Talk:Phi Kappa Phi

humbled

very humbled to see such prestigious American College Students selected for membership. παράδοξος (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Notice that User "George sherman 34" is a sockpuppet of Magkantog

LhakthongThe finding that George sherman 34 is a sockpuppet can bee seen here. Please regard all comments in the below linked archive by him as such and be weary of voices that, instead of trying to reach consensus, seem to staunchly take sides with Magkantog. Considering this finding as of March 3,2009, all consensus I, Lhakthong, came to with Magkantog and sockpuppet George sherman 34 I am considering null and void, as it was come to on false conditions and by deceptive means. I am, on those grounds, asking if anyone objects to starting with the LEAD as it was before the edit war began. That way, we can start from scratch and get this hammered out approriately. Please review the procedure outlined in this WP consensus proceedure diagram WP consensus proceedure diagram, Lhakthong (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion

Ajkalan: A good chunk of this article seems like it could have been lifted from the society's web site. The introduction claims PKP is "one of the highest and most prestigious forms of individual academic achievement" and is the "most prestigious." Nothing backs up these claims, and they read like boosterism. The Mission section also raises red flags over fawning, unverified claims. Ajkalan (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Matanmoreland: I agree. In fact, most of it is cut-and-paste from the PKP website.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Lhakthong: The above criticisms are correct in that there is not much on the society apart from its own website. However, this does not make the claims found there untrue. There has been a history published, and that is referenced in the article. As for prestige, I think it is widely accepted as having such. As far as everyone in academia I've spoken to, and for all I've read, such is the case. I think it is undisputed that Phi Beta Kappa holds the honor for liberal arts colleges (Phi Beta Kappa is restricted to liberal arts colleges). Similarly, I don't think there's much controversy that Phi Kappa Phi holds the same honor for land-grant universities, which encompass more than just liberal arts colleges. Prior to land-grant universities, all colleges and universities were effectively liberal arts colleges in the USA, and as such Phi Beta Kappa (PBK) also served the purpose of being an all-discipline society for those interested in the company of others who value intellectual pursuits. But as land grant institutions were created, encompassing a greater disciplinary landscape that encompassed more than just the liberal arts, PBK could no longer be a all-discipline honor society; its disciplinary inclusion was confined to the liberal arts. Thus, Phi Kappa Phi was created to fill the role of a campus-wide honor society for the new university. And I think it is undisputed that it is the largest and oldest of such (furthermore, I have never heard or read that it is not the most prestigious of such). So, is there something specific in the article that any of the above previous posters find to be untrue? If so, can they point to evidence supporting such claims? If it is just tone, why not just re-write the sentences to make the language more "objective", at least as far as one's subjective opinion finds it so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.30.167 (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Lhakthong: There doesn't seem to be much third party information on PKP other than its website, college chapter web blurbs, and the two books cited, "In Pursuit of Excellence: The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi, 1897-1971, by Edward Schriver (c. 1971), and Making Heroes of Scholars: The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi, 1971-1983, by Neal O'Steen (c.1985)." If anyone has any ideas on how else to find reliable third-party info, let them be known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.59.34 (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

74.248.4.105:As there are a number of web sites and chapters (USC, James Madison, Auburn, online) it seems prudent to remove the POV dispute banner unless someone can come up with something that challenges the POV more than saying it is close to the claims made by the society. If that is the standard then the POV banner needs to be placed on every honorary or institute web site. The POV banner raises questions about the organization that seem unwarranted without facts to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.4.105 (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

166.214.152.132 The same person keeps adding the "more prestigious" Phi Beta Kappa. Maybe a long time ago, but no today. In addition this is biased point of view supported only by a footnote referencing a history of Phi Beta Kappa! If this happen again, please alert the appropriate editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.152.132 (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhakthong (talk • contribs)

/Debate on Prestige of Phi Beta Kappa from the entrance of Magkantog and sockpuppet "George sherman 34" until the finding of the latter as such.

Heading edits to discussion page

Lhakthong: Everyone, I mean no disrespect or disruption. In order to help any new editor get up to speed and to keep the heading listing from getting unwieldy, I changed some of the formatting of the above. No content was removed and nothing was reordered. I just changed the heading formatting so that replies were not formatted as new subjects. The entire protracted argument now archived, I think we can all agree, has to do with NPOV, so I placed it all under that heading, rather than making each reply a new topic heading. There was also the separate discussion when we briefly came to agreement, also over what constituted vandalism, and the other separate subject of Magkantog's request for a block. I also put markers at the beginning of each person's contribution to make it easier to follow. I also archived it because it seems that an entire discussion between two people and one of those person's sockpuppet is not helpful to anyone except those involved in such an illusion of real conversation. I hope that is acceptable and you all understand why I did it. Because there was no substantive changes in content or order, just heading format, and an archive of it, I considered this a minor edit. Is that OK? Lhakthong (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On the Claim that Phi Kappa Phi is the Most Selective All-discipline Honor Society

Lhakthong: Does anyone dispute the claim? The only other all-discipline honor society I know of is Golden Key, and they are not as selective as Phi Kappa Phi. (PKP = top 10%, (juniors top 7.5%) and Golden Key = top 15%). Can we safely put that in the lead? Lhakthong (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying "PBK is the most prestigious" is still misleading

Lhakthong:The fact that single journalists in the NYT or Washington Post mentions PBK as "the most prestigious" is not the same as either organization carrying out a survey or study that finds that most faculty or most universities or most of the American public find PBK to be such. It is misleading to attribute the claim of one person at an organization to the organization as a whole, or to make one person’s claim a universal truth. Remember, Wikipedia policy is about verifiability, not truth, and placing "herin quoted" and citing sources that do not confirm or make verifiable the claim does not save one from making a misleading and unverifiable claim. On that note, citing PBK chapter webpages, regardless of whether they sit on university servers, as citations for this claim is like me claiming I'm the greatest in the world and citing my own diary, even if its published on Oxford University Press. That is too misleading. To maintain citation consistency, if there can be a claim that PBK is "the most prestigious" without qualification then it should not be necessary to qualify a claim about PKP as “one of the most prestigious". We need to keep the citations consistent. Which way are we going to go? Lhakthong (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)