Talk:Phi Kappa Phi/Archives/2009/March

Saying "PBK is the most prestigious" is still misleading

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

Should be enough to just review Reliable Sources Lhakthong (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead that you noted is fair the way it is written right now. No need to delete or add anything else. Not worth wasting anyone's time on anything there.Angtitimo (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My problem with the lead is that the sources for the claims are not reliable sources. Citing Phi Beta Kappa chapter cite for a claim about being prestigious is like me citing my own diary on a claim of how great I am. Wikipedia requires third-party sources. WP policy, at least the spirit of it also states that newspapers are not very reliable for claims regarding academic content. Academic prestige, I think, counts for that. --Lhakthong (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if there's anything with the new lead that you think can be improved. We need to find a consensus instead of one editor vetoing without saying how we could meet in the middle somewhere. See this WP consensus procedure diagram for the spirit of how to make improvements. --Lhakthong (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead is fine now. No need to further edit it. I read the references and those on Phi Beta Kappa were from chapter websites (in addition to 3 papers and books). It is like Phi Kappa Phi references listed there, so I do not see the difference at all. This point may not be material anymore since POV words have been deleted. But the Phi Beta Kappa Society, to my knowledge, is still the undisputed leader among honor societies. People still write that they graduated from the University of X Phi Beta Kappa. They would not say that about Phi Kappa Phi or any other honor society because they would not ring a bell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angtitimo (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant conjecture. --Lhakthong (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well,that is your opinion or POV, and perhaps not as irrelevant as Phi Kappa Phi in several colleges. I brought up the discussion because you had expressed discomfort with Phi Beta Kappa above and in the previous debate. What I was trying to say there (I did not have time to elaborate) is that many people understand what Phi Beta Kappa means, and maybe that is where the "most prestigious" comes from, and which is why they affix Phi Beta Kappa to their paragraph-style bios, resumes, etc. Similarly, we understand what Cold War means or agree that the U.S. is a superpower, even if we disagree with its definition, explanation, quantification, etc. I recall my adviser telling me years ago, after receiving an invitation to PBK, PKP and two other societies, that Phi Kappa Phi was "Phi Beta Kappa's mentally challenged little brother." I would not put that in the lead or any part of the article no matter how referenced it may be (others might disagree). But there is nothing wrong in mentioning that out in a discussion like this to illustrate or clarify a point, offer an analogy, drive home a point, etc. There is no malice in saying so, at least for me. That is all I am saying.Angtitimo (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the news articles earlier referenced for PBK, if we were to accept them as authoritative, clearly demonstrate that in fact people no longer do understand what PBK means. Second, the fact that your claims are conjecture is not my POV. Positing an unproven statement, appealed to your own authority, without reasoned argument, is conjecture and is not helpful because it does not help ascertain what is neutral or verifiable. Stories about your adviser are likewise not meaningful for Wikipedia. Maybe your adviser had a personal vendetta against PKP. Your point is interesting for shooting the breeze over a beer, but not for editing this page. That is all I'm saying. --Lhakthong (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in editing the page when I said what my adviser told me and I do not pretend that I know either why he said that Phi Kappa Phi is "Phi Beta Kappa's mentally challenged little brother." It was just to illustrate a point. I would not say the news article on Phi Beta Kappa were authoritative. All I said was that I saw many authoritative university website saying the same thing that were referenced. Finally, it would be Conjecture to say that "in fact people no longer do understand what PBK means" based on the newspapers, because the article you mentioned also clearly says that Phi Beta Kappa still has the highest acceptance rates of all honor societies among college students (i.e., if we were to rely on that article which you are giving an interpretation of).Angtitimo (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It was to illustrate a point that was conjecture. Sounds like we agree on all the rest. --Lhakthong (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion

BEFORE JUMPING IN, please make sure you have read WP policy on Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and on Verifiability --Lhakthong (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

/Archive of Edit War debate of February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhakthong (talk • contribs) 15:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering it was found by three admins that "George sherman3" is a sockpuppet (as of March 3-4,2009), all consensus I came to with Magkantog and "George sherman 34" I am considering null and void, as consensus doesn't exist if the deck is stacked or if it is had with people that don't exist. I am, on those grounds, asking if anyone objects to starting with the LEAD as it was before the edit war began. That way, we can start from scratch and get this hammered out appropriately. See my recommendation below for a neutral and verifiable WP:Lead lead. Please review the procedure outlined in this WP consensus procedure diagram. --Lhakthong (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the Lead paragraph state the following:

The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi (or simply Phi Kappa Phi) is the oldest, most selective all-discipline honor society in the United States.[1] Students invited for membership are considered top students of an entire campus, not instead of from one college of a university or one major in a college. Founded in 1897, it now numbers over one million members and more than 300 chapters. Chapters are found primarily at public universities in the United States, but they also have been established at private universities and in the Philippines and in Puerto Rico.[3] The society's motto is Philosophía Krateítõ Phõtôn, which is translated as "Let the love of learning rule humanity", and its mission is “to recognize and promote academic excellence in all fields of higher education and to engage the community of scholars in service to others.” Lhakthong (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Just leave the Lead as it is right now: factual and concise. Stop editing it because nothing is wrong the way it is written right now. It will look like you have a political motive if you keep touching it. I will repeat this again in another section below. Also, there are older and more selective honor societies for all disciplines (like Alpha Chi and Alpha Kappa Mu).Angtitimo (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Chi was formed in 1922, over 20 years after Phi Kappa Phi and Alpha Kappa Mu even later (1937). Although both invite students in the top 10%, PKP does the same except for juniors, which have to rank in the top 7.5%. I think that qualifies as making them more selective than the two, no? --Lhakthong (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, those %'s are a min. Auburn chapter requirements, for example, are top 5%. I'm wondering if anyone has a third-party sources about the selectivity of honor societies for comparison. --Lhakthong (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have edited the Lead to remove anything about selectivity, etc., which is fine. I just checked and saw and while Phi Kappa Phi might choose the upper 7.5 % of juniors, Alpha Kappa Mu is more selective with graduate students because of the minimum required GPA of 3.7. But now that the POV words have been deleted, I think you need not consider this point anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angtitimo (talk • contribs) 23:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you approve. Just an FYI: it can be considered tacky and suspicious to tell another editor what they should or should not be concerned with, especially when you are saying at the same time that the other editor's edits might look politically motivated. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. I would be careful of using such language in the future. --Lhakthong (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I do not really find anything tacky or suspicious there in the same way that you are free to say that what I wrote is irrelevant. Besides, you made a proposal so it is subject to scrutiny based on another person's opinion, as long as civility is observed.Angtitimo (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Heading Edits to Discussion Page and Archive of Edit War

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

In the past, a user has requested mediation on this issue. The dispute was resolved by a mediator. For more information, see the case page.

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

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

Not really. Many other honor societies are selective, 10% or less, or more selective of undergraduate and graduate members. See Alpha Chi and Alpha Kappa Mu international honor societies. Angtitimo (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Although both invite students in the top 10%, and PKP also requires top 10% for seniors and grad students, PKP requires juniors to rank in the top 7.5%. I think that qualifies as making them more selective than the two, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhakthong (talk • contribs) 00:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have edited the Lead to remove anything about selectivity, etc., which is fine. I just checked and saw and while Phi Kappa Phi might choose the upper 7.5 % of juniors, Alpha Kappa Mu is more selective with graduate students because of the minimum required GPA of 3.7. But now that the POV words have been deleted, I think you need not consider this point anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angtitimo (talk • contribs) 23:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

PKP's general guidelines are 10% of graduate students. If half the campus gets a 3.7 GPA, then the top 50% of the campus is eligible for membership in Alpha Kappa Mu. In the case of Aubrun, the exception to the percentage threshold is only for grad students with a 4.0 GPA. So, I think it's more meaningful to speak of the baseline percentage guidelines used for each organization. --Lhakthong (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

But that does not make Phi Kappa Phi the most selective. You could also have a batch where only 10 people got GPA of 3.7, out of 400 graduates, so the graduate student membership of Alpha Kappa Mu would definitely be less than 10% of the graduating class and more selective than Phi Kappa Phi. With Auburn, a lot of chapters of Alpha Kappa Mu and other all-discipline societies elect less than the threshold of 10% or 15%. It is well understood in academe that 10% or 15% is simply the upper limit.Angtitimo (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well accepted according to whom? You? Sounds like a familiar argument. Conjecture. --Lhakthong (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the example I made above stands on its own. It does not mean that PKP is more selective than another all-discipline honor society just because it has a cut-off of 10% of graduate or undergraduate students. That is Conjecture. Per example I made above, you can have another honor society using a GPA as a threshold, rather than a Percentage like PKP, and they might (or might not) end up being more selective of graduate or undergraduate members. We also do not know the PKP criteria for electing faculty, staff, alumni, etc. so it is possible that Alpha Kappa Mu, Alpha Chi, and all these other all-discipline honor societies may be more (or less) 'selective" than PKP. It is just hard to determine selectivity of membership.Angtitimo (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My point about percentages above was that you were comparing GPA terms to percentage terms. It's not meaningful because it's easy to twist things. This is why I asked if anyone had third-party sources so that we can compare like terms to like terms. Can we agree on that? It is problematic to universalize particular exceptions to the rule, instead of just taking the rules themselves. These examples do just that. I was using percentages as the rule and you're argument against using percentages was conjecture: "It is well understood in academe". --Lhakthong (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is, and was, that it is fine the way the lead is shown or written as of this morning. Saying that PKP is the most selective is not objective because there are different ways of being selective, and these are all verifiable and fair indicators of selectivity. You might say PKP is selective because it chooses the top 10% of students. I might say that Alpha Kappa Mu is the most selective because it chooses graduate students with GPas of 3.7 or higher, it only admits Nobel Prize-winning faculty and director-level staff (examples only, etc.)unlike Phi Kappa Phi. So I would just refrain from making comments in the article or any article about degrees of selectivity. That avoids conjecture. P.S.: If you have any questions to raise, you will have to give me 3 or 4 days to reply, as I am busy with many other things besides PKP. That does not mean I will not read/rebut points made here if needed -- I simply need more time to the tune of 3 or 4 days from the time you write (which is just fair -- I think). Angtitimo (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is verifiability, so if I or anyone else can find third-party sources that use consistent indicators and that come to the conclusion that phi kappa phi is the most selective using those indicators, then I think such can be said so long as the language is crafted in such a way as to not be misleading, e.g. "Such and such Manuel claimed that Phi Kappa Phi is the most selective" or "By the indicators given in such-and-such, PKP is the most selective. This is no different than saying "Us News...ranked x school as "Tier 1"," a claim that seems to be standard on Wikipedia pages for colleges and universities, or "according to data in the US News...such and such school has the highest endowment." --Lhakthong (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

One more point: most college handbooks I see designate a college as "selective" or "more selective", etc. based on percentage of applicants accepted. It seems reasonable to me to likewise think of the selectivity of an honor society based on the percentage of the campus membership field invited.

I will oppose anything that claims Phi Kappa Phi or any society is the most selective because that is a POV, no matter how verifiable, and because there are different measures of selectivity and selectivity criteria (such as 3.7 GPA or 10% of the class). In addition, we really do not know how selective PKP or AKM or AC or any other group is with regards to their faculty, staff, and alumni members who are equally elected members. Let us not play this game where we say all 10 people surveyed say Americans are the most intelligent people on earth because their colleges are really top-notch per this and that reliable academic survey and per this and that opinion of renowned American college administrators. And then you have this people from China who say that top-notch schooling is a fair and very good indicator, but not the only measure of selectivity, intelligence or fitness. They might also say the Chinese are most intelligent because they have higher IQs per IQ reports, authoritative opinions, or whatever back-up they subjectively choose. So now, like GPAs and tier percentages, we will be comparing various measures of selectivity such as IQs, college affiliation, etc. There will be no end to this debate because we will be comparing apples and oranges, each with their respective sets of authoritative supporters. I know what you are trying to get into but it will not work because it will clearly violate the NPOV rule, to wit: "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". ...To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.

Angtitimo (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See, for example here ,here, here, or here just to point to a few. Common understanding of "selectivity" in academia seems to be that of percentages accepted, regardless of criteria used for selection. If such is what is meant by selectivity as commonly understood, and if it can be shown numerically that PKP does, generally as a rule, accept the lowest percentage of students in its membership field (without universalizing exceptions), I don't think this is "some people believe". I think you might be conflating selectivity with prestigiousness. Under the common understanding of selectivity in this context, PKP seems to the the most selective of all-discipline honor societies in the United States:

PKP: 7.5% of second-semester juniors, 10% seniors and grad students.

Alpha Chi: "top 10 percent of an institution's juniors, seniors, and graduate students."

Alpha Kappa Mu: 10% of students (undergrad or grad)

Golden Key: 15% of students (undergrad or grad)--Lhakthong (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not disputing what you wrote above. What you did not write is what I am disputing. For example, you have not proven how selective Phi Kappa Phi or any other honor society is when it comes to choosing its members from the ranks of faculty, non-academic staff, administrators, alumni, and honorary members. You cannot simply say a group is the most selective by praising to the highest heavens the way they choose one or two sets of members (students). You have not also proven why the 10% rule is superior all the time to the 3.7 GPA rule for certain graduate students (for example, in Alpha Kappa Mu) that would maybe justify calling Phi Kappa Phi hte most selective. I am easy to convince. But I am just not convinced at all with your latest reply/argument because it does not answer the questions I have summarized in this particular paragraph. P.S. Someone (or you must have) crossed out one of the points you made so I did not reply to it.Angtitimo (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Faculty, et. al. are exceptions. They cannot be universalized into rules of selectivity. I just took the numbers from the organizational websites, straight from the horses mouth, so to speak. If any of the organizations were more selective, I think they would say such. I'm not answering your other questions because they are not consistent to the common understanding of "selectivity" as cited. If we are at a stalemate, let me know and I'll request a WP:3O (or you can). I'll set up the section below with my take on it and room for you to make yours to make it easy for a newcomer.

Will respond briefly below. Third person may not work, but we can go for arbitration later (a friend opted for this and prevailed in his objection to the notion of most rigorous or strenuous exercise some years back).

Sounds fair. I posted for a WP:3O. --Lhakthong (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you wish to add a sentence or phrase to your changes to the first paragraph, by saying something to the effect that "other all-discipline honor societies have comparable selectivity criteria," or do you wish to send the issue immediately to arbitration, where a panel (not one person) will review the entire issue? Either one is fine with me.Angtitimo (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary of dispute on the claim "most selective"

The claim "most selective" is justified

See, for example here ,here, here, or here just to point to a few regarding the common understanding of selectivity. Common understanding of "selectivity" in academia seems to be that of percentages accepted, regardless of criteria used for selection. If such is what is meant by selectivity as commonly understood, and if it can be shown numerically that PKP does, generally as a rule, accept the lowest percentage of students in its membership field (without universalizing exceptions), then I think it can confidently be stated. Under the common understanding of selectivity in this context, PKP seems to the the most selective of all-discipline honor societies in the United States:

PKP: 7.5% of second-semester juniors, 10% seniors and grad students.

Alpha Chi: "top 10 percent of an institution's juniors, seniors, and graduate students."

Alpha Kappa Mu: 10% of students (undergrad or grad)

Golden Key: 15% of students (undergrad or grad)

--Lhakthong (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The claim "most selective" is not justified

I object to the other editor's claim that Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society is the "most selective" all-discipline honor society for the following reasons:

1. There are many categories of members who are elected to honor societies. Phi Kappa Phi elects the top 10% of undergraduates. So do many other all-discipline societies like Alpha Kappa Mu (http://www.alphakappamu.org/membership.html) and Alpha Chi (http://www.harding.edu/alphachi/) which both elect the top 10% of undergraduates. Phi Kappa Phi cannot therefore claim that it is more selective than those societies when it comes to undergraduate students.

2. Phi Kappa Phi elects the top 10% of graduate students. Other all-discipline societies may use other criteria for graduate students, like a 3.7 GPA in the case of Alpha Kappa Mu (http://www.alphakappamu.org/membership.html). So we cannot say that Phi Kappa Phi is more selective when it comes to graduate students, because other societies use other highly selective criteria like a 3.7 GPA.

3. Membership in all-discipline honor societies is not limited to undergraduate and graduate students. They are also open to college faculty, administrators, non-teaching staff, alumni and honorary members. The selectivity criteria for thse categories are left to the chapters. There are chapters of honor societies that choose only tenured faculty at the rank of full professor and there are chapters of other honor societies that choose faculty based on quality of scholarship. So there is no way to determine whether Phi Kappa Phi is more or less selective than Alpha Kappa Mu, Alpha Chi, Golden Key, National Society of Collegiate Scholars, and other all-discipline societies when it comes to non-student categories of membership, like faculty, staff, administration, alumni and honorary members.

4. Finally, the sources cited above by the editor in defining "selectivity" (based on percentages) pertain to college admissions, not to honor societies. Different all-discipline honor societies have different ways of being "most selective" (some use GPAs, others use top 10%, others require good moral character as well,others require relevant experience, etc.). It should also be noted here that honor societies are not entities of a college or university. They are independent of and totally separate from a university, in the same way that the Boy Scouts of America or the Red Cross exist independently of the university but may have chapters there. So using college admissions criteria to define selectivity among honor societies is not useful or relevant.

In view of the above, the claim of Phi Kappa Phi as being the "most selective" among all-discipline honor societies appears to be false and simply subjective. Angtitimo (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

3PO

You need a reliable 3rd party source which states this. Too much OR involved to make the determination ourselves. If they call themselves this, the article could include "They claim to be the...". NJGW (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Angtitimo, regarding your suggestion just above the summary, I don't think they're comparative "comparable" for reasons expressed above in the summary and given the selectivity explicitly stated by each society's webpage. If you want to add something, be my guest. Does another all-discipline honor society make the same claim? Then we could say "X society also claims the same, with their membership being…" That would be an uncontroversial statement. I think you would either have to find a source that disputes that PKP is the most selective all-discipline honor society and reference that, or find any of the other American all-discipline societies making the same claim (most selective), and reference that. However, starting to do comparative analysis would seem to be WP:OR. If we were to just make a list of the selectivity of all of the honor societies (not doing OR on it), that would make the list just a list of information and a list of information that belongs on a page titled "list of declared selectivity of all-discipline honor societies." Feel free to make that page and reference in the lead, if that will satisfy you. I won't stop you from make a page listing the membership sizes and chapter numbers of all the organizations, either. --Lhakthong (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If we were to add that Golden Key said they are the most selective and that Alpha Kappa Mu is, in point of fact, as selective based on GPAs, then the lead will be too confusing to understand and will not look nice.

So my suggestion is say something like "other all-discipline honor societies have comparable selectivity criteria," to make it short and not elaborate. You can word it to that effect and let me know. If that is not fine, then let us submit to arbitration and let the arbitrators determine comparability and selectivity.Angtitimo (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That claim is WP:OR. If the other societies say such, we can say something like "…; however, other societies also make this claim" (or whatever language we think is not too cumbersome) then ref the websites/paper materials where those societies make those claims. If this is unsatisfactory to you, file for arbitration. Just keep in mind that the arbitrators will not be determining what makes for comparability and selectivity; they are going to be looking for verifiability, neutrality and no original research. --Lhakthong (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, just so you know why, I need more than you just telling me on your own authority that those other societies claim such. You told me here that there were two all-discipline honor societies older than PKP, and it took me 5 minutes to look here, here, here and here to find out that that was not even close to true at all. So, I'm not going to just take your word on it. --Lhakthong (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot also take your word because you incorrectly defined selectivity here ,here, here, or here by using college admissions criteria, not honor society criteria. You cannot use college admissions criteria because honor societies are not entities of a college or university, and are separate from them.

I have no problem with arbitration because everything about grades, GPAs, tiers, etc. are verifiable and can be seen in the websites. Let the arbitrators determine how they should arbitrate but everything they need is there. In fact, I will just use the four points I listed above. I will submit to arbitration by a panel of several individuals tonight unless you want to do the application yourself.Angtitimo (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with my argument regarding the definition of "selectivity" is not the same as stating things that, with a quick check from primary and secondary sources, can be seen to be factually untrue. Make the request for arbitration. --Lhakthong (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC) The fact that you disagree with Phi Kappa Phi's claim does not make the fact that they make such a claim untrue or unverifiable. Or the reporting of it non-neutral. You have yet to show that that claim is disputed by anyone other than you or that any other organization makes the same claim. --Lhakthong (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree but that is your own opinion. Let the arbitrators decide on their own how to arbitrate. I will request it then.Angtitimo (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have today submitted the questioned editing and wording of Phi Kappa Phi for arbitration for your information. You can check highlighted page and respond if you wish.Angtitimo (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like most of them are declining to address the case because it is not in their jurisdiction, so to speak. If you decide to file elsewhere per their recommendations, let me know. --Lhakthong (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, arbitration will not do. I read the suggestions of the arbitrators, which can be grouped into three categories: 1) I could edit the page to put in a sentence like "Some all-discipline honor societies are comparable in size and selectivity criteria" to follow your two sentences; 2) we go for mediation which handles content issues; or 3) seek a neutral source -- which will be difficult to find aince there is no book written comparing honor societies. Any suggestions on 1 or 2?Angtitimo (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me first say that I have no problem adding other sources to balance out the lead. The problem is there doesn't seem to be any source(s) that disputes the claim in question, nor does any other honor society claim to be the most selective, which I think they would did they think such. Furthermore, neither of us have yet to find third-party sources that make any claims in ranking selectivity. That said, "Some all discipline societies are comparable in size and selectivity criteria" might work, if we can do it in a way that is tightly cited and true to the criteria. PKP is by invitation only (they have to be elected by the chapter, and there is no open application process), and invitation seems generally to be based on both character and scholastic rank. Thus,

1) I think we would need to find American all-discipline honor societies that a) are invitation only (as described above), b) require "sound character" (or something likewise), and c) chose from similar scholastic rank. Then I think it is fair to say that they are similar in their selectivity. OR,

2) If we cannot find such cases, we could rework the writing so that we point out similarities in scholastic ranks but also point out, for example, that PKP is also invitation only and has a character requirement. --Lhakthong (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your #1 above, Alpha Kappa Mu requires good moral character as well, in addition to the other selectivity criteria for Phi Kappa Phi, see http://www.alphakappamu.org/membership.html. So we could put in my single sentence and just follow it with a footnote. There may be other all-discipline societies like AKM and PKP, but I did not check anything else the moment I read about the comparability of AKM. I hope this finally works.Angtitimo (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AKM does not explicitly state that it is by invitation only, but considering there is no application to be found I would presume this to be the case. How do you suggest the sentence if written? Alpha Kappa Mu is also an interesting addition considering its association with HBCU's (a point on the Alpha Kappa Mu page). We should write the sentence in a way that signals to the reader that this might be an interesting point to pursue but not get into extensive analysis or prose about it, because AKM it has its own page, where their criteria should be listed, if it isn't already. --Lhakthong (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparing the two, when I find GPA requirements for PKP, they're always higher than AKP. See here and here, for example. AKM lists 3.3 GPA (3.7 grads), and these two PKP chapters list around 3.8 for juniors and 3.5 for seniors (3.7 for grads). here is another one listing 3.5 for undergrads and 4.0 for grads. The more I look into this the less I'm convinced that in general AKM could warrant a note that its criteria rival PKP's. Although it is true that ranking for seniors and grad students is the same, where there is divergence, like the junior ranking (7.5%) or GPA, PKP is always more strict in their criteria, never the other way around as far as I can tell. --Lhakthong (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to just look at the minimum criteria for PKP and AKM, which are comparable really. If you look at each chapter, then there will certainly be divergence because each chapter of any honor society is allowed to raise their eligibility requirements. We will never know, for example, if some chapter of PKP, AC or AKM requires a 4.0 for all its members. Besides, chapters are allowed to change their GPAs anytime as long as they do not go below the floor or minimum criteria. So my suggestion is to add as a fifth sentence the following: "Some all discipline societies are comparable in size and selectivity criteria" (and have a footnote for this).Angtitimo (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The "some" might be too vague. Can we say "PKP claims to be the most selective…. Nonetheless, there are others like Alpha Kappa Mu that have criteria rivaling those of Phi Kappa Phi?" First, though, we need to know that there is more than just AKM that is close (invitation, character, scholarly rank) to PKP. Otherwise, we need to strike the plurality of "others". If we add this, I would also suggest we strike the quoted selectivity criteria in the lead, because the criteria are already stated in the "Membership" section; anyone who's interested in researching the point can compare the two societies (and others) on their own where such details are listed on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

I assume that the rival in size is Golden Key International Honor Society, but I'm not sure the comparison is accurate, as Golden Key is and advertises itself an international honor society (I think "international" is even in its name), while PKP is national (USA) society. The sentence in the lead states this clearly. PKP's chapters outside of the continental US are: one in a US Territory (Puerto Rico -- they carry American passports) and another that was established when the country was still a US colony (Philippines). That is, PKP has never established a chapter in an area that wasn't at the time American, and the only one that is no longer under US jurisdiction is 1 of 300 chapters. The fact that PKP has a chapter in a now not-American land is more an anomaly of historical circumstance than anything. PKP does not seem to be or even advertise itself as an international honor society, whereas GK seems to make that primary to its identity. --Lhakthong (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a warning: I'm likely going to want a third opinion before we put this up, because after all the other disputes on this page regarding comparative claims used in the editors voice (not cited quotes or reports of others' claims), it seems like such things are not appropriate, and I'd want the opinion of a more experienced editor to look it over first. --Lhakthong (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I already put in that one sentence with citation. I think it is just fair to have it to qualify the third and fourth sentences without messing up the purpose of the lead. If you decide to have a third party review it, that is fine. The reviewer can see both our contributions in place and mediate based on what can be read there. Golden Key and Phi Kappa Phi are comparable because over 95% of Golden Key's chapters are still in the U.S., and whatever people wish to call it (Greek-lettered or not, international or not), they are really American organizations. Honor societies are an American invention -- from organization to funding set-up to leadership, etc. With regards to your first paragraph above about deleting selectivity criteria, let me see in this Discussion page how you intend to word it. It might be just fine.Angtitimo (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Angtitmo, not offense in undoing your edits. We can get them back if need be. I thought we were going to hammer this out here first. The way the edits were written read to me like "PKP makes these claims, but they are lying". You also say "some", but you mention one that is more selective and one that is larger (and latter argument is still not convincing). I think it's too bold for the editor's voice. PKP makes those claims, no one seems to dispute them except you, and Wikipedia is not the place to carry out your disagreements with their claims, regardless of how cogent your argument might be. If we want to make mention of the similarities, it should be for the sake of pointing out similarities, not for the sake of taking sides for or against the claims; we need to do it in a tone that is diplomatic and does not read as "the editors disagree with PKP." We have to find other sources that dispute the claims or make the same claims, and that has yet to be done.

Regarding PKP claims to be the nation's largest all-discipline society. Golden Key is an international society as such it is not American in the same way. It is not a national society. Of course any international society would likely be larger than a national one. If PKP made the claim it is the largest one in the world, that would be a different story, but that's not the claim. Do we know how many chapters GK has in the USA alone? or members that are n the USA? That might be more meaningful, if we are even to compare them, which I'm not convinced we should be doing as editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhakthong (talk • contribs) 05:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope you do not also take offense with my recent deletion of the questioned third and fourth sentences about PKP as the largest and most selective. We can refine those sentences along with my fifth one here before installing it in the page. We can discuss all these refinements here.

With regards to international, you just cannot keep using excuses like differences in spelling,use of Greek letter or not, etc. Golden Key and Phi Kappa Phi both have international chapters (see http://www.shepherd.edu/pkpweb/ and http://www.up.edu.ph/upnewsletter.php?issue=50&i=822) and invariably refer to them as such. You can count the number of PKP and GK chapters in their respective websites, and you will see that GK still has more. Besides, the name or title has no substantive bearing. And even removing the 10 or so chapters of Golden Key abroad it is still more numerous in chapters here in America. Alpha Chi, another all discipline society that I forgot to mention, also is comparable in size with PKP (see http://www.harding.edu/alphachi/).

the first PKP link above does not seem to say anything about international chapters, and the second link does not seem to be working. Alpha Chi link says nothing of total membership numbers. --Lhakthong (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the selectivity issue, I do not mind if I am the only one factually contesting PKP (that is the reason I bothered to even get involved). especially because of the following reasons: a. My claim is factual and verifiable given the chapter count/size of AC, GK per their cited website pages; b. The comparable selectivity of AKM is factual per their cited website pages; c. As the arbitrators who signed off in our arbitration section noted, if disputed claims are made about selectivity, we should find a neutral source (defined by them as a comparative study or book about honour societies or expert opinion on honour societies). This would be hard to find as one administrator admitted. In short, it does not matter if PKP has hundreds of chapter or international websites or members claiming that they are the most selective, the largest, etc. They can still be considered as subjective because they were made by Phi Kappa Phi/the questioned organization itself, along with the point that there are existing counterfactuals in GK, AC, AKM, etc. So the best thing to do here I think is to come up with a compromise lead where any potentially biased or inconclusive statement about size and selectivity is well qualified.Angtitimo (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You deleted content that was suggested by 3PO, which was accurately cited, and which I took to be a final word at least insofar as those claims were concerned. We had not yet reached consensus about your additions, I had serious concerns about how they were written. So I undid them. My concern is that your personal disagreement with what Phi Kappa Phi claims on their webpage does not constitute a citable source; the sources you want cite are done in the service of proving your point, which is WP:OR, and you seem to disagree with my take on this. We are obviously getting nowhere with this. So, I am filing for mediation. --Lhakthong (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Good choice -- mediation should be fine especially since an expert 3PO is virtually impossible to find.. I would have gone for mediation earlier but confused it with arbitration. Just let me know ewhen or where to post.Angtitimo (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Go here for the request. If you want to add anything, just place it below what I've written. I would also start with a ":" to indent your addition to make it easier for the reader to see it's a different person. For future references, the process for settling disputes and the corresponding links are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhakthong (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read the summary of the dispute. It perfectly captures my point/s: that factual and verifiable information (no OR needed) exists about other, all-discipline honor societies which contradicts the Phi Kappa Phi's claim about being the largest and most selective all-discipline society. So I have nothing else to add. Thanks.Angtitimo (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Angtitmo, your previous deletions lead to reference error messages on the primary page (see references section of the PKP page). I just spent a couple hours cleaning up all the referencing on the page a couple days ago, so can you please fix these errors? If you need help, you can look here or WP:CS. Thanks. --Lhakthong (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

this might be helpful, too. --Lhakthong (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at it a few minutes ago and seems fine. You probably fixed it already. Thanks.Angtitimo (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

In the past, a user has requested mediation on this issue. The dispute was resolved by a mediator. For more information, see the case page.