Jump to content

Talk:Cap and Skull/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

from VfD:

  • Delete. Non-notable vanity.HeebJeeb 15:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: A secret society that is nevertheless written about. My own secret society was the Cap and Bells. At any rate, Skull and Bones wouldn't itself be notable if it weren't for allegations that it has put bad people into power and has taught twisted principles to powerful men. If this organization had Paul Robeson (I thought he went to Princeton; maybe this is a New Jersey thing), then the principles look pretty good to me. Geogre 19:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being familiar with RU history, I also agree that Cap and Skull is non-notable as much as it is inactive. But I do not agree that it should be merged with the RU entry. BTW, George, Robeson was born and grew up in Princeton (there's a street named for him, and his father was a preacher at a local church), but he was an alumnus of Rutgers College, Class of 1919. ExplorerCDT 21:46 13 Oct 2004
Ah, thanks for that. In the Rutgers article, there should be a section on campus organizations, and a mention could go there, I suppose, if it's an active society. Geogre 15:49, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::George, that's a good idea (regarding campus organizations). Right now I'm having a hard enough time researching the "notable faculty" and "alumni" sections (which i'm in the process of putting together a major expansion) Sure it "could" get a mention, but they haven't been active since the 1960s so what would be the point. I still vote for delete. ExplorerCDT 21:46 13 Oct 2004 (EDT)
  • Keep. Secret societies don't need to be notable ;-) Seriously, this one is over a century old and has had several famous scientists, politicians, writers, Olympic winners, musicians etc. as its members. If this gets deleted, what other articles we should delete from Category:Student societies also? All Sigma-Gamma-Rho-Beta permutations? jni 17:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable membership. — Gwalla | Talk 23:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • D Notability by association is a fallacy, otherwise we'd have articles on David Beckham's mother and Nelson Mandela's brother-in-law, as well as a shop that George W. is rumoured to have driven past, once. Chris 05:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment Proof by analogy is also a fallacy. We don't have articles about famous people's relatives, because everyone has relatives. We don't have articles about every shop because every city has plenty of shops. But secret societies with congressmen, Nobel laureates etc., as former members, they are scarse. It is this scarcity/uniqueness combined with prominent membership that makes this notable in my opinion. jni 07:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, proof by analogy is perfectly valid, as long as the analogies hold, which in this case they do. This society, which is inactive, has had members that have later done things to gain them notability. But this in itself does not mean that the society is notable, especially given that those people would likely be no less notable had they not been in the society. Now, if being in the society makes onnotable on a large scale, then it would merit inclusion. Chris 15:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 16:07, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment Everyone else provides reasons for their decision. So what is your reason?ExplorerCDT 18:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Big time delete. Not Notable. What have they done? Nothing. They don't control major enterprises, the government or something else effecting the course of society. Cap & Skull members probably watch porn and eat pizza on Friday nights because they can't get dates. So what if Robeson said his most formative experience was Cap & Skull? My most formative experience was the back of my father's left hand across my back end--but that doesn't get a Wiki article. Neither should they. Who remembers Paul Robeson anyway? JackBlack04 19:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Note: User's first edit.
  • Keep DCEdwards1966 17:27, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment Everyone else provides reasons for their decision. So what is your reason?ExplorerCDT 18:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The organization is, in and of itself, completely unremarkable. There is no evidence that it has *done* anything, so why list it?----
  • Delete. Regarding the Centurion issue "Cap & Skull Exposed": The Centurion is not a credible or reliable source. It is a student-run satirical "conservative" journal on the Rutgers campus that has lost considerable credibility since its founding. Among its favorite exploits are secretly videotaping professors and students, harassing students, and other questionable practices (visit their website to see James O'Keefe kicking down the door of a student in the early morning hours at http://www.rucenturion.com/movies/lib_award.MOV). The October '05 issue of the journal targeted their former managing editor (a member of Cap & Skull) based on a personal vendetta by two of the editors who were not selected for Cap & Skull. Their arguments and motives are highly suspect. Quote from Wikipedia policy for evaluating sources: "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident … editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views … Groups like these may be used as primary sources only as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly, or about their viewpoints." Clearly, the Centurion falls into this category -- it is an extremist conservative publication with extremely sexist and racist overtones. The article published in their October 2005 issue regarding Cap & Skull, especially their attack of their former managing editor is unsubstantiated, although the names of new initiates they released “early” did turn out to be correct. Indeed, to further illustrate the bias present in this section of the article, James O'Keefe, editor of the Centurion was the first to insert the “controversial” section of this article on the Cap & Skull Honor Society.

TomSmith 20:46, 17 Apr 2006 (UTC)


end moved discussion

History of Cap and Skull

69.203.73.190 (talk · contribs) added this material about the history of Cap and Skull. The material also appears on the Cap and Skull website. The user says, and has proven to my satisfaction, that he is the author of the material. Tom Harrison Talk 20:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

"Greatest honor" - "Serve our country" .... Rich Farmbrough. 13:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the reference to Cap and Skull being "a victim of the era" of the Civil Rights movement. It's an unnecessary statement that comes across as biased. Graehill 04:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC) =

Mediation?

Please try this discussion page first. The edit summaries are not well-suited to dialogue. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


It seems the issue for discussion on this page should be about Cap and Skull and the FACT the names were revealed. The motives of The Centurion are irrelevant, as are the pertinent sections regarding impartiality. The statements in the "revealed" subsection appear factual, and though someone who may not be impartial posted them, the statements themselves are impartial.

Also, while we are on impartiality...what is TomSmith's interest in this? Is he truely impartial?

Unveiling is Irrelevant

Does anyone besides TomSmith, 212.203.107.122 and Baseballoggi even care that the Class of 1996 was revealed? Cap and Skull is not a secret society. It is a 100+ year old honor society whose undergrad members decide if they want to reveal their identities on the very public website or not. Otherwise, if you wanted to see who they were you could go to a meeting at the Cap and Skull room, located at the Rutgers Student Center, and see who was inside, or just look at the people in the black robes and sashes at football games and convocations. The only thing that made it a "secret" was the fact that Rutgers is a huge university and its hard to know everyone.

The website is public. Its membership is public. Their pictures are in the yearbook. Applications for membership are mailed to every eligible Rutgers student and can be picked up in the student center.


Counter: The Unveiling could potentially be relevant IF the previous classes (say 10) were elected in their Junior year and were indeed a secret through their Senior years. In that case, they were a secret society, and the unveiling may have relevance.

Also: The Class of 2007 revealed themselves early through a Daily Targum ad. Perhaps this was also against their will, but the public has no knowledge of the pressures brought to bear on them. If that is so, the actions of The Centurion gain orders of magnitude in terms of significance.

The 07s wanted to be public. There is no reason to keep membership secret, and except for the last few years, membership has always been public. Throughout much of the organization's history, selection was done in the gym with the entire junior class present. The 07 class was simply shedding itself of the silly idea of pretending to be secret. This is an honors society for students who demonstrate leadership in the classroom and around campus, not a secret society.

Questions: how do we know the info in the preceeeding paragraph? if C&S wasn't a secret society, why did they call themselves one? and why did they put themselves on the 'secret society' page here on wikipedia?

Possible Answers: Wikipedia is the the free encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. There is no proof that C&S put themselves on the secret society page. It certainly isn't there anymore. Its listed in United States student societies | Honor societies | Rutgers University.

Re:Questions: we know this because it was written by a member of the 07 class. the organization breifly considered secrecy, but the 06 and 07 class both felt that practice was not worth continuing. Cap and Skull for the vast majority of its 100+ year existence has been public. In fact, selection used to be done in an open ceremony with the entire senior class in attendence. Needless to say, Rutgers is a little big for that now.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cap and Skull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cap and Skull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Cap and Skull which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/2005/08/rip-al-aronowitz.html
    Triggered by \bguru\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cap_and_Skull/Archive_1&oldid=1183101855"