Talk:Collegiate secret societies in North America/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

We Need to Clean House!

There are way too many societies on this list that are suspect. I propose that if a society does not have an individual page attached to it, it should go, and if some of those societies that don't are trully legit, than someone that knows something about it must step up soon and fill the rest of us in why it is there in the first place. What is the deal with all of those societies that have no date, no info- come on. Any legit society would have that known. All this excess is making for a sloppy page, crowding those societies that should truly be focused on, and is confusing to those out there that want to research well estblished societies with unique/specific identities.65.54.97.190

That's what I was trying to do before all of these rude single purpose accounts showed up making personal attacks and edit warring without creating any useful content. On August 1, I will be deleting all unreferenced redlinks, blacklinks, and links to articles which have the same name as, but are not articles about, Secret Societies. Corvus cornix 03:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think Corvus' response is a fair and a good idea. Only after a society is well researched and sourced should it be on this list. There can always be legitimate additions to the list at any time. Let those individuals that added societies to the list without information or sources do their homework first, and if they can't provide useful sourced information or are to lazy to do the work required to find it out, than let me be the first to say Bye Bye! The body of legitimate information that we have for secret societies was based on individuals' hard work, researching and compiling of info as historans that often took years of study. Don't dishonor true societies out there as well as substantial historical work on the topic by all of these "hear say" additions- they are additions that may take some researchers using the list as a research guide on a fool's errand by looking into societies with nothing out there to find and wasting that individual's time and energy. Also, a list like this is expressing a general idea of what collegiate secret societies are like as a collective whole. When we have bogus groups on the list, it throws off clearity on that perception.

I have added The Fraternal Order of the Sphinx to the list. I have already created a page and am waiting for its approval. Please don't delete it!WillSquire 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

1. As far as "tapping" goes at Yale, it originated with you getting tapped on the shoulder in the main quad at Yale. However, that doesn't happen anymore, though it is still called "tapping." In fact, "tap" is now the terminology used for all selective groups at Yale, including fraternities, singing clubs, etc. As far as society tapping is concerned, the dozen or so senior societies at Yale (all of the current ones on the list for example) have meetings starting January of every school year to select the new class. It takes up a lot of time and effort. Each member typically has one or two people in mind (his or her favorite junior in a student organization, for example). Some societies do a screen of the entire student body, looking for valedictorians and such (Manuscript and Scroll and Key). Some simply choose those who occupy leadership positions in traditional groups (Bones, which takes the president of DKE every year, for example). However, none of them take applications or anything like that, which is "public tapping." Many of them conduct some initiation ritual (i.e. hazing) in public on the publically announced "Tap Day" (9 of the societies, including Skull and Bones, Mace and Chain, Scroll and Key, Berzilius, St. Elmo, Wolf's Head, Book and Snake, Mace and Chain, Spade and Graves, and Elihu, take out an advertisement in the Yale Daily News every year to announce when they agreed Tap Day would be and certain rules regarding the Tap period). The only society that I know that takes "public applications" is St. Anthony, which is a three year society (more like a final club) and probably should be separated from the list.

2. I don't think final clubs should be included. Yes, they have ritual and such that they keep from the public, but so do eating clubs at Princeton and Greek letter organizations worldwide. Eating clubs are mainly social organizations and social clubs, just like eating clubs and Greek leter organizations. Many types of clubs have "secret ritual," but not all of them are "collegiate secret societies." Again, the best way to figure out the distinction is to ask. You can ask any member of a Harvard Final Club if he is in a secret society comparable to Skull and Bones or Wolf's Head, and he will say no. You ask any secret society member at Yale if Harvard final clubs are secret societies, and she will tell you no. I can understand why people would think they would be alike though, but final clubs should have their own Wiki page.

3. I guess I should somehow define what I mean by collegegiate secret societies. The qualifications vary from campus to campus (which is why the article is "collegiate" secret societies, not general ones, but I think you have to take the lead from schools like Yale, UVA, Wesleyan, and others that have had these organizations for a long time. They typically are not for freshman and they typically choose their members based on extracurricular activity, prominence on campus, academic achievement, social achievement, legacy status, or whatever - i.e., members do not directly seek out or apply for membership, rather they are chosen.

4. Again, the best source for information here is college newspapers. They typically know which societies are still in existence, which are powerful, etc. Age may be deceptive - some societies that are 25 years old or younger may not draw "better" students than 100 year old societies regardless of how famous those societies used to be. This is why people should not be quick to delete societies when they may in fact be highly regarded on their campuses. Again, this is a collegiate society list, there need not be conspiracy theories regarding every society included.

Griffeyin96 20:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • 1. Well, that almost sounds rational, so it has no possibility of succeeding on this list. People are coming here solely looking for conspiracy theories, and when they find non-conspiratorial societies listed, then get pouty and post comments declaring their confusion with the list, and then they start deleting things like mad. It is an unworkable situation.
  • 2. And the second major problem is that since the traditions are so distinctive between colleges that what counts as definitely a secret society at one university would make it impossible to be considered at another. There are people here who claim that it is impossible for a secret society to have a website, but can't say why, or what to call the secret societies that DO have websites.
  • 3. My plan was to have everything listed in the same place -put it all out on the table-, and then patterns and trends would emerge, and things could sorted out from there, but that has been rendered impossible by those literalists who whant to delete everything they possibly can and return to the conspiracy theorist theory of this page, (which has had wonderful results in the past week) :)!
  • 4. Even your distinction, "Many types of clubs have "secret ritual," but not all of them are "collegiate secret societies."" doesn't really solve anything, (I know you tried to clarify later). But I'm sure you know how the singing groups at Yale conduct themselves, with their initiations, and although you and I and the singing groups wouldn't count them as secret societies, why not? Because they sing? I suppose, but for an objective observer, everything they do is what the secret societies do. I am not arguing they should be included, just drawing attention to the fuzziness of the lines here. I don't think there is a *rational* argument for keeping them out. Saying that they're ""collegiate" secret societies, not general ones" almost sounds like something, but pondering it, I have no idea what to make of what distinction you're making.
  • 5. A serious problem is the preconceptions of people reading this page. You and I both know that if you were to inquire of a handful of seniors at Yale, you could probably reconstitute the member list for Skull & Bones. (Or if you couldn't, you could probably take a different handful and then you could.) My point being, although it's secret, it's not all that secret. Certainly S & B is not the MOST secret society on an American college campus. It shocks people that there could be information like this available, or even how this page could exist. It's like the first comment on this discussion page, "If these societies are known about how are they secret?" I don't know if that poster was being serious or just joking, but he seems to have spoken for a lot of people who can't get past that conundrum.
  • 6. A quick comment on the age of a society, it seems to me that there has been an increasing interest in establishing secret societies today & for the past 10 years or so. I think there are a lot of new societies out there. Granted, many, if not most, will die off, but I'm confident there could be many which will survive and make a real reputation for themselves. So I was willing to see them catalogued here, but of course, that was a no go.
  • 7. I think perhaps the ideal thing to do is to kill this list altogether, and only have the short college articles left. (And by ideal, I do mean I have no belief that it will happen.) But that way the practices at each university could have their day in the sun, and it wouldn't matter if what counts as a "secret society" at university X wouldn't count at all at university Y.

There was a great means here for getting people to all list in one place all the secret societies there were, strong, weak, and imaginary, and then subjecting them to some scrutiny to eliminate the obvious imaginary ones, and to start to sort out what kinds of societies there really were out there. But, it is true, this is not the place for original research, and wikipedia is only for information referenced elsewhere. All subsequent work needs to be based on those limitations. That being said, it means that nothing here will be above the level of an answers.com query. Further, since no one here has a way of reconciling the variety of societies that could be called "secret societies" this page is really meaningless. We have a page with no definiable topic. Might as well let it be full of the Sacred order of Skull & Crescent as anything else. 66.217.176.121 03:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Defining a "Collegiate Secret Society"

A lot of the debate on this page is due to the fact that we can't agree on what we are trying to list. Let me take a crack at it, knowing a lot about the Yale system.

"A collegiate secret society is a group of students that meet in secret in order to pursue certain educational and social goals. These goals are often determined by alumni boards and / or tradition as passed down by prior members of the society. While membership may be formally or informally known by outside members, the content of the meetings typically are considered private, giving the societies their "secret" nature. Often, societies are consisted of members of a single class at college (seniors, for the most part). Societies typically exist within the unique framework of their host colleges as opposed to other groups (such as Greek letter organizations) that have multiple chapters across campuses."

So here are a few notes...

1. A secret society does not have to be an old, aging group of men with conspiratoral aims. While many of the oldest secret societies may have had the appearance of being this type of organization, and while many of them did (and still do) network, this is not a requirement to be a collegiate secret society, as members of these societies would tell you. They do not have to be old at all. I give you the example of "Sage and Chalice," the society that George W Bush's daughter joined. It is apparently not more than 10 years old, but it is a secret society that any Yale student would say is notable and carries prestige. As many of the oldest societies have become more diverse, their conspiratorial nature (if it ever was there) has likely decreased. In addition, there is no way to really tell whether any secret society networks more than something like the Fly Final Club at Harvard or the University of Texas chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon (both of which are reputed to have really wealthy members). If you want "pipeline networking," you may as well start including these groups.

2. Characteristics, prestige, and other factors will vary heavily campus to campus. The best way to find out which societies are respected, with societies are actually secret societies, what they do, etc. is to simply ask alumni and current students at each school. No other way really works, given the fragmented nature of "secret societies." This is why college newspapers, often derided on this talk page, are probably the best print and online sources for information on these groups. If you only look at national newspapers, you miss groups that often compete against the alleged "conspiratorial" groups for students and sometimes even beat those groups out. Even Bones loses members to groups not even listed on Wikipedia every one in a while.

Overall, people may be trying to limit the list to something that truly doesn't exist. You may ask "why should I care about the groups on this list?" The answer is, maybe you don't care. But as long as the list exists, we should try to be as correct about it as possible and not try to limit it to conspiracy theories and outdated biases.

Griffeyin96 17:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. You actually have two techniques here. That is, techniques on how to create a definition of what a secret society is. The first technique is to provide a formulaic statement that hopefully includes all important secret societies and excludes all societies that are not. (I'm not commenting at all about the content of your definition, just saying what it is.) Your second technique to create a definition is wholly subjective. Ask the members and their subjective response is the answer. (Again, at this point not commenting on the value, or relative value of either approach, just noting what you have.) Perhaps either will be adopted by wikipedia. There is a third method, and it has been rejected, but just to make the record clear on what has been previously posted, the method I advocated was to do a taxononic analysis of what traits that a hundred or a thousand societies had, and then seeing which collection of traits together make up a secret society. But lets see what comes of the definitory statement you offered. (I may make comments on it later.)
  • It is important to note that while tapping does refer to a technique of selection exclusise to Yale, for lack of a better term, tapping sometimes is a word used for a very selective process of membership in general. I.E. "tapped" members of any secret society

Yale Secret Societies

Yale's, Scroll and Key began when there was an argument with Skull and Bones on which juniors to tap, Scroll and Key actually has a larger endowment tha even S&B. Later when the Sheff school was added to Yale, Wolf's Head and Book and Snake were added to the school's list of secret societies

  • The tombs of Yale's societies take on different identities. S&B is an Eyptian style tomb while Scroll and Key has a North African designed tomb.

It's August 1st

As was promised, I have removed all unreferenced, red links, black links, and links to articles which just have the same name as the so-called society but do not actually link to articles about the society. If societies are put here without an article, they will be deleted. Corvus cornix 02:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for holding true to the month we agreed upon. Please delete away :) Justinm1978 04:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You do not make contributions, you make deletions. You are not constructive, you are destructive. You do not help, you harm. You do not increase intelligence, you advance ignorance. You are what you are.

Okay. Thank you for sharing. Corvus cornix 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Corvus Cornix out of control

Corvus Cornix has now posted this "(<! Please don't add societies here until you have created an article about them. Redlinked societies will be deleted.-->)" Apparently this new rule is his own imposition on everyone else. It certainly wasn't discussed here. I guess this is his page now, and everyone else is just a visitor here.

No one in wikipedia is allowed to simply impose their own rules on everyone else. Or at least no one should be allowed to do so. It seems you can get away with it if you push hard enough.

People were given more than month to find common ground with notability and verifying, and yet you still complain. You did absolutely nothing. Enough with the complaints and actually do something.
He is correct in his actions. If you can't prove something exists, then it is not verifiable. He and I agreed upon a month moratorium to give people a chance to validate their contributions (see the above discussions). People had a month, now that month is up. Get some citations and it'll be left alone. It's not too difficult of a request, I think... Justinm1978 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

First, it's not my job to provide verification for things I didn't post. Second, I did contribute extensively in the introductory paragraphs, and with several verified entries, not to mention the whole organizing format of this page. Third, one month was a short period of time for many people to collectively provide verification. Fourth, your new rule, that you stated above, is "Please don't add societies here until you have created an article about them," which is a wholly different arbitrary rule you are imposing on a page THAT YOU DON'T EVEN CONTRIBUTE TO. Fifth, Justinm1978, who the hell died and left you two kings? "He and I agreed upon a month moratorium..." That, of course, was after a 'request for comment' where neither of you were in the least interested in hearing anyone else's opinions. But the real point is, it is not up to you two to be making decisions for everyone else.

What you have now is a page where no one is even sure what the topic is, where people are coming on and adding whatever they like in any random manner, and you two are deleting it all. What the hell is the point? Now you are aribtrarily imposing new and higher standards (meaningless ones at that) just because you want to. If neither of you can see how childish that is, then there's no hope at all.

No one in wikipedia is allowed to simply impose their own rules on everyone else. Or at least no one should be allowed to do so.

You accuse others of imposing their own rules on everyone else, but what I see is an attempt by you at bypassing official rules. Verifiability is not some arbitrary thing to be enforced from time to time, it is a core tenet of Wikipedia, without which it would quickly fill with hoax and vanity material. If you think it is just a couple of editors who think this way you are mistaken. I don't understand the problem, source the entries in question or stop complaining. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Daniel J. Leivick...I'm not making decisions here, Corvus was making edits, I asked him to stop and give a month for people to verify the content and make it a real article instead of a bunch of non-verifiable hearsay. He agreed, and posted as such that he would take a break from this page. Since it is up to the individual contributor to validate something they want posted, these actions are correct. Either find some sources, any sources, or the contributions will be deleted. You can take it to RFC and arbitration all you want, but I guarantee you they'll come back with the same statement: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." It's one of the main tenets of Wikipedia. Justinm1978 04:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The two of you are moving from one point to another with a clumsy slight of hand. 'Encyclopedic content must be verifiable' but that is NOT justification for anything you want to do. If Corvus Cornix or Justinm1978 ever actually read the verifiability guidelines, they would find that 1) they are guidelines, 2) it is a goal to move toward. It is NOT an absolute rule, and CANNOT be, sonce otherwise, you would have to have a footnote for every sentence posted in every article. And then you'd have to have footnotes for every footnote. Just because content must be verifiable does not mean that it justifies the capricious rules you adopt.

You now have stated that if a society does not have a page of it's own, you'll delete the society. That is an entirely arbitrary rule you two have adopted, without discussion, without any consensus, without considering alternatives, without considering what other editors think they are doing with this page. It is a blundering, thoughtless rule. You have no right or perogative to impose it. It has no constructive purpose.

"I don't understand the problem". I know. I've been telling you you don't understand it since the beginning of the summer. I think you should stop deleting content until you DO understand what the verifiability guideline means.

If I just deleted any unverified content wherever I found it, I could delete 3/4 of all of wikipedia by the end of the night.

Ok here is the deal. You are right there is a significant amount of unverified material on Wikipedia (alot of it should be deleted). However when there is a good possibility of a hoax or vanity issue, I feel it is better to remove questionable or borderline material than to let it remain. This page was involved in a hoax recently, and I feel it is likely to continue to be the target of vandal jokes and vanity postings of illegitimate societies. Because of these concerns I agree with the other editors with accounts, and feel that societies should either have a page of there own or at least a quality reference. I would not be opposed to having the in text warning reflect the possibility of both blue link or a reference. Finally please sign your posts with four tildas, even if you don't have an acount that way we can easily keep track of what each IP is saying. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing unverifiable material. I have no problem with establishing a reasonble rule to cut off entries beneath some rational standard. Corvus Cornix first started out deleting everything and ranting about his misunderstanding of the general verifiability guideline. (And by ranting, he was threatening me with all sorts of repurcussions, et c.) He then relented, and said after a certain date, he'd delete. I wasn't entirely happy with this result, but I let it go because at least it was moving toward the right direction of allowing posters the time to support their entires, and allow a verifiable list to develop. He now claims, and Justinm1978 supports him on this, the prerogative of deleting anything at any time again, and also has imposed the new rule that if it doesn't have a wikipedia article, it must be deleted. I oppose automatic deletion without time to ADD verification, or some process where somebody somewhere can post a society, and someone later can add appropriate references, (which IS how this is supposed to work.) There are 'fact date' tags for a reason. Delete-aholics should use them, just like everyone else. I also am opposed to some clique of two declaring some new rule that's supposed to apply to all entries, said rule imposed simply because they feel like it and everyone else be damned.

This Corvus Cornix person *is* out of control. The Skull Society at Worcester has a perfectly legitimate substantiating link. The webpage for the society even lists a consistent membership roll since 1910. Yet it was deleted by Corvis Cornix. Clearly he doesn't understand what he's doing. can he be banned? 159.247.3.210 20:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Provide reliable links as defined at WP:RS and the redlink can stay. Corvus cornix 01:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you really DON'T understand what's going on at all. There ARE NO PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC articles on college secret societies. That's laughable. (There's none for any of the other redlinks, either.) The Skull Society at Worcester clearly exists, it's website makes more concrete and verifiable claims than most secret society websites, and they can't be included in Wikipedia because one person without any research understanding is too obtuse to understand the nature of verifibility. Brilliant. Delete the page, it's too confused to be helpful to anyone.

In that case, WP:V applies and the problem is moot. Corvus cornix 17:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't apply. This is insane. You don't even understand the policies you claim to be applying. Can you even read the policy?

I have no further comment on this subject until the personal attacks cease. Corvus cornix 16:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're not going to provide rational arguments for your actions, if you cannot provide rational arguments, then you can't be expected to be debated on the value of those arguments.

Problems about Wikipedia in general

Wikipedia does suffer from substantial problems across the board- beyond that of vandalism. One of the major problems is that Wikipedia's own editors have privileges beyond what other editors have. For example, Wikipedia does not want anyone to edit or change the talk page discussions, yet their own editors do it all the time, or even shut down the discussion page so no one else even has a chance to discuss issues. Their editing process is very manipulative and always controlled to suit their needs and appreances. The organization as a whole has no direct number where problems can even be addressed by phone, making the Wikipedia organization appear highly suspect. There is hardly any information about the Wikipedia organization out there that people can look into, yet they freely feel that they can choose to put whatever information they feel about others on to their Wikipedia site, and then when things get too hot for them to handle, they just put an editing freeze so no one at Wikipedia has to actually deal with it. The emailing option is also very controlled and of very little help. Often, their assistants say one thing, but in reality do nothing to correct problems. Their own editors even base much of their edit making process on consensus rather than fact. Often, at times, when valid sources are given, they still do reject them. That is not the way scholarly writing works. Moreover, when hoaxers put out personal information onto the talk pages to try to hurt people, Wikipedia's editors don't even have the good judgement to allow it to be removed by the innocent victims, and in essence, allowing for the true goals of the hoaxers to be achieved- to hurt people.

I also think the majority of the editors are unprofessional and opinionated. They often make rude comments and edit with an attitude. They are highly suscpicious of everything and are looking to destroy more knowledge than build up. There are people who contribute to Wikipedia's pages based on their research and knowledge, and genuinely want to share their knowledge with the broader community, and rather than Wikipedia being appreciative for that, they take people's charity for granted. No one who contributes to Wikipedia gets anything for it in return- and not even appreciation. As time goes by, I think more and more people will see Wikipedia for what it is- not some web encylopedia as it trys to market itslf as, but rather a private editing club for its own Wikipedia editors that choose to work by different rules than what all others have to work by. I think the broader international community should spend more time discussing the problems about Wikipedia as an organization or even start to put more pressure on to it's director to make changes. As it stands right now, Wikipedia is a biased and elitist organization based on their own editor's taste and opinions. It is the fartherst thing from any kind of creditable encyclopedia and nothing more than a power trip for those who edit from the organization.

Your opinion is duly noted, but carries little weight as an anonymous contributor. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~ to make your posts known. Justinm1978 04:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bull. Him being anonymous is no less credible than you being signed. The name "Justinm1978" has no more weight than no signature at all. You're just another John Doe typing you're ideas just like anyone else. Actually, the first poster's anonymous contribution makes more sense internally, and is more compelling because of the points it makes, than anything I've ever read posted from you.

That 'Anonymous=less creditable' is just the sort of myth that props up the in-group of editors in the self-congratulatory circle it is,--- which is just exactly what the first poster is protesting.

Noooo, the lack of credibility is because it is impossible to tell if comments are made by the same person since IP's can be used by more than one user. It also shows a lack of real intersest in the project and making contributions of substance because you can be fly-by-night. I could care less if you use a name or a string of random characters, I just want to know that contributions made by one person are actually made by that person and not somebody else. Also, please sign your posts so we know which IP is who if you're not willing to make an account. Justinm1978 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, the above statement is a typical Wikipedia mindset that only makes sense to the people who control Wikipedia and want to reinforce their own need to dominate. If one person in their entire life makes a single edit to Wikipedia or a single comment on its talk pages, but that contribution is of value, why should it matter, except to Wikipedia's editors (who want control over all information), that anyone really knows who wrote it, or if the person who wrote has shared IP's with others. Can't the statement alone speak for itself, and can't a single statement also be enough to be a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Where does it say in Wikipedia's rules that a person has to have a long history of contributions to establish validity.

There are many people who started out enthusiastically editing with Wikipedia, but are now completely turned of by the double-standards and don't want to waste anymore time with this bogus encyclopedia anymore. How many times have contributors done enormous amounts of work putting together top articles with valid sources listed to have some person working for Wikipedia just come along and destroy it all by editing it away according to their taste. People are not being paid for their time spent on putting together these articles, I think Wikipedia needs a reality check with that point. Wikipedia should thank their lucky stars that people are willing to contribute for free. Wikipedia is surviving, and making their MONEY from, what people do for free. I don't think Wikipedia's director would be happy if her fat paycheck was taken away- but again that is probabaly why their is no number to reach the organization by, so that the ones on top can keep rolling in the bucks without having to answer to anyone. More and more people are getting turned off by Wikipedia in general and see the organization for what it is really all about- money not knowledge.

I don't know about the second paragraph---I have no idea what the corporate structure of wikipedia is like. But overall, I couldn't agree more. I would not bother writing articles for wikipedia. It's not even so much some administratively-priviledged editor that's the problem, it's the nobody with an attitude that is the real problem. Wikipedia is like having a bunch of high-school grads editing a paper by Albert Einstein---they can take out everything they don't understand or disagree with.

And Justinm1978's claims about IP's are bogus as well. If you gave me ten minutes, I could log in with his IP. If anybody wants to check IP's, they'd go to the history page anyway, regardless of the sign in. 'Anonymous=less creditable' is just a myth. I am far more persuaded by the anonymous poster here then by Justinm1978, and that's because I know how to read, comprehend, and evaluate; in short, to think,--regardless of what characters are added to the end of a paragraph.

Look, you're not contributing here, so just go away. You have no credibility here, you're just being disruptive. Learn how to follow policy or make recommendations in the appropriate place to change it, but don't waste our time with your childish rants about how you're not getting to put up whatever you want. Wikipedia has no use for people who are unwilling to make real contributions to the project. Justinm1978 05:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE contributed, YOU HAVE NOT. I understand the policy, you have said you don't. If I have posted "childish rants about how you're not getting to put up whatever you want." Then quote me. I dare you.

And I also dare you to cut and past anything that authorizes Corvus Cornix and Justinm1978 to impose their own rules on this list.

Well, they've both posted here since you dared them, and haven't posted what their authority is to impose new rules here. 66.217.176.222 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tags for list section

I am going to start a new topic heading because I have no interest in debating generalized criticism of Wikipedia here. If you have gripes take it to the village pump. One of the anon IPs involved want to tag the list of societies for numerous issues, if they want to do this they will have to itemize their concerns here first. Otherwise they cannot be addressed. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Its neutrality is disputed." The entries on the list have been claimed to be self-serving and vanity postings. "It may contain original research or unverifiable claims." The entries on the list have been claimed to be unreferenced or unverifiable postings. "Its factual accuracy is disputed." The entries on the list have been claimed to be factually inaccurate postings. "It does not cite any references or sources." The entries on the list have been claimed to not have citations or references. "It may be confusing or unclear for some readers." There is no criteria for being on this list at all, most people are unclear on what kind of societies should be here. All of these things are plainly evident on this discussion page. If you cannot see it here, then you are incapable of reading this page.

This page really ought to be deleted outright because it has no plan at all. However, although you pompously claim to be one of the only three real editors here, I was one of the few people who tried to get at some valid basis for it in the 'Defining a secret society' section. Your posts here are self-serving and create an impression of bad faith. You need to stop posting insulting rants and ad hominem arguments.

If you want to have the page deleted see WP:AFD. Otherwise please specifiy which articles are vanity, unreferenced or vactually innacurrate, otherwise I will remove the tag. -Daniel J. Leivick 09:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

???? There's only one article here. 66.217.176.222 18:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I meant entries in the list which at this point are mostly articles themselves. I am looking for specific issues that we can fix. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What was Corvus Cornix's point about deleting all the redlinked articles If it wasn't that he was accusing them of being unverifiable and vanity postings? Isn't that what we're all arguing about, the merit of those deletions???

Cornix deleted all the questionable postings, so why should the tags remain. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Because his deletion was wrong. Have you been reading this page?

You have claimed that the deletions of unverified material removed valuable info, this does not mean the page is "confusing, POV, or unrefenced. " Those are specific issues and in order to keep a tag up you must address specific areas where each is a problem. In addition your combative attitude throughout this page is a major baricade for discussion. You need to put your personal issues behind you and start being more civil. --Daniel J. Leivick 08:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely confusing since no one has a clear idea what the topic is. POV makes sense as a complaint since we have no standard for inclusion beyond different people's points of view. And using a "acceptable if cited to other wikipedia article" is as good as unreferenced at all. ----The warning should be up there. It serves as a caution to everyone using the list. That warning alone could have replaced two months of discussion page fighting. I don't know why anyone would want to hide the fact that this page has, has had, and will always continue to have verifibility problems,--why hide it??? Do you have a reason for hiding it?66.217.176.118 05:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The list is not confusing it is a list of independently identified secret societies. If there are societies on the list that are not identified as secret they should be removed.
  • The standard for inclusion is either a blue link or a reliable source.
  • A list page composed of a list Wikipedia articles does not need to be referenced, the individual articles should be referenced and if they are not that is the problem pertaining to that article not the list for example see List of sports car manufacturers.
  • I do not have a problem with having a tag, but however puts it up must make it clear what the problem is so that it can be fixed. If someone slaps on a tag and says that unless the article is the way the want it the tag stays, it is a problem, tags should be used while a solution is being worked towards not once a solution is reached that an editor disagrees with. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"The standard for inclusion is either a blue link or a reliable source." ---Says who? No one has debated this or discussed it. Two or three posters have tried to impose different criteria without any discussion at all.

"The list is not confusing it is a list of independently identified secret societies." ---No one can even define what a 'secret society' is. Since you can't do that, then this list is meaningless. Delta Kappa Epsilon conducts its affairs in secret, publication boards and singing groups have secret initiations. You can go to court and sue for admission to Phi Beta Kappa if you qualify, what, then is a secret society?66.217.176.142 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the standard for inclusion has come close to consensus at the bottom of the page. As for what is a secret society exactly, I don't know, but all the articles linked should describe their subject as a secret society using a source and Red links should have sources that describe them as a seceret society. --17:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel J. Leivick (talk • contribs).

No the bottom of the page is NOT consensus. How come the rules for the rest of wikipedia do not apply here? This discussion page is so full of argument because people are NOT using the various procedures for establishing guidelines. Two guys declaring a rule is NOT how pages are developed. ----And if you admit you don't know what the page is about, then A) how can you say what societies do or do not belong in, and B) how can you say that the page shouldn't be tagged for being confusing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.133.124.199 (talk)

It doesn't look like you are still arguing to change the page, what is your problem with the rules as they have been laid out? Unless you can raise clear and specific concerns for each of the tag issues, the tags should be removed. As it stands I see consensus as each entry must be a blue link or a sourced red link that specifically states it is a secret society. I know you may disagree, but that does not mean consensus has not been reached. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with the wikipedia procedures for dispute resolution. Three people agreeing in the past week, and as many disagreeing, is not consensus. There have been quite a few posters here as this page attests, and one week is a small time window to allow for responses. The 'confusing' tag definitely applies, and the others apply with greater or lesser weight depending on who's deleted what when.159.247.3.210 16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the dispute has stopped I have laid out my view of what the consensus is and no one has challenged it or the actual state of the article. As far as I can tell right now we are only arguing about whether we are arguing or not. What can we do to remove the tag? --Daniel J. Leivick 02:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've grown tired of this...it's not prouctive to the article, so I requested semi-protection for the page. Justinm1978 04:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You've grown tired of it???? Does anyone care what you're tired of? "As far as I can tell the dispute has stopped I have laid out my view of what the consensus is and no one has challenged it or the actual state of the article." Liar. You've been challenged every step of the way, and you've been shown ridiculous the whole way. You contribute nothing and troll constantly. You're pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.133.124.194 (talk) 03:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is over. Next step will be admin involvement. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Good! I've been asking for it already. If it takes administrative intervention to correct your confused misapprehensions, I'm all for it.

The list has ongoing problems. Alerting the reader to this is only fair. Why anyone would want to hide these faults, and remove a valid caution, seems unreasonable and has been given no justification.66.19.33.142 15:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the issues have been addressed, unfortunately the 129.xxxx IP has made discussion impossible due to personal attacks. The only real conflict I see is that some users want to have unverified red links on the list and others do not. I would be happy to discuss further changes but if personal attacks continue this will not be possible. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You deny the existence of any dispute and then claim there is no dispute. It is impossible to have a discussion with an irrational person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes to this article

If you don't like what is being done here, how about taking your desires to the WikiProject listed at the top? Justinm1978 05:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

    • What a cover up scam! Just change the topic when things don't suit Wikipedia's desires and money making goals. Just another confirmation of how bogus Wikipedia is, and how much of a double-standard the whole projet is. Sure, write whatever you want about other people, discredit all the people and articles that you don't agree with, but god forbid if King Wikipedia is criticised. Wikipedia is elitist and biased- without any doubt, and only cares about anything when it starts to effect their fat wallets. More and more people are fed up with your nonsense and bogus "encyclopedia". Wikipdia corp says they are based in Florida, yet there isn't any number listed and there is no official record anywhere for their existence in Florida- you guys are nothing more than a money making scam- and the better buisness bureau should be contacted for what you do. You are slanderous at times and liable. Wikipedia undoubtly should be shut down untill better buisness practices are implemented. There should be better checks and balances to the whole organization, telephone contact imformation, information about it's CEO's and officials listed, background checks of their editors who work from the organization. Safe guards for people who are victims of hoaxes, and many other changes. Morover, these discussion pages are suppose to act like the discussion grounds for issues pertaining to Wikipedia.
Are you really interested in creating a useful, sourced, reliable article, or are you here just to criticize Wikipedia? Why do you feel that unreferenced redlinks should be kept? Corvus cornix 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, first off, I don't think this is just an issue about redlinks. Issues about redlinks are just the tip of a broader problem about Wikipedia in general. I will give you an example, awhile back there was some Purdue/Barbaro hoax, and Wikipedia created a new article about "Palazzi Barbaro". Several people removed portions about that article, stating it was a target for hoaxers, but what they removed clearly had verifiable sources listed. Sources that could be checked by online articles. Well, what does that say- it says that Wikipdia makes up the rules as they go along- or will edit according to their own tastes, but then you list such articles as a stub and ask people to expand on it. Why should anyone do that when Wikipedia ends up destroying it anyway. There is some goofy mob mentality to Wikipedia's editors that makes them no longer think about what they are doing and end up destroying perfectly good knowledge. It is a power trip with an attitude, but I guess that is why someone would be a volunteer at Wikipedia- to give a nobody a sense of importance- while your CEO is smart and raking in the cash for his job. You are the police dog while your master lives high off the hog. Moreover, in many of these Wikipedia hoaxes, personal emails and other information is put out there, part of the hoax, and you don't even let an innocent person edit it out- that seems right to you? Wikipdeia should be sued for what they allow to happen. These hoaxers are smart, they know that what they put out there will come up in google searches and that is part of their hoax, and they often aim to destroy perfectly good articles- they are playing of of your general stupid suspicion. Moreover, what one person said above, pertaining to Einstein is true. If a person creates an article and lists a perfectly good source that someone at Wikipedia has not read, then they edit it away. What is that about. So how many times do I pick up a book that has sources listed in the back that the author has used that I am unfamiliar with- it is my job to look into those sources if I am unfamiliar with them- it doesn't mean those sources are not valid. Wikipedia is simply bogus- and there is not a single educational institute in this world that will accept Wikipedia as a valid source for any writing. Please stop pulling the wool over everyone's eyes calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia, and please stop pretending that the volunteers at Wikipedia are some authority on the articles listed here- because all of you clearly are not. Wikipedia is nothing more than a buisness. Please stop using all of your statements about "credibility' when eveything about Wikipedia is lacking in credibity including it's volunteers. Ok- at least give us that bit of honesty when everything else about Wikipedia is a sham!
This is not the place to voice generalized criticism of Wikipedia. As far as I can tell there are only three serious Wikipedia editors including myself who pay much attention to this page. From here these disgruntled IPs should do one of two things. Either take there concerns to the appropriate place like the village pump, or stop posting on this page and forget about it. If they refuse to do as I have suggested I will not respond further and recommend other editors do the same. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I will not discuss any further off-topic content here. If you want to make a verifiable, sourced article about collegiate secret societies, then we can discuss that. If your sole purpose for posting here is to attack Wikipedia in general, then I will not continue this discussion. BTW, it's worth noting that our anonymous friend is posting from Microsoft, as did the hoaxers trying to perpetuate the Barbaro nonsense. Corvus cornix 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is what everyone is tired of. I have nothing to do with hoaxes. I just used an example that pertains to this page as listed in the "Purdue" section above, but right away your tendancey is towards conspiarcy. I have nothing more to say about this. It is very obvious that Wikipedia is BS. It is all controlled according to certain peoples' taste. The editors do seem profoundly immature, and there is without any doubt a double-standard. No matter what anyone writes, you guys will always cover your back, try to redirect, or when you have no defense, try to place false accusations. Moreover, these discussions do pertain to this page becasue of what occurs with this article, and you are right, you should not respond, becuase I will no longer waste any more time writing with Wikipedia- may that be articles or discussion pages. I can not speak for the other critics though. I think a quote from Corvus cornix's own discussion page says it all, "In general I am a deletionist and I am happy to speddy lots of things." Yes, you are a deletionist and do destroy many people's hard work Corvus, there is no doubt about that!

Look again. I didn't say that. Corvus cornix 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


"As far as I can tell there are only three serious Wikipedia editors including myself who pay much attention to this page.--Daniel J. Leivick 20:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)" ---What monumental vanity. "If they refuse to do as I have suggested I will not respond further and recommend other editors do the same. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)" ---Please. I hope this is exactly the course you take. This is an example of the closed clique-ishness complained of above.

"Are you really interested in creating a useful, sourced, reliable article, or are you here just to criticize Wikipedia? Why do you feel that unreferenced redlinks should be kept? Corvus cornix 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)" ---I'll take you up on that one, Corvus Cornix. **The point of leaving redlinks is to show where new articles are needeed.** That is how the system is supposed to work. You, deleting everything, are making it impossible to keep track of where research needs to be done, and where contributors can contribute. Redlinks show what's needed. That's holds true across wikipedia, (except of course, where people who don't understand what's going on have attacked certain articles. Like here. Like you.)

Sourced societies should remain on the list, regardless of redlinks

I think people have taken the redlinks rule too far. There are a few well known Yale societies that were sourced but did not have an article in Wikipedia - these were deleted. At Dartmouth, the school itself lists 8 societies on its website as part of its tradition, yet only 5 are listed. All that should be required is a link to an outside source (most appropiately a college newspaper or a college website, since these are college societies) that acknowledges the existence (or rumored existence) of the society. Someone explain why this is not adequate.Griffeyin96 13:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As an update, I have added three Dartmouth secret societies, sourcing the Dartmouth Office of Student Life (as good of a source as you can get). As I have no information on these societies, I have not written an article for each. However, they should be on this list, as they are recognized secret societies at a school with a long tradition of them, and their existence has been confirmed by the administration. If you delete them, I would like an explaination of why. Griffeyin96 13:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many places where redlinks occur in wikipedia, and they serve to prompt people to fill in the gap with more information. Nor does deleting them improve the quality of information; the bogus article on the Purdue society had a very full entry of its own. That didn't make it true information. You can't enforce rules if you do not understand how those rules are supposed to work.66.217.176.222 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with leaving sourced red links on this page. The internal instructions should probably be changed to reflect this. Something along the lines of "all unsourced entries will be deleted" instead of all red links. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I can live with that, so long as the sources are reliable sources. Corvus cornix 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So you admit you're wrong. Great.

So what would happen if Purdue's Skull and Crescent was also added to the list as a redlink with it also being sourced by the offical Purdue University site in the exactly same manner as the Dartmouth example? Would it also be allowed to remain on the list?

There is a real Skull & Crescent Society at Purdue. I've said as much before. There just isn't a Holy & Secret Order of Skull & Crescent, (or Wholly Imaginary Order... ). That was madness. Don't know why you did that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.133.124.199 (talk) 02:23, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Again, another bogus remark with false accusations. I did not write the Purdue society listing- and none of us knows for sure if that school's society listing was completely a prank or only partially a prank with elements of it possibly being true since there was also referencing within Thena Nu Epsilon records as well- which also seems to have been changed recently according to that group's current fashion for the moment- going from Purdue being listed now as Alpha Alpha from it's Previous Alpha Indiana recording. Moreover, I don't care if Purdue's societies are listed or not, the point I was interested in making is that even if Purdue's societies were listed with a credible source now, editors would still remove it because of suscpicion or personal taste- just like Theta Nu Epsilon did to Purdue's history within their own society- they removed Purdue's status from being an Alpha because they are still trying to exert themselves as the "legitimate Alpha". It all goes back to what many people have said previously. Wikipedia is just simply not credible. It is based on people's taste rather than fact, and all editing choices are just based on consensus. The rules are constantly thrown out the window or made up new each day. So if you like it or not, this so called "encyclopedia" is a sham. It is just an editing club that is making choices not grounded on fact. Period. Editing choices on Wikipedia are based on what makes the majority feel comfortable- not necessarily what is true. Moreover, you should also stop saying that Purdue's societies were imaginary- because none of us really knows that for sure- what you should being saying is that they were unconfirmed- and as such, I agree that they should not remain listed on this page- unless offcially confirmed with verifiable evidence. So, the other point I am trying to make here is that no one editing on Wikipedia should be making such arrogant statements about what is true and what is not true. What any editor can say, or should be saying, is weather something is verified by a reliable source or not. There are plenty of things that were 100% true within Wikipedia once that has since been removed by mob consensus, and there are plenty of things out there that are 100% true that will never find its way into Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.54.98.30 (talk)

  • There is also further evidence of breaking the rules. For example, on Theta Nu Epsilon's talk page, there was just recently information about some of the fashions of the society that were completely removed. That information was very intersting and nice background to the group. Why was it removed, becasue Wesleyan Alpha, who controls the page, resented any information that points to Purdue's importance as an Alpha. Therefore, Wikipedia is not beig used as an encylopdia to futher knowledge, it is being used as an editing club to control certain groups agendas- specifically in this case, Wesleyan's agenda to give the impression that they are the legitimate Alpha, even though they are nothing more than a start up after being extinct on their campus. Moreover, they are welching on their word of agreeing to list Purdue as an Alpha. On top of all of that, why are entries from talk pages being removed- I thought that was against the rules, but I guess for the boys at Wesyleyan they are free to do what ever they want. Further evidence that all of Wikipedia is bogus! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.142.117.197 (talk) 03:34, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely agree that the Wes TNE group has run amuck with trying to force their agenda on articles involving TNE as a whole. I have a good deal of original TNE documentation and literature in my possession, and it supports that the Purdue group was founded independently of the TNE national as an alpha; however, they reconciled differences with the national at the time and became a legitimately recognized chapter under the Alpha-Alpha moniker. Basically, my opinion is that the Wes group is entitled to tell the story their way, but it doesn't mean they can just wipe clean the other things that were going on with the independent groups either. There has always been a lot going on with TNE that was out of their control, and they need to stop trying to cover it up so much. I wish some admins would take a look at the TNE page and see how many times they've deleted large portions of information from both the article and the talk page. They don't even entertain discussion - just resort to name calling and deleting changes usually. Apparently only they have the final say in what's accurate or notable. I've only made a couple edits to that page, and that's probably all I will because I just don't feel it's worth the hassle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueGold73 (talk • contribs) 03:53, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
Snort. You don't give up, do you? Corvus cornix 17:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No Corvus, I think you are very wrong on that point. I think the discussions by many people above clearly states how much a great number of people have clearly given up on Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.97.190 (talk) 21:21, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

A small question

I've helped in editing the NoZe Brotherhood page, and I was wondering what the classification "honorary" or "active" was on this page. I've scrolled through some of the talk page, but there is a ton to read. A ton.

Currently, the NoZe is listed as honorary, but they still make appearances (albeit in disguise), print a monthly publication, pull pranks, etc. Also, they are listed as "Senior" with eligibility, but the society is open to all students that display the right aptitude for humor.

Please advise. 66.7.32.10 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)BaylorFan

We don't actually discuss how societies function, how they should be described here, or what categories might be applied. All we do here is have petty individuals who don't understand a) what they are writing about, or b) how to write a wikipedia article, waste everyone's efforts deleting things they don't understand, applying criteria they don't understand, and then being incredibly indignant when challenged on their pompous and wrong asumptions. As far as NoZe is concerned, good luck with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk) 03:22, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collegiate_secret_societies_in_North_America/Archive_2&oldid=211326178"