Talk:The NoZe Brotherhood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Secret Societies (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Secret Societies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States / Texas (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (marked as Low-importance).

==-- (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC) -- (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Noble NoZe Brotherhood has been disbanded over allegations that one of the members was pregnant. The girl was also dating another guy so now they are in a big legal mess about who's the parents baby will be. Please delete this whole article until the the trials are over.


The article is a mess; it lacks proper references for much of the content, it's written in appalling English (though the version to which an anon keeps trying to return is even worse), and is a dreadful advertisement for Wikipedia. The organisation looks as though it deserves a couple of paragraphs as a local student society of little interest to anyone except its young members. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Quarrel with the English all you like, but don’t revert an article on a subject you have no knowledge of. Perhaps if you read the version you are reverting to, you would notice that although it is indeed shorter, there is language inserted that is deliberately belittling the organization. Allow the expanded version to be edited instead of replacing it with a butcher job done by someone with a vendetta against the group.

As a certified teacher of English and former newswriter, I don't believe the NoZe Brotherhood article needs copy editing. It is noticeably lacking, at least among Wikipedia articles, in spelling and grammar errors. The copyediting tag mentions other factors such as usage, tone, style, and voice, but the page to which the tag is linked makes no mention of these factors. I have never attended Baylor (except for one memorable weekend in 1989) but declare myself eminently qualified to pass judgment as I have read most of an entire issue of "The Rope." The article's tone and style reflects the lighthearted, irreverently reverent (or vice-versa) nature of the Brotherhood itself. As such, it is inherently appropriate to portray the essence of the NoZe Brotherhood to Wikipedians and innocent readers worldwide. Applejuicefool 07:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It does reflect on their style of writing, and as for fact checking, the part about requiring a 4.0 is in fact untrue, and I'll take claim to removing that one. Still, this version isn't as bad as some of the older versions. Also the millard filmord ball i belive began this past fall, or at least i've never seen it mentioned in the Rope untill this year. If anyone wants to really dispute the groups existance /notariety or otherwise their website and the Baylor Library has decades of papers in their archives.

CComputer 20:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the topic “Ornery brothers” should be in this article since this is merely a list of names of people that the group wants to associate with their name. Would not a list of real members or no list at all be more appropriate? 15:09 GMT, 15 March 2006

Naming Ornery brothers is a tradition, much like what the Hasty Pudding Theatricals do. It is a valid part of the history of the group, and should be recorded. 13:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm the Anon who has been changing the main page back to its original splendor. Mr. Ettis, I'm sure you believe your English to be superior, but it is dry, stilted and awkward. More importantly, the changes you've made have made the page untrue. If you had knowledge of the group, it would be fitting that you edit the page, but since you seem to have none, you should leave it to those who do.

This is an encyclopædia, not a tabloid newspaper. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 06:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mel, with all due respect, please stop editing the entry as you have no personal knowledge of the group. I'm certain that your editing prowess is appreciated in other entries, but your edits have left gaps in information and several things are untrue. For one, the group was not "supposedly founded by Leonard Shoaf". He was the first president. The group was formed by his friends. And frankly, the sentence proclaiming that they made fun of his nose ",annoying him" is extremely poorly written - awkward and stilted. Plus, it's a Secret society which is an important part of the introduction. We will try to muddle along up to your standards, but please leave the entry alone. If you have suggestions, please vocalize them through this talkback board instead of changing the page again to make it untrue. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:32, 3 April 2006

  1. I haven't added content (though I've removed some). The claim about Shoaf founding the society was in the version that I found here (as you'll see if you look at the Page History; see this diff).
  2. I have no idea what you find difficult about the grammar.
  3. To call a society about which there's a long and detailed entry in an on-line encyclopædia read by millions of people "secret" is surely absurd.
  4. Don't try to take ownership of an article on the basis that you're an expert, and don't try to forbid other editors from editing it.
  5. Please "sign" your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel, removing content can be just as bad as adding, especially when you know nothing about the group. I find your grammar stilted and awkward. I'm sure that's just a style problem, and I understand that it's objective, but your introduction sounds awkward. The society is a secret society because its members identities are secret. This is different than, say, the Masons or Order of the Arrow which are technically "organizations that have secrets". The NoZe is a true secret society in every sense of the definition: "A secret society is an organization that requires its members to conceal certain activities—such as rites of initiation —from outsiders. Members may be required to conceal or deny their membership, and are often sworn to hold the society's secrets by an oath." This is directly from wikipedia itself and you can read more about it here: In fact, the NoZe is even listed on that wikipage as a secret society. Hopefully, that should appease you.

I'm not trying to take ownership of the article, but shouldn't it make sense that someone with at least a little knowledge of the group edit the informational page about them in an encyclopedia? And on that same note, I'll appreciate you allowing other editors to change the page as well without complaint. Thank you. 17:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)BaylorFan

You don't seem to have read very carefully what I said above; you might also read documents such as Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Knowing or not knowing is, to a certain extent, irrelevant, as everything added has to be sourced. Your opinions of style are, as I suspect you meant, subjective; you should, however, remember that this is an encyclopædia, not a student magazione, and the style should be approriate.
As for "secret", I think that the Wikipedia article is flawed (and we don't accept citations to Wikipedia articles, especially when, as with this one, it provides no citations of its own). In any case, the fact that its members' identities are secret is mentioned in the article, so nothing is lost by omitting the (ambiguous at best) adjective. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Mel. You wonderful editing man. There is a big difference between a society - 1.

        1. The totality of social relationships among humans.
        2. A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
        3. The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.
  2. An organization or association of persons engaged in a common profession, activity, or interest: a folklore society; a society of bird watchers.
        1. The rich, privileged, and fashionable social class.
        2. The socially dominant members of a community.
  4. Companionship; company: enjoys the society of friends and family members.
  5. Biology. A colony or community of organisms, usually of the same species: an insect society.

(That's from, but I'm sure you can nail it down in any other dictionary.)

and a secret society - Any of various oath-bound societies devoted to brotherhood (or sisterhood), moral discipline, and mutual assistance. Such societies usually conduct rituals of initiation to instruct new members in the rules of the group (see rite of passage). (That's from the encyclopedia Brittanica. It continues: Please accept these as proof of the need for the word "secret" in front of "society" when it comes to things NoZe. It's not an ambiguous adjective. It is a distinctive characterstic.

Mel, yes their grammer is horrible, and it reflects on the poor grammer that is in their publication (the rope). As for them being a secret society, there is enough proof (and being a current student at Baylor) i will aggree is quite verifiable with one simple call to Baylor's PR department (or articles published by the school's offical news sources). CComputer 20:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. The quotation from the Britannica isn't a definition of "secret society" at all (nothing in it, for example, mentions the "secrecy" part).
  2. An encyclopædia article doesn't use the standard of literacy of its subjects — otherwise there could be no articles at all on pre-literate societies. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Mel, will you please stop editing a wikipedia page that you have no knowledge of?? We understand that you have many "awards" for your "editing" prowess on other wikipedia pages, but your "skills" are not needed here. The fact that you are trying to change information about a subject that you have little to no knowledge about brings back memories of Donny, RIP from the Big Lebowski...clearly you are out of your element. If you honestly don't believe that the NoZe is a secret society, then you need to go back to the drawing board and do a little research before you decide to hack and slash away at any other page that you aren't the originator of. 18:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)concerned conundrum

I wonder if the topic “Ornery brothers” should be in this article since this is merely a list of names of people that the group wants to associate with their name. Some of these people apparently have no idea that their name is being used in connection with this group. Should Wikipedia editors have permission from the living people listed here before they are thrown in with this group? Would not a list of real members or no list at all be more appropriate? 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No. 02:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Secret Society or not?[edit]

The questions of whether the group is a "secret society" or not shouldn't really be an issue. There is ample evidence that they are, and I would hope that the continuous reverts of the word "secret" will stop.

The accepted definition of a secret society is something like this: "An organization, such as a lodge, that requires its members to conceal certain activities, such as its rites of initiation, from outsiders." There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the group meets this definition. I've added a reference that should put this to rest. 14:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears as though the problem hasn't gone away since the page keeps getting edited. Here is the full article from the encyclopedia Brittanica that I linked to. Mel, I'm not sure what you would consider proof of the existence of the term "secret society" other than an encyclopedia, the widespread knowledge of the term, and the long list of groups that fit the bill. I'm also not sure if you read the link in the first place before commenting that it doesn't define "secret society" since that pretty much all it does.

Secret Society -

Any of various oath-bound societies devoted to brotherhood (or sisterhood), moral discipline, and mutual assistance.

Such societies usually conduct rituals of initiation to instruct new members in the rules of the group (see rite of passage). Greek and Roman mystery religions had their secular counterparts in clandestine social clubs, some of which served as platforms for political dissent. In West Africa secret societies such as Poro (for men) and Sande (for women) serve to translate slight advantages of wealth and prestige into political authority. In parts of New Guinea secret men's societies serve as repositories of tribal knowledge. Fraternal orders such as the Freemasons (see Freemasonry) may be considered secret societies, as may criminal groups such as the Mafia and the Chinese Triads and hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.

The NoZe Brotherhood is a group that not only hides its rituals and inner workings, but also its members. They don disguises to hide their identities so that campus figures will not know who they are.

Also, I know we can't be sure that it is Mel who keeps removing the word "secret" from the page, so my apologies if it isn't.

The article explains at (inordinate) length the society's nature, history, activities, and even past members. The degree to which it's a secret society is at best debatable. Rather than labelling it as such, therefore, why not describe the society and let the reader make up her mind as to how secret it is? At the moment, the "secret" (like much of the rest of the article) reads like an attempt at self-aggrandisement by a run-of-the-mill undergraduate club. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It is clear through your numerous snide comments that you don't see the value of this article. That's your opinion. However, it doesn't mean that you somehow have the final word on this article. Every other person editing this article and making comments in this section disagrees with you, yet you continue to try and have the final say on this article. You should stop.
As for the issue of whether it is a secret society or not, I must say that Mel you are very wrong. It doesn't matter whether the article describes so-called "secrets" (when in fact everything presented is already publically proclaimed by the group). Even if the article somehow contained every single "secret" the group had, it would still be a "secret society" because it meets the universally accepted definition as such. If you have a problem with the definition, go work on that page. 19:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. The only people (if the plural is appropriate) editing the article apart frpom me are anonymous, and clearly associated with the club.
  2. The claim that a society is secret even though its existence, membership, activiteies, and history are public, is so peculiar as to be beyond discussion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Mel, once again, you have over stepped your bounds. I have a question for you, how it is possible that anyone knows anything about the Freemasons, Shriners, Illuminati, Knights Templar, etc. even though they are technically secret societies??? I'm not saying that the NoZe Brotherhood is on par with these groups, but you have to accept the notion that it is possible to have a brief history and a somewhat working knowledge/understanding of a group and yet it can still be labeled secret. Its not like there is information on each individual NoZe brother or a detailed minutes account of every meeting or a list of rites or initiation or other traditions that has taken place among these people. Just accept the notion that having some information about a secret society doesn't necessarily make it a student society and no longer a secret society. As stated above, we've given you the definition of secret society, which the NoZe Brotherhood fits the bill, and yet you still continue to think that it doesn't hold and that you have the final say in all that goes in this page. Like i stated before, your awards and titles and awesome editing prowess may be useful on other pages that lack content, basic grammar, or hits, but that doesn't give you the right to try and lay down the law on a page of which you have little to zero knowledge about in the real world. Tenacious tedium
  1. That much (pretty well everything) is known about the group doesn't make it a student society; the fact that it was started and is run by students at a particular university makes it a student society.
  2. There aren't detailed and minute accounts of most non-secret societies — partly because, as here, no-one's much interested. The fact that only one person besides myself knows what I had for breakfast this morning doesn't mean that I lead a secret life.
  3. My point above still hasn't been addressed. Here it is again: "why not describe the society and let the reader make up her mind as to how secret it is?" --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Mel, I'm glad that you feel the need to let the reader make up his or her own mind. However, there is a well-established definition of what a secret society is -- found in several encyclopedias and in the general knowledge of the populous. So why not let the reader make up her mind? Because it's not a point up for debate (despite your best efforts to make it so). The group's membership is secret. The entrance rituals and requirements are secret. As a Baylor student, I can tell you that they keep their identities and inner workings secret as to avoid ramifications from authority figures. I also take offense to your jumping to the conclusion that all editing the piece beside you are affiliated with the group. I am not, but I would like to see some truth on the page.

Let me ask this: is it that you don't believe that such a thing as a "secret society" exists? or do you not understand the definition? There is ample proof on this page of the definition of a secret society and how this particular group fits into that definition. Is the membership a secret? Yes. Are rituals kept secret? Yes. By definition, this group is a secret society. You said earlier that the page contained past members. Where? The honorary members are listed, but they are not members who went through the initiation process and were sworn to the secrecy of rites of passage or personal identity.

Here's an illustration to further answer your question of why not to just describe the group and let the reader make up her mind. Removing the term "secret society" from this page and allowing the reader to gauge whatever level of secrecy the group has would be a misrepresentation of the group (since it is, by definition, a secret society), and would certainly be a discredit to the reader. This would be like taking one of your pages, let's say the page on Jimmy Blanton, and removing the fact that he was a double-bassist. We could simply remove that, describe the man and his music, and let the reader decide which instrument he played. Whether you understand or are ignorant of the term is irrelevant. This group fits the definition of a secret society.

Here's a simple logical proof to show this:

a = b if and only if a has qualities x and y. a has qualities x and y. therefore, a = b.

Noze = secret society if it has the qualities of secret membership and secret rites of passage. Noze has qualities of secret membership and secret rites of passage. therefore, Noze = secret society.

I'm hoping this is all getting through to you and whoever else reads this page. You seem to think that this talkback is all group members anonymously posting in order to further the group's noteriety. How about assuming, for a change, that it might be people aware of the group's existence who want to accurately represent them? Is that so crazy? That people involved in an encyclopedia might want it to be accurate? I believe that I have thoroughly shown proof that this group is a secret society while you have done nothing but erase the page and expressed personal disdain.

Also, just as a side note, groups and organizations are not commonly referred to as "societies". This may be a difference between the United States and Britain, but when referring to a grouping of people who meet regularly for a common interest, the term society would never be used. 'Society' is usually only used when referring to people of the upper class or of a much larger group of people who share a same nationality or country. The term secret society is a specific term which applies for this particular group, but even if you insist on removing the word "secret" for no reason, please do not leave it as "the Noze is a society at Baylor" because that would be false or at least confusing.

I'm sure you'll respond in your regular fashion. 09:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Cole Abaius

Leaving aside the attempts at sarcasm and the pointless patronising tone, the use of the term "society" is not limited in the way that you describe anywhere in the English-speaking world, including the U.S.; a simple Google search is enough to show this (and you might also look at the definition of "society" in the American Heritage Dictionary[1]). The use of the term "society" in the article, in any case, isn't mine.
I've posted this article at RfC, and we can see what other editors think. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you are looking up definitions in the "American Heritage Dictionary," then why dont you check this one out about "Secret Society."[2]. Everything in that definition fits the definition of the group...if you can find something with the definition being at odds with the group, then by all means, bring it up so we can talk about. As far as i'm concerned, the definition is pretty straight forward. The NoZe Brotherhood is an organization which requires its members to conceal certain activities from those of us who aren't involved with them....which is obvious that they do. Not only this, they also go to far measures to conceal their identities and affiliation with the group among those who aren't in the group. Like i said before, look at the Freemasons and Shriners who do the same thing. There are texts written about the groups in great detail about many rites and initiations and identities, yet in the end, 99.9% of people will still consider them a secret society. There is no debate about that, yet for some reason you continue to try and make it so. Perilous Pauper

Thank you, Mel. I appreciate going to other editors. I didn't mean for the tone of my post to be sarcastic or patronising. I was just frustrated at something that seems so obvious and the difficult in showing that to you. Obviously you're an intelligent man and have the best interest of the site and its readers in mind. Sorry for anything which seemed personal. I can assure you it isn't. 07:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Cole Abaius

Mel, I keep noticing your constant revisions to the term "student society" from "secret society." What happened to bringing in new editors to look at this wiki page?? or was that just a ploy to hope people would stop reading this?? I dont know how it is that you don't understand the difference between student society and secret society...they are not exclusive terms, yet for some reason you find them to be so. The others on this board have shown evidence that points that the NoZe is a secret society, yet you have shown nothing to prove the opposite...yet, you still believe that its ok to switch it to a student society. I don't understand your editing and how you would consider it an improvement when in fact you are serving a huge diservice to all those who view this page by not telling the truth. Why not reason (with hard solid evidence, proof, facts, truth) with me, and the rest of the people here, as to why you think it should be one way and not the other. I would love to know and show you how you are wrong. Thanks

I think that it's better not to call it a secret society, so I remove the word "secret; you seem to agree that it's a student society, yet you remove the word "student". Which of our actions do you think is in need of explanation? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, considering that the NoZe Brotherhood is a society/group/organization at Baylor University, you can pretty much assume, with 100% accuracy, that the composition of those of any group at Baylor University is made up of students. Why try and make something redundant?? To prove a point further? what is it that you are trying to do?? 1)You think that its better not to call it a secret society, yet you have shown no proof/evidence to support your claim at all whatsoever. 2) you have edited the page countless number of times, yet there is no basis for your removing of content other than you felt that it doesn't read right and 3) you agree to bring in outside editors, yet when they give feedback the page feedback you dismiss it like it never happens and then go to change what you feel like. i see no reason as to why you are constantly making edits and changes to a page which a) you have no knowledge of, b) you bring no evidence/proof/reason to your edits, and c) not understand definitions in a real encyclopedia/dictionary. Please Mel, what is your reason for wanting to edit this page so much?

RfC responses[edit]

Coming from RfC. As an outside editor with no personal knowledge of the topic, I would say that the Brotherhood obviously qualifies as a "secret society", albeit one with a absurdist bent. I would suggest changing the text to "collegiate secret society", linking it to List of collegiate secret societies. The qualifier "collegiate" helps distinguish it from more ... mature ... secret societies such as the Freemasons. Beyond that, the article would benefit from further elaboration on their current activities -- it says they started because of some guy's nose, and continued as only "slightly irreverent", but gives no indication of whether they still are irreverent, and if so, whether more or less so than in their early years. Powers 12:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. I go along with much of what Powers says. My concern is that "secret society" can refer to anything from societies whose existence is secret, through societies whose existence is known, but whose activities, members, purpose, etc., are secret, to societies about which most things are known with just one or two aspects (membership lists, etc.) secret. It can also refer to societies whose secrets are significant and necesary to those whose secrets are the result of a juvenile need to appear mysterious and important. Rather than label the society with this vague term, it's surely better to describe the society, and let the reader decide for herself whether and in what sense it's secret.
  2. It's clearly a student society, so I'm unsure why one or more anonymous editors keep removing that label. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed it is a student society, but that's hardly sufficient to describe it. The local chapter of Young Republicans is "a student society." Something like Skull and Bones or The NoZe Brotherhood is something more. I think both its status as a campus organization and its secretive elements deserve prominent mention in the first several words. Powers 02:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "student society" isn't suffiicient — that's why the rest of the article exists. What about the argument that I give at 1.? (With reference to the argument offered by the unsigned anon, above, the notion that any group at a university must be assumed to be a student group is peculiar.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the term is so vague to merit its complete exclusion. cf. Skull and Bones, which succinctly identifies the organization as a "secret society" right off the bat. This enhances clarity. The purpose of the lead is to give the most important details first, after all; there's no reason to make the reader draw his own conclusions from the entire article when we have a perfectly acceptable term ready for use in the lead. Powers 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps not its complete exclusion (and your original suggestion is a good one) — just not unqualified in the summary. To introduce a long article that gives extensive details of the history, make-up, and activities (not to mention a list of some of the members) of a society with the claim that it's secret just looks absurd to me. (I feel the same about the Skull and Bones article, incidentally.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
By your logic, then every secret society that claims to be secret and has a history about why it is secret is incidently no longer secret?? By not including this group into the realm of college secret societies, then you also have no regard for the Skull and Bones, IMP Society, Seven Society, Owl Society, and the gamut of those listed and not listed within this List of collegiate secret societies within the Secret Society page...have you been there before? Your voice is obviously the minority within this discussion, yet you demand others to go on to defend the rationale for secrecy (which they have done in full). You have yet to bring forth a single reason for why they should not be secret, except that you have a preconcieved notion about secret societies in general. Your bias against secret societies needs to be removed before you try and edit any more of these types of wiki pages --IronChef

Powers, thank you for your insight into the situation. Its good to see another outside source/editor who agrees with the majority of those who have viewed this page as well as understood the basis for the idea of being a secret society. As for the current activities, some of them were pasted on earlier versions of the page but have since then been removed by Mel because they apparently do not conform to his writing/editing style. Much of what was originally posted was removed without the original authors consent or notice.

  • The only person to come from RfC sggested changing the text; I've changed the text, but my edit was reverted with the edit summary that I should read this discussion. I've read it; I've edited accordingly. Please don't revert again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Mel, do not misrepresent my position. I did indeed suggest changing the text, in an apparently ineffective attempt to satisfy everyone's concerns, but by no means do I support your particular change. Do you have an objection to "collegiate secret society" with a link to the List article? Powers 12:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      I'm afraid that you haven't looked at my edit; I edited the article precisely in line with your suggestion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      You did not. I did see the addition of the link at the end of the second paragraph, but the article is reverted so much that I forgot about it. However, that was not "precisely in line" with my suggestion. My suggestion was intended to remove the need to engage in the revert war over the initial sentence; placing the text at the end of the second paragraph hardly advances that goal. Powers 14:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • it seems clear that Mel has an objection with the word/term secret society, yet has been unwilling to try and define what exactly is a secret society and instead is bent on just changing it because he believes its right, while the majority of those responding are of the opinion that secret society should be used. Like Powers said, if you have an objection to secret society, then what about the idea of redefining the initial sentence to include the term "Collegiate Secret Societies??" This would qualify both sides A) Its still a secret society and B) people will understand its a student society considering its a Collegiate Secret Society. The only qualm i have about this is the fact that the first sentence already states that the group is "a secret society at Baylor University," which means that it already qualified both necessities.--IronChefSakai
      • Mel, it is clear that your issue lies with the accepted definition of "secret society." I am sorry that you disagree with the universally accepted meaning of the term. However, because you are of the opinion that the term is flawed does not mean that it should not be used. It is obvious that you will not be satisfied unless you get your way (witness your insistance that the term not be used, despite you being the only one who feels that way). I would suggest that you stop reverting the edits and let this matter drop. 15:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, the article was taken to RfC, and the one respondent suggested replacing "secret society" with "collegiate secret society", with a link to the relevant list. I've edited the article in line with that compromise, and my edit is still being reverted (along with the removal of the hyperbolic "unique" to describe the writing style of the club's newspaper). All the talk about my being determined to get my own way looks pretty silly in context; I've accepted the compromise, the other side hasn't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • No, you've edited in line with your goal of not having "secret society" placed in the first sentence. Let's see what the one respondent actually said: "I think both its status as a campus organization and its secretive elements deserve prominent mention in the first several words. Powers 02:24, 13 May 2006"
  • As a further note, since you seem to agree that the group can be classified as a "collegiate secret society" you might want to check out the list of these societies in Wikipedia. You will notice that the vast majority make reference to being simply a "secret society" in the opening sentence of the article. While some articles are very brief, others provide detailed histories, and many others have external links to detailed histories or references to books that detail their history. I suppose you should edit each of those pages to remove the word "secret" as well. 13:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


I posted this conflict to the mediation cabal. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-17_The_NoZe_Brotherhood Cjosefy 14:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediator response has been posted at the case. Please look there for further information so that it is all coordinated in the same place. Amalas =^_^= 16:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The introductory sentence has been fixed, so I have closed the mediation case. If you have any further objections or questions, feel free to contact me or create a new case. Amalas =^_^= 19:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It appears that Mel missed the memo on the arbitration case being decided, or has decided not to honor the result. What's the next step? Powers 13:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. There has been no "arbitration". Someone, without having the courtesy to inform me, placed a request at the unofficial, non-binding Mediation Cabal, and an inexperienced editor made a judgement (still without consultation) that seemed to misunderstand what was going on.
  2. I had already edited the article in line with the compromise suggested, and that's the version to which I'm reverting — not my preferred version. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. There has been arbitration. You lost.
  2. You edited the article in line with you own personal bias and goals and your own preferred version. YOU HAVE YET TO STATE YOUR REASONS FOR EDITING ANY OF THIS PAGE!!! You change because you, ONLY YOU, believe it should be a certain way. you have not expressed ANY reasons for changing the article except that YOU feel that YOU are justified in doing so. I do not understand how you claim to be an editor since you cannot obviously put your personal bias aside??? YOU are the only one who is making changes that obviously counters all the evidence and truth that has been brought to the subject (outside opinion in arbitration, encyclopedia references about secret societies, dictionary references about secret societies, comparisons to other secret societies that are very very much like the NoZe Brotherhood). As far as i can tell, you have yet to bring a single piece of evidence showing YOUR, and only YOUR, point of view. Again Mel, please answer our questions as to why you are doing this and where is your proof that it should be this way and only this way???--IronChefSakai
The person who responded to the RfC wants the edit as it was before Mel reverted. The mediator likes the version before Mel reverted it. Mel, you are the only one who keeps insisting on the change. The original respondent to the RfC has flat out stated that you DID NOT edit the article in line with his/her comments. Why do you keep stating that you have done so? Did you not see this: "I think both its status as a campus organization and its secretive elements deserve prominent mention in the first several words. Powers 02:24, 13 May 2006" How is this unclear?

Verification and Copy Editing[edit]

I'd like to bring up the subject of Verification and Copy Editing considering there are two banners at the head of this page that deal with that, yet there has been no recent talk about this subject at all. I don't understand the reason for why these banners are in place. I've seen the initial workings of this page through the history section and understand the initial basis for why the banners were placed up there, but shouldn't it be time to remove them. There are a number of footnotes that link to active webpages in decent to reputable publications (Lariat, Baylor Magazine, Texas Monthly, Dallas Morning News, etc), as well as a well published book "The Nose Brotherhood Knows," that i believe has entered its second edition (I'm not positive about this one). I believe this qualifies as acceptable verification as has been explained in Wikipedia's Verifiability page which states "This policy in a nutshell: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." If there is no contest, then i believe it is time to remove that banner.

As for the second banner concerning copy editing, i believe it is also time to remove this banner. Reading over some of the differences in the talk section, it seems that there are a number of disagreements as to what has and what should be removed or added. As stated in Wiki's How to copy edit the following is stated concerning Etiquette

"If you are taking the trouble to copy-edit a page, please remember that the original author took the trouble to write a new page for Wikipedia and that however good or bad it is, the article is probably a valuable contribution. Your summary note should be concise and polite.
If you are the author of a page that has been copy-edited, please try not to take corrections personally. This can be especially hard with stylistic differences. Copy-editors are usually trying to make the article better, which reflects well on both the original author and the copy-editor.
There are times when caution is advisable. A copyedit should address only technical aspects of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Specialized or controversial topics may require specific wording for accuracy and NPOV. One solution is to solicit a copy-edit from an editor with expertise in the subject. Another good alternative is to post potential copy-edits to the talk page for discussion so the article remains balanced and accurate while the copy-editor avoids the risk of prolonging a content dispute.
Just as some writers are better than others, some copy-editors are better than others. In extreme cases an impartial Wikipedian questions whether English is the editor's first language. If a variety of editors revert your copy-edits to several articles, then odds are that your changes have not been productive. Remember that copy-editing is a specific talent and many intelligent people are better at other things."

Since copy-editing only includes differences in spelling, grammar, punctuation, tone, style, and voice and since "copy-editing comes from organizations that deal with printed media; [whereas] it is loosely applied here," and since there has been little no no major change within the spelling/grammar/punctuation/tone/style/voice of this page within the past couple of months, i saw its time to remove that banner as well.

If you have any objections to the removal of them, please bring your concerns up and we can talk about them before action is taken. If nothing is said, then i will remove them.

I have yet to see anyone talk about the "Verification" and "Copy Editing" tags that are on the main page. If no one disagrees with me or has anything constructive to say about the tags then i plan on removing them within the week.--IronChefSakai

The article includes a great deal of poor writing, ranging from overblown style to inconsistent syntax (for example, the society is sometimes treated as singular, sometimes as plural). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mel Etitis (talkcontribs) .

I do believe that these are only your feelings and not the feelings of anyone else who regularly peruse this site. Aside from the minor syntax issues that you brought up concerning the singular/plural inconsistencies, which I might add have been mostly corrected to my knowledge and the knowledge of other editors, you have not addressed the other issues you brought up. I do not see any evidence of poor writing and overblown style...where are these present?? If they are present, why not bring them up?? If you do not, then I'm only left to assume that these are your personal biases and not the feelings of other editors or other readers who read this page.--IronChefSakai

Well, as it seems that there are no other comments regarding this issue, i'm only to correctly assume that this is a non issue and warrants the removal of the tags.--IronChefSakai

A Pat On the Back[edit]

This article should be nominated for a most improved award. It is not perfect yet but is much improved over where it started last year. It is no longer an embarrassment to the encyclopedia but could be used as an example of what a number of people working together can produce. 02:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Recent Issue of Tone[edit]

Once again, a banner calling into question the tone of the article has popped up without so much as a word on the discussion page. If whoever placed it there would like to speak up and have his or her issues heard, that would acceptable, but for the time being, I'm going to remove it until actual discussion on the tone has taken place. 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)BaylorFan

The article reads like a fan page, rather than an encyclopedia article. I will be removing inappropriate statements within the next few days. New comments go at the bottom. --Chris Griswold () 22:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. Instead of removing inappropriate statements, as defined by you, why not raise specific issues on this talkback to gain a better consensus? I ask this only because I've seen the history of this page, and it is full of edits that took place back and forth between two differing entities. This led to the Cabal.

This is the first that the article has been called into question since then, although a ton of great work was done to take it from it's original, horrid state to the state it's in now. Not to say that more can't be done, but I believe it will be accomplished more smoothly if done out in the open. 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)BaylorFan

I removed the banner that was calling into question the tone of the article due to a lack of reasoning for why it was placed there in the first place. Whomever placed it there did not have sufficient enough reason as to why it should be there, nor did they adequately state as to why it should remain there. As stated before, the article has been relatively free of vandalism and free of any abnormal tone or style issues. Please leave the article as is unless you have something constructive to add...and then do so on the discussion board prior to changing anything. Thanks --IronChefSakai

Rand Paul[edit]

The latest issue of GQ magazine claims that Rand Paul was a member. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  • He hasn't denied that he was. Since it seems to have become an issue in his senate race, it seems it should be mentioned. Some IP appears to be removing it.--Milowenttalkblp-r 12:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The removal is not about him denying it. The removal is about the fact that it's placed in the incorrect section (Officers). A recent string of vandalism to this page has left The Brotherhood to ask me, an exile, to monitor this page for incorrect information. An aside, Rand's membership was clarified this past weekend at ComeHoming - he was voted out of the group shorty before leaving Baylor. While details are unclear, it should be noted that we've rarely removed someone after they become full brothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous user, please review WP:CONFLICT before deciding if it is appropriate for you to edit this article. E.g. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Nealmcb - Your edits are fine because they clarify the issue from before by changing "Officers" to "Members." However, I feel that the article you're referencing should not apply in full here. As the group is a secret society, it only makes sense that members would be the only people that truly have an understanding of what information is factual or not. Leaving it up to nonmembers creates exactly what's at issue with this whole Rand Paul thing - hearsay and slander. The fact that the group is currently being labeled as a secret society for atheists and agnostics is enough to warrant the group wanting an amount of control on the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Killing Herb Reynolds[edit]

The link provided under this "prank" doesn't lead to a current article. In the absence of any context, I am guessing the prank is the claim they killed Herb Reynolds. Pawsplay (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The NoZe Brotherhood. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)