Talk:Commons club

Chronicles
A user from IP address (50.138.230.131) left us a message. Unfortunately, they did not leave a return email, so we had to reply in general to the IP address. We are adding this to the page talk as well in hopes the original poster will see our reply. We have an almost complete set of Chronicles archived at both Wesleyan and Denison in the special collections area of their libraries. We know of a few other sets floating around out there, Lambda Chi Alpha has a large set in their archives in Indianapolis and at one time Phi Mu Delta had an extensive collection too. Phi Mu Delta has undergone several reorganizations, so we don't know who has the set now. A few of the alumni have some sets as well. Due to the rarity and fragile nature (they were not printed on acid-resist paper) of the material, we know of no one willing to loan an actual copy out. Our archives are due to be catalogued at Wesleyan soon and they should be scanning the documents. We are currently scanning our back issues of the Denison Commoner and the American Commoner, neither of which contain any Tufts material except in passing reference. The loose organization of the Commons Club movement did not provide for a good historical record and even today, we have several chapters out there that do not communicate with the national organization or other chapters on a regular basis. Please let us know if you find any new or interesting information. We've been collecting material since the our founding back in 1917 (it was hard to find even then). Recently, our main historian, Ed Voss, passed and left a large collection his father started back in the 1920's (His father was a founder of our Denison chapter). We have transported a large amount of it to Denison where it is archived for preservation, but we still have a storage shed full of material to be processed. You may want to contact Alpha Sigma Phi, the chapter at Tufts eventually became a chapter of the "Old Gal" back in 1946. They are the most likely to have any specific information on the Tufts chapter. We will continue to post updates as we discover them and try to edit the article to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you for your interest. You can contact us directly at commoner@commonsclub.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.218.26 (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2014‎

Content removal
Hi. What justifies removing such a large amount of content which appears to be well referenced? There is a very strong requirement for verifiability, and removing valid information is not helpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The material you keep revert editing back in does not have valid references. It is citations to pages that do not support the claims.

Look something up before you attack, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:4600:A8C0:10DD:440D:5B5:7C7E (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The Wesleyan history section is mostly all nonsense. Commons Club at Wesleyan only goes back to 1899, no further.

I tried cleaning things up and someone named RandomCanadian started a revert edit war. People like this make wikipedia useless.

But all the comments regarding a history older than that are foolishness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:4600:A8C0:10DD:440D:5B5:7C7E (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * See WP:NPA. Regarding the issue at hand, the historical context seems might relevant. After all, any overview of a historical subject requires some basis in the context that allowed it to happen: we can't talk about WW2 without mentioning its causes, including WW1, do we? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WWII. and please stop revert editing everything.

You have no idea what you are doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:4600:A8C0:B4EB:40E5:785D:801E (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup request
This article is tagged with a note that it may have content "out of scope". I agree. To an editor who has more familiarity with this group, please help:

It is unclear how the generic form of "commons clubs", which offer open membership rather than tapping members for a more secret process, is distinct from THIS article, which appears to reference the main line, and surviving branch(es) of the original organization formed at Wesleyan University in Connecticut.

Regardless of the fact of its rebirth in ~1990 by adoption of the Indiana group, if it is a restoration of the original Commons Club, this article should probably have a name change (we call this a 'move') to be called "Commons Club", where 'Club' is capitalized. To put it another way, there is a problem with this article, in that it is both about "tissue" and about "Kleenex" - by labeling it "Commons club" it implies it is generic, and emphasizes this point by immediately discussing the 'open' nature of the movement and all such groups, yet the bulk of the article declares it to be a specific brand of commons clubs, called variously the "Commons Club" or "American Commons Club". --The average reader would find this hard to ferret out. Perhaps moving the article from "Commons club" to Commons Club" and moving the generic bit to an explanatory paragraph further down would be a help. This would frame the continuing branches as the 'owner' of the name, and allow you to discuss how the cousins fit in to the picture.

Generally then, I'd advise that an editor more familiar with the history to more clearly explain the branches from the original Wesleyan foundation, and whether the AACC, the National group, or any other branch called a "Commons Club" is part of THIS group or not. A graphic showing the branches would help.

I put a rough (small) image of the crest in the infobox, and a thumbnail of the pin, but I simply am not 100% certain that these are reflective of THIS branch. I think so. Please correct, if not. Jax MN (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Jax MN: Is there a need for a Commons club article? I can either remove the generic content from this article and change its name to Commons Club OR split into two articles (one generic and one specific). Rublamb (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There may be need for two or even three articles. The first, about the generic, original concept, the next for the National Association, and the third for the American Association.  From my perspective, the most glaring defect for this article is the poor graphic for the crest.  I looked for some time and this is the best I found.  Let me know if you see anything better. Jax MN (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)