Talk:Collegiate secret societies in North America

Errors in this Article

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)

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.

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

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

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:

1. How we define "secret society"
2. How each society on the list meets those criteria
3. How we reconcile #s 1 and 2 with WP:NOTE
4. 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

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

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 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)

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

Other Issues

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)

Inclusivity of definition is not the accepted norm

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)

Suspecting sockpuppetry

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)

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

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)

Concerns

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)

Beginning some clean-up

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)

Penn State Skull and Bones

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)

Further proposed clean-up of list

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

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)

The Case Against Including Princeton Eating Clubs

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)

Summary of further proposed changes

I propose that:

• 1) That the high school material be moved to a new article, with a link from here.
• 2) That (non-secret) honor societies be moved to a new article, with a link from here. This new article could be expanded to include for example the (real) Skull and Dagger honor society at USC.
• 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?

Soundsgood2me (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)