Talk:National Honor Society

broken link
The reference link to the about us page is broken. I don't have time to update the article, but if anyone is interested in NHS, look over the NHS site, and please update everything.

The new site appears to be at http://www.nhs.us/s_nhs/sec.asp?CID=126&DID=5270

Scam?
Shouldn't there be some mention of the speculation that this is a scam? Lenoxus 17:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know what you're talking about? How can this be a scam if they don't take your money?TheKid 00:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, I think you're confused. NHS isn't a scam, the National Honor ROLL, however, is. See National Honor Roll Scam
 * That's the reason I came here, by the way. Does anyone think it should be mentioned that the NHS is easily confused with the NHR? Or ist that too small of a detail?Teh darkcloud 23:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It probably should not be noted since it is not a notable and cited piece of information.  Darthgriz  9  8  00:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, thanks for answering my questions. Indeed, it was the "roll" I was thinking of (I got a letter from them way back when I wrote that comment). And I agree that mentioning the other one would make little more sense than, say, "Janis Joplin the musician should not be confused with the Squaresville-based con artist of the same name."--Lenoxus 01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

4-7-07: Updates to this article have been made using correct information from the national website of NHS and NJHS. Posting the copyrighted image of NHS logo without permission is prohibited.

Recent edits
Recent edits seem to be copied right from any of several locations (click link for one snip of the revision searched on google). I have reverted it to an earlier version that was not a copyright violation. Please do not recopy this again. -- Will Mak  050389  01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

4/8/07 - Edits to this article (on 4/8/07) have been made by the national office of NHS in Reston, Virginia and posted here to give readers accurate information about both NHS and NJHS. Use of the NHS emblem (contained in the earlier versions) on this site is not permitted and should not be reposted. The earlier versions also contain mutiple errors in facts about NHS and have been corrected again as of 4-8-07. To verify the facts and permission of these edits please contact the national office.67.130.47.130 20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem we have is that this article is now a direct copy from the website. I am not going to revert the article, but we need to solve this dispute. If the old revision had errors, you could correct them without copy and pasting the website information. Also, if you believe that the image is not allowed to be used, go to the page of the image and request its deletion. -- Will Mak  050389  21:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A note to the national office of NHS: editing your own articles, may you be a corporation, program, or if the article is a biography of yourself is seen as a potential conflict of interest and is widely discouraged on Wikipedia, even if your actions are well intentioned.  Darth  griz 98 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We weren't aware that posting information from our website constituted a conflict of interest. The only intent was to correct the information posted previously and to remove the NHS emblem, which was posted without permission, not to promote NHS. I will correct the errors in the content that exist in the current article, without copying directly from the website. Please do not repost the NHS emblem.67.130.47.130 18:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedic effort, we will not post your emblem unless it is a free image, but since your organization has specifically requested that we not post it then it won't be. But, please do not turn the article into an advert which is what it reads like now.  Bold print and disclaimers do not belong on encyclopedia articles.  For instance, read Girl Scouts of the USA as an example of an organization's Wikipedia article.  But the changes you have made are going to have to be re-written greatly, but your website can be cited as an in-article source.  But copyright violations,  like the copy paste job done here are very much frowned upon. It also may be best if you just not edit the article or bring up any changes that might be made on the talk page as per WP:COI.  Darth  griz 98 15:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

4/9/07: Thank you for your attention to the edits and corrections. Again, the intent was not to advertise NHS in anyway, but to give readers accurate information about the Honor Societies because what was previously listed was factually incorrect. Thanks again.67.130.47.130 18:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for your organization to be spreading its propaganda. This article was once a lot more informative, but since your intrepid crusade, it seems the article has grown to be completely devoid of substance. I say as Wikipedians we need to boldly resist the efforts of these self-appointed thought police to regulate information.74.67.228.2 03:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nhs logo3G.gif
Image:Nhs logo3G.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section
Something for consideration might be the addition of a controversy section to this page. One in particular that comes to mind is the process for selecting members. I have known qualified people who were not accepted even after they filled out all necessary paperwork and met the requirements because the review panel did not accept them. There has to be other examples of controversies as well. We just need to make sure this section would conform to WP:NPOV and be sourced.Bradkoch2007 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
The controversy over selection is good, however there is criticism to just the idea of this sort of "recognition" organization. Some would say that it breeds elitism/egotism, people only join to use it as a merit for college applications, and that its community service requirements serve no purpose except to fabricate the idea that NHS actually serves a legitimate purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.120.128 (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't get in, did you? ;-) Krakatoa  Katie  16:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Most school chapters around the US have the same selection process, however, certain areas only use the application as a means of judging candidates for membership. There is a large void for "exaggeration" on these applications and there is nothing besides the application and the council's biased or non-biased opinions to shape the decision of whether a member is accepted. Hypothetically, one teacher out of a council of five might be the only one that knows a student, may have an unfounded bias against them, and influence the rest of the unbiased council's opinion. Most volunteer hours are not even looked into for questioning as long as a signature is provided.

Controversy
Should the controversy section be removed completely perhaps? I don't know if one incident from one high school over 20 years ago is a fair example. The information is arguably outdated.71.34.11.176 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I deleted the section after following the reference and realizing that nothing was provided that mentioned NHS. If someone could find a source that shows that this incident was NHS related AND was relevant to the organization as a whole, rather than being an isolated incident at a single chapter, then it could be included. Lord Manwe (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary source tagging
As far as references go, this article is entirely reliant on primary sources. In fact, most of this is taken from the NHS About Us page, sometimes even word-for-word. I don't know of any secondary sources that might be applicable to this, so I'm going to leave it tagged for now unless there are any objections. RAN1 (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio
This entire article seems to be copyvio, linking to Copyright problems/2013 June 7 for reference. --RAN1 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the reference to Maranatha High School appropriate?
Is the following text appropriate for this article? "over 50 of them coming from Maranatha High School" To me, it looks like vandalism. The text was added on 2015 February 2. Mecanoge (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Confusion with other honor societies
As a member of the "Golden Key National Honor Society" myself (which I became while attending an American university), I initially thought this Wikipedia article was wrong when stating it is for Highschool. It took a while before I realized that the "Golden Key National Honor Society" is not the same as the "National Honor Society". In addition, there is also the "Golden Key International Honour Society" (notice the word "International" as well as the British English spelling of "Honour"). I may have only scratched the surface here. Are there other such societies with almost identical names? Regardless, it may possibly be a good idea to somehow state in the article something like, "not to be confuse with [society X or society Y]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:3B8:1001:AAAA:D0C8:32F7:670C:29B5 (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)