Talk:Collegiate secret societies in North America/Archive 3

Verifiability tradeoff
I have read the above stuff, and I came here also to both contribute and learn from this article. I unfortunately agree with the point the guy was trying to make. Zealous editors are too blinded to see what wikipedia really is. To them, it is their path to power, and social climbing. I planned to make some good edits here, but for the sake of the guy from August, as homage to him, I'm going to refrain from contributing until his case is settled. If he and the zealots sat down together, and took away their wikipedia-masks, would you even listen or is this like your myspace where you grow your long-list of contributions. I believe there is something title "instructional creep" or whatever, and that definitely applies here, but too bad the guy wasn't privvy to something I faintly remember reading a time ago. How dare someone with good-faith contributions get their stuff deleted by someone less intelligent, for the worst reasons. Please acknowledge this contributor was correct, and you guys handled him wrong by not giving him enough time. Sentriclecub (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * His case is settled. If you find a reliable source as to the society's notability, then include it.  If you don't, it will be removed.  That's the SOP here on this list and will have to do for the foreseeable future.  Verifiability is the single most important policy Wikipedia has.  You have to prove that your society exists.   Corvus cornix  talk  18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, its a policy vs utility. How do I bring up his stuff in the article history?  What is the date which has most of his content?  I'll try to go to my library (which has a fascinating collection on the topic) and reinsert some of his stuff, if I can find a book supporting it.  Will I have to manually look at every edit that came from his IP address on this page or was there one huge mass-deletion that held all of it?  So I can begin my task. Sentriclecub (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the version just prior to the removal of unsourced societies []. They were added by many different people at many different times.  --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow thanks for the super quick reply!

I'm trying to add to this page, so you better goddamn leave it up. --72.207.210.251 (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Raven Society
There is an open merge suggestion for Raven Society at the University of Virginia with this list. I don't think this is a good idea for several reasons:


 * 1) The Ravens are not a collegiate secret society. While the initiations are semisecret, the membership is quite public.
 * 2) The Ravens have importance and notability outside the scope of UVA as caretakers of the memory of Edgar Allan Poe.

I'm happy to hear arguments in favor but strongly suggest we keep the article as standalone. Tjarrett (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Per dialog on Gimghoul28's talk page, consensus is not to merge Raven Society with this article since the Ravens are a public group. I am accordingly removing the move request from the Raven article. Tjarrett (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Active or Honorary
I've read the article and the talk archives, and I still don't understand what this column means. I think "Active" means there are meetings, while "honorary" is like an honorary degree--you don't have to show up to meetings to be a member. But what is a "class society"? Tjarrett (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

move (non-admin closure, but I think we have agreement). Gimghoul28 (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
List of collegiate secret societies → Collegiate secret societies in North America — Only one secret society on the list outside of North America and article has expanded to more than a list. —Gimghoul28 (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support as nominator. Gimghoul28 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Makes sense to me. Artichoke2020 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Gives the page a more encyclopedic direction. Tjarrett (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - per the above-mentioned reasons. This seems to be more a feature of the North American collegiate system anyway. Justinm1978 (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - per above-mentioned reasons. Soundsgood2me (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Big Ten Societies
I have some sourced information for secret societies pertaining to the "Big Ten" schools. I am going to break down the University of Iowa section, eliminate U of Michigan, and just include them within the Big Ten category.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am also going to take the two Dartmouth red links out of the grid- they have no infomation to offer, not even dates. Those two red links can be replaced back up into the general discussion category of the Dartmouth section. I think no group should be listed within the grid, unless a cited blue link is established for them.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If enough citable info can be developed for the groups- they could be developed into a blue links and added to the grid.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Addressing a message that was sent to me

First, I will clean up any typos and adjust the caps used on notations. As for skull and dagger, they are not a secret society of any Big Ten school, but that source does list societies that I have researched and know are legit, many sources for Big Ten societies may only be available at the university archives, often on microfilm, as is the case with Purdue University, so what is possible for a wiki article is to provide the introduction about these groups and some sort of link that can lead a reader, for themselves, to research first hand more about them.

This also begs the question of what is legit then. When we are talking about secret societies, within the Big Ten schools, legitimacy means that it is, of course, not a hoax, a society that is known to exist. Yet due to the very sub rosa nature of secret societies within these campuses- no one can verify with certainty the actual functioning of the groups and/or specific details surrounding them. This is a different model than on East Coast campus' where societies were glorified, but rituals not revealved- most Yale groups, for example, have visible tombs, posted the names of their inductees within yearbook listings, tapped openly, at least in the beginning, because the societies were generally not frowned upon within the campus, by neither the students or faculty.

Big Ten schools are way different, they are generally illegal, often at times, not allowed to be recognized by official university postings, and are avoided by the administrators like the plague- Big Ten Schools seek comfort with Greek Societies, governed by a large, easily recognizable national body.

So what does one do? To avoid all societies that don't seem as visable as the East Coast ones would be overlooking that there are secret societies attached to Big Ten Schools, and recognized, even if they are not promoted officially by the institutions. They warrent some discussion, yet I can not justify having a whole blue-linked page devoted to them, since no one outside of the group can say a whole lot about them.

Thus, the model I use for discussion is: 1) only talking about them briefly, and only within the "Big Ten Universities" general category. 2) Placing them within the context of Chicago's High School secret societies to establish meaning and their development. 3) Complete rejection of any blue links for them, and I will also go back and remove the Tennyo red link as well- I don't believe that any of them should be developed within "clearly defined" blue links.

I also believe, and will, add a qualifing paragraph, noting that all info about them must be taken "with a grain of salt"., What they were actually about is not frimly known. This is the case for the 3 most noted Big Ten groups that deserve some mentioning of them:

Ma -Wan Da, which has available info sourced within U of I records that I have persoanlly checked, and I can lead viewers to those sources and some general links that have some discussion.

Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent (Purdue University)- info is stored within "The Debris catalogues" on microfilm which I have personally checked. There is a link with some infomation about the group that was written based on what was contained within the micro film of the group, generally very good info. What is missing in the link, but contained on the microfilm, is the discussion of their emblem and member badge, which I will do right now: The emblem is a skull without a jaw, and the front teeth are missing from it. The skull has a star on its forehead, below the skull are two crossed bars or staffs, with each bearing one star on them. In between the space of the staffs at the bottom is the number 324; the badge of the group has a shield depicting a horned owl on top of two crossed keys with 3 stars over its head, this is connected with a chain to another badge that has a skull and crossed bones. The group is also known as bubo and bones, the former means owl- hence the symbol, but there is no info why they have "crescent" in their name- nothing on microfilm can provide any enlightenment on that.

Michigan's Michigamua is also very noted- it evolved into the Order of Angell, but originally they held a version of a tomb within the schools union tower. There is info listed for them within school records that I have checked and some links that I can provide for viewing.

In  short, I will only talk briefly about groups I know to exist, and info that I checked first hand, and can provide liks and where info can be further checked. And that's it- that is the best that anyone can do when it comes to Big Ten secret societies.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeping Things Organized
I just edited down the "Big Ten Schools" section that was excessively long and talked for two paragraphs about high school secret societies in the midwest and at North East prep schools (which for the record do not exist currently at Andover and Exeter). I believe that we should not have general subject lines like "Big Ten Schools" or "Ivy League." If a college or university has a big enough history or current secret society system it should be made under it owns heading. Comments? Cornell1890 (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Position for outlook has been properly presented
Reverting based on personal taste, rather than a desire for well sourced and inclusive material is less attractive, and not beneficial to the goal of an interst in learning about as much as we can about all secret societies. I checked out the facts, for all, personally, from each campus original database, and I am 100% confident, even with controversial groups, in the accuracy of the info that I have contributed to the Big Ten section. I sourced all info by links for wikipedia so viewers have some immediate gratification of where info is coming from, but those that really want a detailed account should take it upon themselves to examine the origial databases as I have. I have confidence in the info contained within the links that I have provided, Purdue's, Illinois, Michigan's, not because that link has that info said in it, but because what is said within those links have complete compatibility with what I researched and have seen first hand. Therefore, there is 100% zero possibility of bogus info included within the Big Ten section.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The above two sections
I think the new Big Ten Schools section is well written and well sourced. I do think it needs to be shortened slightly, maybe a paragraph less. That aside, I just wanted to point out WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:OWN, and WP:3RR to the above two authors. Hope you can work together to keep improving this article. Gimghoul28 (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I will condense a bit, but please insure that no sourced info is removed based on rumor, hearsay, or personal taste. I believe Wikipedia is about creating and sharing as much valid and sourced knowledge as possible, knowledge that may be to peoples' taste or not, but none the less, info that should be available to all.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Ten section completed
The Big Ten section has been shortened, edited and refined. A nice overview has been established. It is time to move on to the other sections that need development too.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi--I did a pass through this section to address ref formatting (bare URL refs generally being frowned upon), and redirected one Ma-Wan-Da ref from the Skull and Dagger homepage (where the society is just mentioned) to the Ma-Wan-Da home page. I will be happy to do this for other sections as well. I wonder whether we should be concerned about the NationMaster ref, since that's apparently an open wiki with no controls. Tjarrett (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Alleged "Skull and Dagger secret society"
I have not been able to find any third-party support for an alleged "Skull and Dagger secret society," purportedly founded at Yale and Harvard in 1812. The actual secret societies at both schools are pretty well documented, and there is no reference to a Skull and Dagger secret society at either school at any time. The carefully constructed website for the alleged "Skull and Dagger secret society" appears to be an elaborate hoax, and should not be used as a "reliable source;" may I request that all references to this website be removed from this article. (I do want to distinguish between an actual honor society named "Skull and Dagger" based at USC of recent vintage, and the alleged secret society allegedly dating back to 1812. The USC honor society appears to be legit.) Soundsgood2me (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What has been accomplished so far, and what to do next next

 * I have tightened the intro, added some missing blue links, checked for grammar and flow- this section is done.
 * I have also tightened the Big Ten section, added some blue links, and checked for grammar, flow and clarity- this section is done.
 * I have removed the tag from the college list at the bottom, grouping is well organized and all blue linked- this section is done.
 * someone else has uniformed all of the notations-that is done.

I think the next thing to do now is to go through each section systematically to bulk them up a bit with sourced info, beginning first Cornell and working our way down to Yale. I think once that is done, we can remove the tag officially from the top of the page and archive all this talk.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Cornell section is complete. Not much more can be said without repeating what is in the blue links for each of their societies already. Added factoid about Coors, both pres and high school secret society member.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Other sections are also now complete and not in need of elaboration, additional blue linking in place. Will just proofread whole article, and then tag at the top of the page can be removed.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Page is complete
Tag has been removed upon completion, and the page just needs to be maintained against vandalism from this point forward. Other secret societies, not listed, can first create cited blue links about their group, and after, they can add their blue link to the list, but their should be no need from this point forward to mess with the written portions- they are well cited, fact checked and very complete. Anything else to be added would just be overkill, or just what is already said in attached blue links. We are good to go, and everybody who contributed to restoring this page deserves a round of applause for creating a great body of valid knowledge and restoring a page that was in need of help for a long time! Thanks to us all!!!Societyfinalclubs (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just ran into this article after checking the recent updates to Cornell University. It looks great! --Xtreambar (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks Good So Far
I like the work that has been done to this page. It looks great. I made some adjustments to keep the language neutral. Keep Wiki NPOV in mind here as it has in the past/will continue to be a place for self promoting. I still disagree with much of what is under "Big Ten Schools" but societyfinalclubs seems very adamant. Maybe consider making the top part its own section? "Preparatory school's relation to collegiate societies?" Give it a thought. We have to remember that this page is for collegiate societies and should continue to focus on that.

Also I have a fair amount of concern about the source link for the "Sacred Order of the Skull and Crescent." This comes from an open wiki format site which cannot be determined to be a legitimate source. Is there any other way to validate its existence? The nationalmaster encyclopedia (anyone even ever heard of that?) seems to make some very far reaching claims with only two sources that do not appear to be very legitimate. Cornell1890 (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The nationalmaster encyclopedia is conected to the CIA- they are a contributing part of the CIA Factbook. They fact check various outlets of info for accuracy, and then, post onto the nationalmaster encyclopedia afterwards- it is very solid- no one can edit it after, it is not like wikipedia. They have people working for them as fact checkers to look into things before they officially post. It's a good sourceFriarguy (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ultimate Refinement
To please my good friend at Cornell, I broke up the Big Ten section just for you. We now have a group about secret society culture in general, that then leads into each collegiate category. Talking a little about high school societies must remain, it had too big of an influence on many students who were entering into the university system, it places things into a broader context- and a again, we always want to retain as much info as possible for passing on knowledge. I also feel that some slack has to also be cut for the Big Ten schools. The East Coast boys have large blue links for each of their societies and additional linking to college campus lists- don't be so greedy, there is plenty glory for you out there. This is the only page that talks about Big Ten societies, and most of them only have their name listed, only three have relatively little elaboration. As for sourcing, I won't waste my time with that, that was already explained abouve, and a mute point.

In short guys, we can spend our whole lives on this page, and it will never be perfect, we can also miss the big picture, which is to put as much info out there rather than take away. Also, this page is being used as a grouping unit- for example North Carloina, in theory, shouldn't really have a large section, but it is needed because it's individual page is being broken down and transferred over. So, this page is as good as it can get, and I think if we do anything more with this we are in the relm of nitpicking and overworking it.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
Does someone know how to archive talk pages? I think we can do that, at this point.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was withdrawn by nominator. Gimghoul28 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Secret Societies at the University of Virginia
User:Gimghoul28 proposed a merger of Secret societies at the University of Virginia into this page. After seeing how this page came together, my intention was to expand the UVA page with a paragraph or more on each of the societies that don't have their own pages (P.U.M.P.K.I.N.s, 21 Society, Purple Shadows, and a few that aren't even listed like T.I.L.K.A.). None of the societies merit a full article but each merits more than a sentence.

If I could perform such an expansion within the UVA section of this article, I would be OK with the merge, but given the way things are structured, I suspect that such a level of detail would be outside the scope of this article and really belongs in its own. So right now I vote:

Oppose, for the reasons given above. Tjarrett (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose,I don't see what is achieved by that, UVA already has blue links on the grid- if there are anymore noteworthy societies there, they can just be developed into cited blued links and added to the grid. Also UVA already has a written section too, and additional cited names could justed be added there as well. There is nothing to gain with the UVA proposal- it is not like NC's Order of Gimghool, that if that individual page is killed off, we loose knowledge of it, and thus, warrents a move over into a written section on this page. I have to stand by my most recent entry. I think the article is done, and it is just time to archive this development talk and start with a fresh talk page that can have talk in accordance with the article as it is now and should cointinue to be preserved- we are now starting to overwork this article- we all came together to get this page right, and I think it is now job well done.Societyfinalclubs (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.