the times).
- Also has a very strong link with Trinity College.
- Hamilton Connection.
- Highest or "Senior" Patron was the Provost (and still is), exactly the same as the DPS.
Obviously the link cannot be members, but the similarites are such that it would be foolish not to acknowledge that to some degree both societys share a link.
Section in Controversies
Removed paragraph asserting that the removal of Bram Stoker memorabilia was due to an anti-Semitic campaign on the part of Council members. To the best of my understanding, said memorabilia was removed as a result of a failure on the part of the society to adhere to the agreement signed with the Stoker estate, not as a result of anti-Semitic abuse on the part of society members. Such an accusation, if it is to be made, requires stronger evidence than an unsubstantiated claim without a signature, any supporting evidence or the name of the contributor. - Luke Ryder, Registrar 321st Session, University Philosophical Society. Desertcircus 21.29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Justification or explanation should be given for the fact that the article has been rewritten considerably and the warnings removed.
That was James apparently. 1) Signed comments are helpful on a confusing page like this. 2) If there's a clearly silly edit, revert it. I just did. Article6 20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
this was deleted:
Recently the Phil has also been rocked by constant accusations of anti-Semitism on the part of its Members. The society’s President was on the Gerry Ryan Show in October of 2007, to explain a seemingly anti-semetic joke in the society's annual publication, and an accusation was made against one of the council members
. .. why???
anyone wanna pimp this
Main article: list of Patrons of the University Philosophical Society
The Society can award an Honourary Patronage to Public figures on the basis of excellence or fame ...This award dates back to ?? and has been awarded to David Hasselhoff in 2006 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2007, amongst others
The following was removed by 18.104.22.168
- In October 2007 the President was on the Gerry Ryan Show, to explain a seemingly anti-semitic joke in the society's annual publication.
- I understand it to be true. Ktlynch (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Such claims should be sourced - the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verification - see WP:VERIFY.Autarch (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
POV sentence about Niall Lenihan
The following appears in the section about 1900s history: Recent years saw the presidency of Niall Lenihan, son of then-Tánaiste Brian Lenihan, remembered as a defender of the Phil's rights of association and free speech[who?] during the visit of discredited historian David Irving. This is clearly POV and would be better written as a description of events, probably in the relevant paragraph in the Controversies section. A description of events involving Niall Lenihan would be ideal, as per WP:MORALIZE. Autarch (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
File:Elbaradei.png Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Elbaradei.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
It seems the date listed in the previous version stands truer to the history of the evolution of the society and with the later date being a date of reformation rather than renewal or re-founding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murpha57 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's not what the reference says. The previous date is the founding date of a different society. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Date listed as 1683 shows the foundation of Dublin Philosophical Society is the evolutionary predecessor (clearly linked), having incredibly similar characteristics, traditions and principles. It is a truer representation to show the 1683 date as the foundation date, and 1842 being the date of revival or "reformation". Accordingly I restored the 17th century history, and added "reformation" date to the top table for total clarification. (KountKurly (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC))
I don't understand the confusion with this article; but by no means want to get trapped in an edit war. KountKurly has demonstrated this organisation was reformed in 19th century, reinstating a reformed organisation through a hereditary organisation of the Dublin Philosophical Society. I don't understand why the empty reasoning of an anonymous user is being forced on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murpha57 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The reference states that the organisation was founded in 1842. If you have a reference to a reliable source that says otherwise, feel free to add it. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
No one is arguing your reference, however it is clear that there is a link to Dublin Philosophical Society, and as such the foundation date of 1683 reflects that. Your unwillingness to speak on this matter hinders any chance of a resolution here. Unfortunately I have therefore contacted User:Danger (Administrator), in an attempt to solve this issue. KountKurly (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you have a reference to a reliable source that says that the University Philosophical Society was founded in 1683, please feel free to add it. The only reliable source I have been able to find gives a foundation date of 1842, and so that is what I am working with in the article. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The reference cited by 184.108.40.206 is accurate insofar as the society was dated for many years from its original foundation date. The same policy was followed by the Historical Society, which was founded in 1770, but expelled from College. When it was restored it used the date of restoration date as marking Session 1. The Phil pursued the same policy. Later the Hist chose to revert to the original founding date and dated sessions from that date. Some years later the Phil followed suit. In truth, the exact numbering and provenance of the two societies is not entirely clear. The session numbers are clearly fictitious, but the founding dates far less clearly so. The Provost of Trinity College, appearing at the Inuagural meeting of that society a year ago recognised the founding date as 1683, for example. It is unfortunate that old Hist hacks have made a habit of editing this page so frequently. The Phil appear, from the edit history of the Historical Society, to not have retaliated in kind. Perhaps that is just a mark of maturity, or maybe some people are hardcore enough to impute their own view on facts that are open to interpretation. In any event, the founding date of 1683 is as accurate as 1842 or 1845. Perhaps adding the diagram from the Dublin Philosophical Society Page would be of aid in demonstrating the connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamseline (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Foundation Date and Reformation Date
An issue has arisen concerning the foundation date and reformation date of this society. Please carefully read both University Philosophical Society as well as Dublin Philosophical Society page, and all comments above. Thank you for contributing. KountKurly (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism, Blanking, and Edit War
There has recently been a string of vandalism and section blanking, please by all means if you witness this, revert the changes. Do NOT start Edit Wars, which I have witnessed over the last hour, If you want to revert vandalism, do it by all means, but remember to warn the vandal, If vandalism is persistent, request Administrator Intervention. Thanks The Grand Cenobite (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The "section blanking" was the removal of original research which had been inserted in place of cited material. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 14 May 2013
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Request that current page be reverted back to 21:13, 14 May 2013 Adamseline (22,279 bytes) (+860), as it is the truer representation of the society. Evidence to this can be found on the Dublin Philosophical Society and it's references, aswell as on this page, where it has been discussed at length.
Further evidence can be found:
- http://www.trinitysocieties.ie/society/80/philosophical-society-tcd-phil (the offical Society Commitee website)
- http://www.tcd.ie/orientation/jargon-buster/ (Trinity Jargon Buster, just look for "The Philosophical Society. One of Trinity’s two ancient debating societies, along with the Hist, and reputedly the oldest student society in the world. Has its home in the GMB (ground floor), and has nothing to do with philosophy."
- http://www.tcd.ie/provost/addresses/2012-05-18-Admissionsconference.php (Provost of Trinity College's speech, 18th May 2013. search for "Philosophical Society")
- http://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/2012/03/pelosi-accepts-award-from-university-philosophical-society-of-trinity-college-dublin-on-official-vis.shtml (speech from Nancy Pelosi in March 2013, referencing how old the society is "The Phil, the world’s oldest debating society, bestowed the award on Leader Pelosi at the inaugural meeting of their 327th session"
- http://www.nme.com/news/the-white-stripes/47903 (search for "oldest")
- http://www.rte.ie/ten/2006/1122/pacinoa.html (Irish News Broadcaster, search for "oldest")
- http://www.rafabenitez.com/web/index.php?act=mostrarContenidos&idioma=in&co=1438 (see bottom of page, or search "oldest")
Hopefully after considering these you will see which is the truer representation.
- Sources from TCD itself are not third party sources. Do any of those references say that the University Philosophical Society was founded in 1683? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sources from TCD itself should be admissible insofar as the Phil has an autonomous existence and clearly delineated identity separate from its statutes, as demonstrated by its existence prior to its incorporation as a College body. The choice of those contributors here to cite 1842 as the founding date attests this as it was not incorporated in Trinity until years after. In any event that criticism is unmerited in light of the sources here pointed out by KountKurly, a number of which are not from TCD itself. Furthermore, the fact that they are labelling the sessions in these sources shows the age. It is a simple matter of of subtracting 320 from 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamseline (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is getting ridiculous. The sources recognise the sessional date and the age claim. Taken together they represent a very clear demonstration of the age. Sorry they did not spell it out so clearly as to fit the criteria of every passing troll. These sources are recognitions of age. They are accompanied by confirmation from the statutory bodies that oversee the affairs of the society. There is little more that can be done, save asking people who report on the society's goings-on in newspapers to explicitly comment on the founding date, instead of just stating how many years the society has existed (Adamseline (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC))
- Currently leaning towards the article being edit protected, though some new editors do a really good job improving the article, then we have the occasional I.P troll. I think this page should be indefinetly semi-protected instead of a permanent protection. The Grand Cenobite (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Also in reply to 22.214.171.124, the link to the speech by the Provost clearly references the society's 1683 foundation date. http://www.tcd.ie/provost/addresses/2012-05-18-Admissionsconference.php KountKurly (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. No reliable source has been given that shows a founding date of 1683. KountKurly is a SPA attempting to use wikipedia as a soapbox to promote the society. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Several sources have been given. The Provost of the College acknowledges the date. The US government acknoweldged the age, and the reference to sessional numbers by several third-party sources recognize the age. No one is using this as a promotion. The 1683 age has stood on the page for years. KountKurly has actually given valuable clarification as to the connection between the DPS and the UPS. (Adamseline (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC))
- Support. Reason; sources given by User:KountKurly are very reliable, there has also been recent disputes by an I.P on the topic, that I.P (User talk:188.8.131.52) has been removing reverences. Also any I.P can be traced an geolocated on Wikipedia, all it takes is to be a confirmed user. I will check to see if this user has been sock puppeting, for more information regarding sockpuppets see WP:SOCK The Grand Cenobite (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- The provost of the college is not a third party source. He is the senior patron of the society, and therefore is representing the society's position rather than being objective. The US goverment did not acknowledge the age, Nancy Pelosi did in a personal press release. Having been given an award by the society, she presumably bought their version of events rather than researching the age of the society herself. Just because the UPS claim to be a revival of the DPS doesn't make it so. Many organisations claim to be restorations of the knights templar, but that doesn't make it so. I also find it suspect that another SPA that has lain dormant for three months suddenly became active again to join the fray, and that yet another SPA was created to get involved. I smell sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry at the very least. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, the Provost is the most senior staff member within Trinity College. To claim he is unreliable or that this is a case of favouritsim is more that a bit silly. The link is clear is MORE than clear, the references are MORE than clear. Secondly, if you ask people not to call you a troll, I would prefer if you didn't call me a Sock, as I'm not. Admin. can trace IP's if they wish, actually in fact I encourage it. I have nothing to hide (although funnily enough the laptop I'm currently using has a blocked IP, as it was used repeated to refute the position I'm currently arguing with regard to this society), and really want this petty name calling cleared up.KountKurly (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- What's silly about saying that the senior patron of the society would be biased towards representing the society's version of events when making a speech in front of the society? The reference is more than clear: University Philosophical Society: Founded, November 1842, connected to college February 1845. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)