Talk:Phi Kappa Phi/Debate on Prestige of Phi Beta Kappa from the entrance of Magkantog and sockpuppet "George sherman 34" until the finding of the latter as such.

Discussion regarding claims to prestige
REPLY by Magkantog: Hi. After reading your comment (immediately preceeding paragraph above), I restored the note that another user wrote about Phi Beta Kappa being the "oldest," "most exclusive," and "most prestigious" honor society in the U.S. That statement about Phi Beta Kappa is accurate to this present day, despite the fact that it is no longer as famous as it was until the 1970s. I therefore restored the statement of that user, for the following reasons:

1) Authoritative books like Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (all editions) cite Phi Beta Kappa as the most prestigious honor society and, in fact, the mother of all honor societies, thus validating what we read in all Phi Beta Kappa chapter websites in the Internet as well as the wikipedia entry for Phi Beta Kappa as the most prestigious and exclusive honor society in college. Ask any college professor which one is more respected, Phi Beta Kappa or Phi Kappa Phi and they will respond in favor of the former -- I know that because I am a college professor, too.

2) Several objective articles in the leading newspapers and magazines that I cited in that Phi Kappa Phi wikipedia footnote agree that Phi Beta Kappa has invited several members who have declined their invitations, but also agree that Phi Beta Kappa is still the "most prestigious" and "most exclusive" honor society in college campuses even to this day. See, for example, the New York Times very objective article, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E6D91139F935A15756C0A960958260, and the Washington Post own well-written article, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-185803.html.

3) Another good indicator of the prestige of Phi Beta Kappa is the fact that it has no (and never had any) inactive chapters and it has chapters in all the top schools. In contrast, Phi Kappa Phi has several inactive chapters and has no chapters in any Ivy League school, or other top schools like MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Chicago, etc.

4) If you still think that, despite all these references I cited above, the "most prestigious," is a biased characterization, then it is even more biased to claim in the Phi Kappa Phi wikipedia entry that Phi Kappa Phi membership "is considered one of the highest and most prestigious academic honors for graduates of public colleges and universities." By whose account? I do not see any Washington Post or New York Times or Chronicle of Higher Education write-up or any book, etc. claiming that quote, which, by the way, is not authoritatively referenced. Magkantog (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)173.15.144.102 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong: Read the qualifiers: 1) PKP is the most selective (not most prestigious) "all-discipline" honor society. Since wen did PBK start inducting people from colleges of engineering? 2) "one of" the most prestigious honors at "public universities and colleges". If you ask someone at a liberal arts college which is more prestigious, I think it would be fair to say that PBK would be the one. It's "one of" because PBK, PKP and a multitude of discipline-specific honor societies are prestigious honors. If you ask someone at a State flagship University (like the University of Maine of the University of Illinois at Campaign), the question seems absurd because PKP would include the entire university while PBK would exclude the majority of the campus from membership solely on the grounds of their major. In such cases the two organizations seem incomparable because their membership boundaries are different. This would likely explain why I often see professors with *both* PBK and PKP listed on the CVs in addition to a discipline-specific honor society (e.g. Sigma Pi Sigma). And whoever wrote that PKP imitated PBK doesn't understand the difference between the two given the historical context of each organization's founding. Land grant and public universities had (and still have) very different educational aims than those of tradition liberal arts colleges and of pre-revolution universities. Land grant and public universities largely have been established in the service of greater accessibility for all citizens and geared towards educating for the public good, thus why tuition is subsidized by the taxpayers (as opposed to being a private good reserved for the social elite who could afford it). In addition, land grant and public universities acknowledged the importance of practical as well as liberal education. This practical dimension is reflected in the PKP seal, which includes symbolism reflecting the technological aspect of ancient Greek culture. This, of course, is not meant to exclude liberal learning, the importance of which is indicated in the PKP motto: "let the love of learning rule humanity." As far as appealing to one's authority as a professor, so am I, and I think it's fair to say both organizations are equally prestigious but that generally they are as comparable as that of a community college honor society or a discipline-specific honor society to either PKP or PBK. If one want to ask whether PBK or PKP is more prestigious, one has to argue that there is some epistemological prestige exclusively assigned to either a liberal arts education that excludes the practical or to an education that includes both practical and liberal dimensions. That is a philosophical argument (and an absurd one if you ask me - what form of knowledge is more "prestigious"?), not one that can be measured by a straw pole of faculty colleagues or by newspaper articles. I'd also like to know what other all-discipline honor society claims to be close to competing with PKP over prestige.

Magkantog:

1) You forgot to mention the second paragraph of the New York Times article you just quoted. Here is the link again,http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E6D91139F935A15756C0A960958260. That second paragraph clearly states that Phi Beta Kappa is "the nation's most prestigious honor society" (i.e., regardless of disciplinary focus). It also says that, regardless of discipline or disciplinary focus, Phi Beta Kappa has the highest acceptance rate of any college honor society. Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post article ever said that Phi Beta Kappa is the most prestigious honor society only insofar as the arts and sciences are concerned.

2) I am not sure why you keep referring to liberal arts colleges and programs. There are all these top universities like MIT, Caltech, University of Chicago, University of Virginia (an example of a state flagship university), etc. that are not liberal arts universities, that are not land-grant or pre-revolutionary universities, but have Phi Beta Kappa chapters, and do not have Phi Kappa Phi chapters even if Phi Kappa Phi purports to be an "all-discipline" society. The point is that these top universities, including all the Ivy League schools, do not care if they do not have an all-discipline honor society, as long as they have Phi Beta Kappa for the liberal arts and sciences, and discipline-specific honor societies for their professional programs, such as Beta Gamma Sigma in business, Tau Beta Pi in engineering, etc.

3) There are other, all-discipline honor societies that, to borrow your own words, "claims to be close to (or have an edge in) competing with PKP over prestige." There is the Golden Key International Honour Society, for example, that is larger than Phi Kappa Phi, with more active U.S. and foreign chapters, and a highly visible and regarded literacy program. Besides, I have not seen or read anything that says Phi Kappa Phi is the preeminent all-discipline honor society.

4) It is incorrect to say that Phi Beta Kappa elects only undergraduate students. Several chapters like the University of Vermont (http://www.uvm.edu/~phibeta/graduate.html), for example, also elect graduate students.

5) I know for a fact that Phi Kappa Phi has tried to establish chapters in some Ivy League schools and other top universities but without success. Many of these universities and their faculty treat Phi Kappa Phi as being no different from other discipline-specific honor societies. I am with the Cornell faculty. And even with "land-grant" or "publicly supported" academic programs/schools at Cornell, we did not think there was need to keep Phi Kappa Phi, since these programs already have their own specific honor societies, and the existence of a Phi Beta Kappa chapter on the Cornell campus is sufficient to indicate the university's standing among universities and colleges in the U.S. insofar as college honor societies are concerned.

6) It is fair and reasonable to compare Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Kappa Phi because both also choose their undergraduate/graduate memberships from the liberal arts and sciences, and in most universities the bulk of undergraduates major in arts and sciences disciplines.

7) Finally, if indeed Phi Kappa Phi has a different mission and should not be compared to Phi Beta Kappa, then I wonder why Phi Beta Kappa has been adjudged as the most prestigious of all honor societies by the New York Times, Washington Post, Baird's Manual, etc. More importantly, if Phi Kappa Phi does serve all disciplines/fields of study, I wonder why top schools like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Pennsylvania, Berkeley, etc. all have Phi Beta Kappa chapters for their arts and sciences majors, but never ever bothered to apply for Phi Kappa Phi chapters for their non-liberal arts students.  Magkantog (talk)

The preceeding discussion is about Phi Kappa Phi just like all the rest of the discussions on this page. No one ever said to move this discussion to Phi Beta Kappa's page until today. We are trying to stop Phi Kappa Phi from using deception by pointing out these 7 items above. Please do not delete ANY of these comments from this page.Magkantog (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

George Sherman 34: I AGREE WITH USER MAGKANTOG. THESE POINTS SHOULD BE RAISED HERE, NOT IN THE PHI BETA KAPPA DISCUSSION PAGE, BECAUSE THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER WHAT PHI KAPPA PHI IS CLAIMING ("IT IS ONE OF THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS HONORS") IS FAIR AND ACCURATE.

I am familiar with both honor societies since we have them both on campus (University of Wisconsin). I agree that they can be compared since they both choose undergraduate and graduate members from the arts and sciences, and are both concerned with recognizing academic excellence. However, as a member of the faculty, we do not doubt that Phi Beta Kappa has a much higher standing and greater renown than Phi Kappa Phi because of its history, prominent alumni, and presence in the top schools in the country, as cited in the discussion above. Phi Kappa Phi has given more in scholarships and other grants but is not as well known as Phi Beta Kappa. We should keep the Phi Kappa Phi page the way it is now since everything there about the two societies are well documented and objectively written.George sherman 34 (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

LhakthongFirst, The New York Times and The Washington Post are not arbiters of academic prestige. By what criteria did the NYT use to make this claim? Unless the New York Times and Washington Post are in the business of making authoritative claims on cultural prestige, then their claims are irrelevant. It’s bad enough we have US News running about claiming what universities are “best”, let alone the NYT making claims on academic prestige. I think its fair to say something is “one of the most prestigious” honor societies as much as to say that a university is “one of the most prestigious”. However, once one inserts the definite article, things get tricky. Anyone want to make a claim as to what university or college is *the* most prestigious in the United States? We could all come up with a list of 10, maybe, that compete, or maybe even just two or three, but who has the authority to grant the blue ribbon? The New York Times? The Washington Post? U.S News and World Report? Public opinion? Nation-wide faculty? The fact that the NYT said “the most prestigious of all” is about as meaningful to me as someone saying that apples are the best fruit of all. It’s like saying the engineering honor society is more prestigious than the law honor society. Sure, getting on the NYT Best 100 Books of the Year list is nice and is an honor, but it is not an objective judgment on the merits of any of the books on the list. I would say the NYT article is an honor for PBK, not an authoritative statement on the matter.

Second, I continually refer to liberal arts colleges, because the liberal arts (and sciences) are housed in colleges of liberal arts (and sciences), generally speaking, whether they are part of a University of they stand alone as an independent institution. Sure, larger universities have PBK, but such chapters are housed in (practically speaking their entire membership resides in) that university's college of liberal arts, not, for example, in the College of Education of the College of Agriculture. Liberal arts colleges are colleges those that, generally speaking, have only majors in liberal arts and sciences. The designation itself “liberal arts and sciences” is furthermore most commonly referred to undergraduate units, whether part of a larger university of not. Liberal arts colleges (whether "stand alone" or part of a university) are established for liberal learning – learning detached from the contingent needs and wants of economic necessity. Philosophically, they are not for job training, including the grooming of academic researchers, nor for practical science. So, is PBK inviting people from medical schools and law schools and engineering schools?

Regarding graduate membership in PBK, does one PBK chapter’s decision to allow graduate memberships over 200 years after the founding of PBK make the society as a whole an honor society for graduate students? History guides the culture and aims of an institution in ways broader than a change in by-laws 200 years later at one chapter.

So, ultimately, I stand my ground that these societies are different enough to render comparison fairly meaningless. PBK is for liberal arts and sciences. PKP is for all disciplines. The day PBK opens their doors to all disciplines we can start comparing the two.

Finally, the claim that “these institutions do not care if they do not have an all-discipline honor society” is conjecture. If it's true I think such an attitude is a highly problematic. In an age of ever-finer specialization and meaning-less information production, I find it unfortunate that universities are content with specialized honor societies. Such decisions make them complicit in the further fragmentation of the University. Also, the fact that Cornell University gave up its PKP chapter is unfortunate to me, because I know of discipline-specific honor societies that are not nearly as selective as PKP. In fact, I declined my discipline-specific honor society for this reason. So, dropping PKP from Cornell U. could very well have been detrimental to some of your students. Discipline specific honor societies are not always as or more selective than PKP, and so the fact that Cornell University decided to de-charter PKP says little of the prestige of PKP. You say that “we did not think there was need to keep Phi Kappa Phi, since these programs already have their own specific honor societies”, but by that logic, you wouldn’t need a PBK, either, because the majors that are contained within PBK (physics, psychology, history, etc.) have their own discipline-specific honor societies as well. You might say then that PBK is more selective than any honor society of a discipline from which it draws its membership. Fine, but not all extra-liberal arts/sciences honor societies are as selective as PKP. So I think Cornell decision was unwise, not an indication of PKP's merits. Regarding your point 6), the claim that most students at a university are in the liberal arts and sciences, what do you say to the fact that the University of Illinois in Campaign has 16 colleges, and only 14,000 of 42,000 students are in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences?

So, in sum: 1) I question anyone’s authority on claiming “the most prestigious”,  2) As far as I know PBK excludes those students outside of the liberal arts and sciences (including the practical sciences like engineering). Furthermore, PBK is not generally speaking an honor society for graduate students. A change in by-laws at one chapter 200 years later is an anomaly, not a rule. So, anyone claiming an honor society with one set of membership boundaries is more prestigious than another honor society with significant differences in membership boundaries is as meaningful as claiming that apples are better tasting than oranges, and the same goes for claiming one to be “the most prestigious”, and 3) The examples you provide regarding Ivy League institutions do nothing to mitigate the concerns regarding the above two points.

And, for what it's worth, my spouse graduated summa cum laude and PBK from an elite liberal arts college on the East Coast, is current President of an approximately 100-year old chapter of PBK on campus, and is in complete agreement with me on all of this. 173.21.20.187 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that whomever keeps editing the descriptors of PBK on this page is more concerned about advertising PBK than of creating a fair and accurate depiction of PKP, and I will keep editing the prose so that it is less a PBK ad and more an encyclopedia entry. Claiming that PBK is the most prestigious of all honor societies, even if true, is irrelevant to subject of the article. I've published (paper) encyclopedia entries, and this is a pretty uncontroversial point. If people want make claims about PBK being the most prestigious organization, they should do it on the PBK page, and fight the battle over thee regarding whether the NYT, WP or other sources are legitimate ones to cite for such a claim. As far as I'm concerned, journalists are not authorities on academic culture. I tend to think that they are in the business of reporting events, not passing judgment on culture (except in editorial or review, which are, by their very nature, not meant to be an objective measure or statement by any means). The NYT is a good source to cite if we need to report statistics or report the outcome of a survey or report an event. For example, if the NYT was actually reporting on a survey that said most faculty considered PBK to be the most prestigious of all honor societies, *then* it would make sense to make that claim and cite the NYT. But the way such a claim appears in the NYT does not make it a viable source for such a claim. But, let's keep that discussion on sources in places where it's relevant: in this case on the PBK page, where such claims are relevent. 173.21.20.187 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the PBK wikipedia page says "The Phi Beta Kappa Society is an academic honor society with the mission of 'fostering and recognizing excellence' in the undergraduate liberal arts and sciences". That's right, *undergraduate*. So take your fight up there. The Wikipedia page claim is consistent with the statement on Cornell College's webpage. They say that PBK is "the nation's oldest and most prestigious undergraduate honors organization" (http://orgs.cornellcollege.edu/phi_beta_kappa/index.shtml). So, again, one chapter's (U of VT) decision to accept graduate students is an exception, not a rule. 173.21.20.187 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Magkantog:Your edits on the Phi Kappa Phi article is actually the one that appears to advertise PKP as "one of the most prestigious," "largest," etc. The point is that no one, except you, claims that Phi Kappa Phi is "one of the most prestigious" honor societies. And that is not acceptable. You also know that Phi Kappa Phi is not the largest, all-discipline honor society. It is Golden Key International Honour Society with more chapters in the U.S. and internationally.

Just because you think it is fair to say so does not mean there is consensus that PKP is "one of the most prestigious." It is like saying, without any documentation, that apples are one of the juiciest fruits in the world. In the case of Phi Beta Kappa, there is consensus already regardless of whether or not you agree. You may not agree about New York Times, Baird's Manual, Washington Post, our decision to dissolve Phi Kappa Phi at Cornell, the University of Wisconsin, etc. But there is preponderance of documentation which is not present in the Phi Kappa Phi case. You cannot also just refer to research universities like MIT, Caltech, Chicago and other schools as liberal arts colleges, simply because that is where the PBK chapters are housed. There is consensus as to what constitutes a liberal arts college. And Wikipedia editors, when it comes to non-quantifiable issues, have to rely on consensus. So you may not agree with the Wikipedia definition of a liberal arts college, and claim that the editors are not qualified to render judgment on that matter, but the point is that there is ccnsensus about what a liberal arts college is and is not, and that consensus is documented.

The issue about the graduate students is not whether Phi Beta Kappa is primarily undergraduate or not. That was never denied anywhere. The issue is that you keep denying (and deleting) the fact that Phi Beta Kappa also elects graduate students. And it is not just Vermont. Vermont, as clearly pointed out there, is just one example. Several other colleges like Western Michigan University (http://www.wmich.edu/~pbk/stipulations.htm)elect graduate students for various reasons. By the same token, simply because PKP elects graduate students does not mean that it is an honor society for graduate students as well. The vast majority of elected student members of PKP are still undergraduates.

The examples I cited about the Ivy League schools, and other top, non-Ivy schools like Northwestern, Chicago, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Berkeley, Notre Dame, etc. were intended to belie the claim that membership in Phi Kappa Phi is "one of the most prestigious" undergraduate honors. Because if it is, these top schools would have or would have applied for Phi Kappa Phi chapters. But none of the top 20 or 25 in college rankings ever did (you just cannot claim that no one except you can be the authority on who should rank). And even in land-grant schools (of which Cornell is a part of), Phi Kappa Phi was never viewed as one of the highest honors that is why it was dissolved. In fact, your point about Phi Beta Kappa existing in the top schools, even if other arts and sciences honor societies co-exist, only reinforces the documented prestige of Phi Beta Kappa.

Finally, you cannot deny that Phi Kappa Phi and Phi Beta Kappa both elect undergraduate arts and sciences majors, and in many universities the vast majority of Phi Kappa Phi inductees are arts and sciences majors. So these two societies can be compared regardless of whether or not Phi Kappa Phi chooses to add a few more fields to their population to make it look a bit different from Phi Kappa Phi. And that is one of the points made in the New York Times artices -- that despite the preponderance of Phi Beta Kappa imitators, and the declining acceptance rates, Phi Beta Kappa still has greater prestige and the highest acceptance rate of any college honor society. Magkantog (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong: Your first point is wrong in claiming that I alone consider PKP to be such. I gave two citations from university websites that I though gave credence to the claim, one from the Office of the Dean of Students at the University of AK and the other from a news release put out by Mercer University. The former claims PKP to be one of the most respected and the latter one of the most prestigious. At least do us all a favor and argue the inadequacy of those sources before deleting a new passage. Might I ask why you are not concerned that the claim that PBK is "the oldest and considered to be the most prestigious honor society in the United States" is uncited, even though there is a "preponderance of evidence" to support such a claim, but you have problem with a claim that PKP is considered one of the oldest and most prestigious honor societies even though there are two citations from two separate university websites, one of them being the Office of the Dean of Students at U of AK (which I would take to be a more reputable source on such matters than a newspaper)?

Second, I am still uncertain what is be gained by the reader from your edits to the introductory paragraph. When I inserted the narrative regarding PBK in the history section of this article, it was to help the reader understand the historical context and impetus for founding PKP, and I have tried to be fair and even-handed to PBK in writing that section. What does your addition do other than aim to intentionally bias the reader against the organization? How does comparing it so help the reader understand in a concise way the who/what/why of the organization? If such statements are to be made as you make there, I would suggest they are placed in a section of the page labeled "criticisms". Or perhaps we should establish a section labeled "comparison to other organizations". However, I think this last suggestion would best be a page on its own, or there should be a page of "American Honor Societies" created that explores the differences between the organizations. Regardless, the introductory paragraph of this page is not the appropriate place for such claims.

Third, regarding Golden Key, I can only find membership numbers that claim for both to be over a million. So for now, I think it's fair to leave the claim "the largest" out of the descriptor.

Fourth, there is a major distinction to be made between using "the most" in a claim and "one of the most". The former requires much more support. Furthermore, it is different to claim "considered to be" and "is". I think that the PBK page claims that it is "considered to be" the most prestigious honor society is a fair claim, should editors find a citation (or several) pointing to those who consider it such. It is quite another to say with authority that it is, tout court (especially without authoritative documentation), the most prestigious honor society.

Fifth, on a point of clarity that I'm not sure is entirely germane to the primary dispute, I am not referring to large research universities like MIT et. al. as liberal arts colleges. Nowhere do I say that. Having earned a graduate degree from an Ivy League university, I know that much about them. My point is that PBK membership, being limited to students of liberal arts and sciences, means that, in the case of UIUC for example, PBK excludes two-thirds of the campus population from membership, contrary to what you claimed: that liberal arts and sciences make up the majority of students at large universities. In fact, at UIUC, students in The College of the Liberal Arts and Sciences make up only half of the entire undergraduate population. PBK is insufficient as a campus-wide honor society in such cases. I don't think PBK wants to be an all-campus honor society except on stand-alone liberal arts colleges. It wouldn't make any sense unless it were to expand the scope of its membership. But this point should be laid to rest as I don't think it has much bearing on the original problematic claim: that PKP is considered one of the most prestigious/respected honor societies in the United States.

Unless you can cogently argue that the sources I presented for the most recent edits are insufficient (which will be hard considering you claimed that the NYT and Washington post were sufficient for such claims), the edits I most recently added (and will now add again) should stay. Unless you can cogently argue how the claim that "Phi Kappa Phi was founded after Phi Beta Kappa, the oldest and most prestigious of all honor societies,[1] [2] leading one historian to note that the former's existence was Phi Beta Kappa's "highest form of flattery."[3] Although the influence of Phi Beta Kappa on Phi Kappa Phi is clear, the two are distinctly different in their disciplinary boundaries and thus in their organizational and intellectual aims: Phi Beta Kappa selects undergraduate and graduate students[4] from the arts and sciences, whereas Phi Kappa Phi selects undergraduate and graduate students and from across all disciplines (see below for more)" is necessary for the reader to grasp the generalities of the organization, it should go. As far as I'm concerned, such comparison between PBK and PKP is superfluous to the subject, especially in an introductory paragraph in an encyclopedia entry. Tell me how it is necessary, substantive, and why, if we are going to make such comparisons, we don't just start comparing PKP to all honor societies? Why just bring up PBK? 173.21.20.187 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel confident claiming that PKP is one of the oldest honor societies given the information on the Association of College Honor Societies (ACHS) webpage which states the following dates for the establishment of honor societies in the United States:

Tau Beta Pi, 1885

Sigma Xi at Cornell, 1886

Phi Kappa Phi at Maine, 1897

Phi Beta Kappa, founded in 1776 as a social and literary fraternity at William and Mary, officially became an honor society in arts and sciences in 1898

According to an address given at ACHS in 1966 by Dr. Robert W. Bishop, national president of ODK, "The honor society movement really began in 1885 at Lehigh University with the establishment of Tau Beta Pi, in engineering. In rapid succession other honor societies came into being: Sigma Xi, in scientific research at Cornell, in 1886; Phi Kappa Phi, in all academic fields of University scope at the University of Maine, in 1897; Phi Beta Kappa, founded in 1776 at the College of William and Mary, as a social and literary fraternity, officially became an honor society in the arts and sciences in 1898, as the result of rapid expansion of education into new fields." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.20.187 (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See: http://www.achsnatl.org/warren2.asp

Oddly enough, it seems from this that an argument could be made that although PBK has been around longer as an organization, it organized specifically as an  honor society  as it is presently understood after the establishment of PKP, but such an argument seems irrelevant for the page. Such an argument would likely require researching to first confirm the above claim regarding PBK and researching the membership criteria of PBK while it was a social and literary fraternity as well as after PBK organized as an honor society for the liberal arts and science in order to show significant change(s) in membership rules and/or organizational structure. It also is a addition best suited for the PBK page.

If the above claims are true, however, given that Tau Beta Pi was for engineers and Sigma Xi was for scientists and engineers, it would seem there was very little in terms of discipline specific honor societies at that time and there were no campus-wide honor societies. In addition, PBK was primarily a literary fraternity until after the establishment of PKP, when it then expanded to include all of the liberal arts and established itself as an honor society for such. This would indicate that the claim PKP somehow imitated or closely tried to emulate PBK as and honor society improbable (these are claims on this article page that are in dispute right now), because at the time PBK was a literary fraternity when PKP established itself as a new form of organization: an honor society. 173.21.20.187 (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that one person claimed "most prestigious" is a NPOV violation. That's fine, but if it so such claims should be removed from all honor society sites, and we should stick to inserting only things like selection criteria, membership size, and other items that are more objectively verifiable. Given the PBK talk page has no NPOV charges regarding such claims as "most prestigious", I feel like these standards are selectively applied.173.21.20.187 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Magkantog: 1) I have no problem if you wish to point out that Phi Kappa Phi "is one of the most prestigious," especially after you document it. But do not also delete the equally documented statement that Phi Beta Kappa "is the most prestigious" (regardless of discipline/field).

I have equally added citations from the Office of the Dean of Students at (Ivy League)Brown University (see:http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Dean_of_the_College/degree/pbk.php), and at least three other websites, in addition to the New York Times, Washington Post, Baird's Manual, etc., upholding the unrivaled prestige of Phi Beta Kappa (see: UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, http://www.english.hawaii.edu/pbk/, SUNY, http://www.albany.edu/main/features/2003/11-03/7honor/honor.htm, and FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, http://pbk.fsu.edu/about/about.html). The unqualified statement about Phi Beta Kappa being the most prestigious can also be found in the Provost's CAMPUS HONORS PROGRAM, https://www.honors.illinois.edu/?q=node/445.

2) There is no intention of creating any bias on the part of the reader or to belittle Phi Kappa Phi. But in the introductory paragraph, and not elsewhere, there should be an acknowledgement of what is undeniably well established: Phi Kappa Phi copied Phi Beta Kappa in many ways (the symbols and traditions, the initiation, the conventions, chapter organization, publications, etc.).  I can provide more than sufficient documentation if you wish.

3) I object to the Phi Kappa Phi article claim that it is "the largest all-discipline" society. I already documented that Golden Key has more chapters in the U.S. and overseas than Phi Kappa Phi (see Wikipedia page). PKP has 300.  Golden Key has almost 400 chapters.

4) As to your fourth point above, I already cited authoritative sources indicating that Phi Beta Kappa "is" "the most" prestigious. See my #1 point above with reference to the Dean of Students at Brown, the Provost at University of Illinois, etc.  Doubtless, these are unquestioned authorities in the field of higher education and honor societies.

5)I would suggest that we do two things to arrive at a final consensus. First, remove "the largest" (due to #4 above). Second, add your original sentence along with my minor edit  ("most prestigious"), with documentation from #1, to read: "Phi Kappa Phi was founded after Phi Beta Kappa, the oldest and most prestigious of all honor societies."  If that is fine with you, we can retain your most recent (2/25/09) edits to the introductory paragraph. Magkantog (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong: 1) There is also the valid question of whether prestige is a violation of NPOV, regardless of how many citations one can muster and whether there are ways to phrase such things as not to violate NPOV.  This is why I often use "considered" and cite those who consider such when NOPV might be called into question.  That way the claim that "it is considered X" is true, and the sources cited demonstrate that people do, indeed, consider it to be such.  However, again, claiming something is, without qualification, something very subjective and stated in the superlative is problematic, no matter how many sources or from where they come.

2) I think we can acknowledge that PBK might have been influenced by PBK in the ways you describe.  However, there were two honor societies preceding PKP, both discipline specific, and so it is difficult to say how it all happened without more research.  If you have that information handy and sources for citing, it might help fill out the history section by explaining the similarities in the charter, symbols, etc.  However, such should be done only if it adds to an understanding of PKP and not as a "they're copy cats, we're the original deal", which is how you're edits have come off (intentionally  or not)  Also, if the above NCHS claims are true, PKP was established as an honor society before PBK organized as such, even though PBK existed as an intellectual society prior to the existence of PKP.  In this way, we could say that PBK copied PKP by becoming an honor society by expanding its membership boundaries and reframing itself as an honor society for all the liberal arts and sciences instead of staying a social and literary fraternity.

Regarding the claims on the influence of PBK on PKP, I am not clear what your argument is on why it should be in the introductory paragraph. The argument you give seems to be one for general inclusion but not for the specific location of it in on the page. If we are going to make claims about this point, it should be done in the history section of this page, because it has to do with the influences surrounding the establishment of the organization. It should also be stated in a neutral tone that is not inflammatory. I don't think the problem is content, it's language. Saying "imitated" or "copied" carries a derogatory connotation, whereas "influenced" is less abrasive. "Flattery" is also a word that carries very negative connotations, and so if the quote that includes "flattery" is used it should be placed in a well crafted sentence that mitigates the seemingly biased language of the quote. The narrative should be constructed in a way that doesn't make it sound like someone from PBK wanted to advertise itself on the PKP page. It should said in service to telling the story of the founding and evolution of PKP and helping the reader understand more about PKP in as neutral a way as possible. The way it has been written did not seem to convey this intention.

3) I'm fine with omitting "largest" for the time being, but I must say that the number of chapters does not make an organization the largest in my books, the number of its individual members does.

5) I'm not sure why it is important or necessary for the reader to know that PKP was founded after PBK. If this was an article on the evolution of honor societies in the US, it would be clear why such a statement is made.  But for this page it is not clear.  Can you tell me to what end is that statement being made?  That is, if you had 100 words to describe PKP (lets say, in the introductory paragraph of an encyclopedia entry), and you were 10 words long, how would you justify to the editor that this phrase adds a necessary dimension for the reader to understand the history, mission, and structure of PKP?  Why wouldn't I mention some notable members instead with those 10 words, or maybe include the mission statement. Why is the fact that it was established (as a college organization, not as an honor society) after PBK so essential for the introductory paragraph? Furthermore, why exclude Tau Beta Pi and Sigma Xi? Why not say PKP was established after them as well? Why is PBK so privileged in such a statement. It seems totally superfluous to me. 173.21.20.187 (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm now realizing that in light of the ACHS info, some of the history will have top be rewritten. Much of what is written about PBK will need to be rewritten or struck. 173.21.20.187 (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Made some changes in the History section to reflect recent concerns. Will go back to cite tomorrow.173.21.20.187 (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Magkantog, if you have a source for the claim that PKP has 300 chapters, would you add that somewhere relevant and cite it? That would help the page. Thanks! I also inserted Phi Beta Kappa into the history section in a way that I think more accurately refelcts the happenings at the time and weaves them together in a meaningful way. I'm sure the prose could be better, but I think it's good for now. Not do be disrespectful, but I'm deleting the PBK sentence in the intro paragraph because the point I think you are trying to make is made now in the history section, and if anyone wants to know more about PBK, including that it is considered the most prestigious of honor societies, they can click on the link that will take them to the PBK page. Unless stating that PBK is considered the most prestigious adds something substantive the the narrative, which has yet to be argued, I think it should be a claim reserved for the PBK page. 173.21.20.187 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Magkantog:

1) Maybe we can already arrive at a a consensus here, in the way the Phi Kappa Phi article is presently written. I kept your updated version of yesterday, and I thank you for deleting "the largest."  Largest society can mean anything quantifiable from number of chapters to number of foreign countries (Golden Key has the edge over both) to number of members (Phi Kappa Phi may have more).  The point I am making is that we should not claim PKP as the largest if there are many possible and legitimate measures of a society's size.

2) The only thing I added/restored was what you yourself wrote before (PKP was founded after PBK) and the documented and unqualified statement about PBK's preeminence, which I think should even enhance the respect for PKP since it was inspired by PBK if that is a term you wish to use. I think that the statement should be fair considering that it is well and authoritatively documented, if not overly documented the way it is (see also #3 below).  I would keep it in the same way that you would want to note that PKP is one of the most respected, etc. societies.  If you delete your own sentence about PBK, then I would also have to delete the sentence about "one of the most respected" and just say that PKP is an all-discipline society, just like other honor society articles.  I do not think that most respected adds to an introductory paragraph in the same light as your reservations about PBK is noted here.

3) There is no question that Phi Beta Kappa preceeded all other honor societies. If you go to your library, see reference section, and you will find the 2000-page Baird's Manual containing the history of fraternities and honor societies. There is also the scholarly 300-page book written by noted historian Richard Nelson Current, entitled Phi Beta Kappa in American Life (1992).  While it is true that the Flat Hat preceeded PBK, the former was a debating club and perished in the 1750s before PBK was even founded as the oldest (scholastic) fraternity.  As noted in those two references, PBK transitioned into a purely honor society in the 1830s when scholastic standing (instead of literary prowess and social status) became the requirement following the anti-Masonic movement of that decade.  By 1875, the University of Vermont chapter had elected female members, putting an official end to semi-fraternity status of PBK. 1898 was the year in which Phi Beta Kappa chose to focus only in the arts and sciences, rather than all disciplines including law. In the two books and many other references, you will find in the Internet acknowledge that Phi Beta Kappa inspired the founding of Tau Beta Pi, Sigma Xi, Phi Kappa Phi, etc. Hence, many website introduce Phi Beta Kappa as the oldest academic honor society in the world. In fact, Sigma Xi became so disgusted with the proliferation of honor societies in the 1920s that it transitioned to a purely scientific research organization by 1928.

4) The 300 chapters of PKP can be found in their website. In fact, there are less than 300 if you reduce it by the number of listed inactive chapters. Magkantog (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong: I did some major trimming to the piece, cutting extraneous and redundant information and attempted to tighten the prose.

Magkantog, with all due respect, this is a page about PKP, not PBK, so let's keep the discussion confined to that and to making this page interesting. The question of adding a statement regarding PBK to the intro has nothing to do with adding or detracting respect for either organization, it has to do with being necessary, substantive and germane to the task of each passage and of the page as a whole. I'm really perplexed by the vehemency with which you feel the need to place a statement about PBK on this page (excluding all other honor societies and their relation ot PKP). I have yet to hear an argument with the cogency to match. I have to say it seems suspicious and possibly politically motivated. Your only edits to this page, as far as I can tell, have been about PBK, not PKP, your arguments have largely been over prestige in comparison to PBK and whether or not PKP copied PBK (a point introduced by you), and you insist that PBK be placed in the intro paragraph of a piece about a separate organization without providing an adequate argument for the necessity of doing so. So what is one to think?173.21.20.187 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

George Sherman, please explain why you made substantive changes to the intro paragraph, deleting claims that had already been agreed upon consensus, were cited, and were no longer in dispute.173.21.20.187 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Gearoge sherman34You two cannot just ask a question here and then delete or edit the page.

Here is my answer: There was no consensus that was fully established. See magkantog's last reply to you yesterday (see point no. 2). He wanted "largest" and "most respected" deleted if you wanted to also delete reference to PBK. And I agree with him. To me, words like "prestigious," "respected," etc. are intended to achieve the same purpose. So I edited them. I hope that this is acceptable now to everybody. As an advocate of Phi Kappa Phi you need to understand that you cannot get your way all the time and establish consensus on your own. Regards.George sherman 34 (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong: I think there are some confused points. It seems that there is one point that asks whether the editors of this page can make the credible claim that PKP is considered one of the most respected honor societies in the United States. At first, there were no citations, but that had since been resolved. Then there was the question of whether the sources given were authoritative enough. Magkantog seemed to think that newspapers and private publishers were adequate references for claims regarding PBK's prestige, so I made what I though to be a reasonable conclusion that I could use a press release by a university and statement on another university's Office of the Dean of Students page to do the same, both of which I think are more authoritative in establishing claims about academic prestige or respect than common newspapers or authors whose authority on the matter is unsubstantiated.

The second point regards the conditions on which PKP could make such a claim. Magkantog seemed to think that it is acceptable to make the statement, if cited and supported, so long as one then inserts an statement about PBK. However, the belief that if one does enter the supported claim that PKP is considered one of the most respected honor societies then that somehow necessitates inserting a statement that PBK is considered the most prestigious of honor societies has yet to be argued. I cannot see any argument that could support such a claim. If anyone wants to make that argument, feel free.

If we are going to start deleting claims about prestige, then two things have to happen: first, the measure has to enforced on all honor society pages, including PBK (strangely enough, I don't see you or Magkantog raising these issues there even though their claim about PBK being "considered to be the most prestigious honor society in the United States" isn't cited at all). This was a point made at the very beginning of this talk page page by someone else entirely. Second, a discussion must be had regarding what then qualifies as adequate and authoritative citation for such claims. As it stands, these criteria have not been argued other than as referenced in my first paragraph, and they have been selectively applied.

Furthermore, George you cannot delete substantive sections without justification. The fact that you agree with Magkantog does not make it consensus either. So, I will continue to insert the claim that PKP is considered one of the most reputable honor societies in the United States, and I will continue to cite it as should be done on any page until I see evenhanded enforcement of editing regarding this subject, because I am following example set on other pages. Any edits so consciously selective applied to some pages and not others is likely to be politically-motivated vandalism.173.21.20.207 (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

PS -- I'll be glad to delete the phrase that PKP is considered to be one of the most prestigious honor societies in the US if I see you all start arguing that claims made on similar lines should be struck from all honor society pages, excluding none.173.21.20.207 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Magkantog: George sherman simply got ahead of me in replying to you.

Let me make myself brief and succinct. As I had been saying all along, I have cited more than newspapers but authoritative sources about the preeminence of Phi Beta Kappa and how it brought forth or mothered Phi Kappa Phi and other honor societies (e.g., Baird's Manual, Dean of Students at Brown University, Provost at University of Illinois per #1 last night). I agreed to remove reference to PBK if reference to PKP as one of the most respected is also deleted because both can easily be treated, no matter how documented, as superlatives. Secondly, I cannot accept that simply because you quoted third-rate universities about PKP being one of the most respected in their campuses, does not mean it deserves mention in the introductory paragraph that PKP is indeed one of the most respected. As I have been pointing out, I do not see the top, elite universities having any PKP chapter but they all have Phi Beta Kappa chapters. '''Finally, I am not concerned with other pages (if you want to edit other similar statments in other honor society pages, feel free to do so). But you cannot tell me that you will only edit your article on Phi Kappa Phi if others are edited, too, by me. My concern is PKP, not other societies.''' If you restore "the most respected," then by all means I will restore the PBK because people need to understand where the PKP (or any respect for it) came from.

Magkantog (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong: This gets to the heart of the issue: what makes for adequate support for making such claims? The University of Illinois-Champaign and the University of Wisconsin-Madison have Phi Kappa Phi chapters. Are you going to tell me now that they're not top universities because they bring down your argumentum ad hominem? UIUC is one of the top engineering universities in the country and houses one of the top three Education Policy Departments. The UW-Madison Law School is one one of the top in the country. So, tell us, what makes for a top, elite university? What criteria are you using so that I can verify your claims and so we can all come to agreement on the ground rules? Maybe I can find some top, elite universities that have PKP chapters. That seems to be your concern regarding me putting the claim in question in the intro paragraph. So, give me clear criteria, and I'll try to meet them.

Furthermore, claiming that other universities are "third rate" lends no weight to your argument. This again is merely an ad hominem attack. Not surprisingly, most of your arguments have been argumentum ad verecundiam, and when I try to meet you on those terms, the game shifts. Your first claim was that "Authoritative books like Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (all editions) cite Phi Beta Kappa as the most prestigious honor society and, in fact, the mother of all honor societies, thus validating what we read in all Phi Beta Kappa chapter websites in the Internet as well as the wikipedia entry for Phi Beta Kappa as the most prestigious and exclusive honor society in college. Ask any college professor which one is more respected, Phi Beta Kappa or Phi Kappa Phi and they will respond in favor of the former -- I know that because I am a college professor, too." So, I cited chapter pages, and my wife and I are professors, my wife a PBK, and we both disagree with your claims, thus successfully arguing the opposite from the same authority. Then you said, well, what about the NYT and Washington Post and Baird's (again), and I challenged you on that (I could very easily find newspaper articles stating that PKP is one of the most respected honor societies, just type "phi kappa phi one of the most prestigious honor societies" into Google). Then I come up with what I think would be a more authoritative source than any of those, an actual University Administration page, and somehow that's just "third rate" and unacceptable. It really demonstrates your bias. Really, and the NYT is fine for authoritative claims on academic prestige? Then you tried the appeal to the authority of decisions made by what you deemed to be elite universities, something you are bringing up here and something I again am challenging you on. You see, you're not interested in making a good Wikipedia page, you're interested in posting something as true as an argument from authority and then retroactively reasoning top re-justify your claims anytime I argue the opposite on the same grounds. So, once and for all:

Give a cogent argument of why mentioning PBK in the introductory paragraph is necessary if one is to claim that PKP is considered one of the most respected honor societies, and tell me 1) what makes for an adequate citation for claims regarding prestige and 2) what counts for an authoritative source for such (other than whatever you deem to be such by fiat).173.21.20.207 (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

George, instead of just deleting the mission statement, why not find a way to work it in that doesn't make the violation you bring up? That's actually constructive work. If you're not going to do that work, do me the favor and tell me when the motto was adpted so that I can more accurately write the paragraph. Second, until the dispute is resolved regarding the authority of claims on prestige, the dispute should be brought to the readers attention, not intentionally withheld from the reader. The claim is not redundant, as it is nowhere else stated on the page. If your interested in deleting redundancies, you would do the reader more good by helping to tighten the prose on the rest of the page.

173.21.20.207 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This process has been quite frustrating. I have continually tried to create substantive edits to alleviate concerns raised, while george and Magkantog have done nothing but veto and delete on grounds that haven't been argued in any consistent manner. And you all can't just delete something because you don't think it's adequately substantiated without also stating what would satisfy you as an adequate substantiation.

If someone wants to put a banner on the page saying that there is a major dispute on the talk page, then I would be OK with the deletion of the claim in question.  My major concern is that claims made by universities are being silenced because there is a dispute over the authority of those universities on making such claims. The stakes are high in such an argument, and the reader and editors need to be alerted.

Things that are not in dispute and are cited and uncontroversial have no reason to be deleted.

173.21.20.207 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

George Sherman 34: Your claim about respect, etc. are precisely in dispute here that is why we are trying to achieve a consensus. And the proposal is to delete the controversial or contentious issues you and magkantog have raised: 'respect" and preeminence of Phi Beta Kappa and its imitation by Phi Kappa Phi. If we delete any reference to both, it seems that consensus will be easily achieved.  But you don't want to and you want to pursue your claim by making side references to respect.  How can you claim it is not controversial or in dispute?  It precisely is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by George sherman 34 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue you have repetitively brought up concerning what constitutes an authority or authoritative citation cannot be resolved if you insist on "hiding" the Phi Beta Kappa influence and inserting side comments about discussion pages. By the same token, let the readers also judge for themselves the worth of including the role of Phi Beta Kappa to see if Phi Kappa Phi will be able to stand on its own despite the preeminence of Phi Beta Kappa.

In short, you either will have to accept that consensus needs to be achieved by giving in to magkantog's deletion (which I join) of respect, as long as the PBK history is omitted OR simply leave both issues of respect and Phi Beta Kappa there, since both are documented anyway. You cannot keep playing word games like an English major. Your objection to the preeminence and mothering role of Phi Beta Kappa on Phi Kappa Phi IS JUST AS VALID as magkantog's concern about including the issue of respect, since the top 10 or so US schools in the Times rankings, US News and World Report, Shin Tao rankings, etc. do not have Phi Kappa Phi chapters. George sherman 34 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong: This is an article about PKP, not PBK, and no reason was given as to why the reference to another organization added essential knowledge to the introductory paragraph of the article, which should give the reader the broadest understanding of the topic in the fewest words. Why is it necessary (or at all relevent) to talk about PBK when making claims about the prestige of another organization? The fact that the PBK claim is documented is irrelevent for an argument for the claim's relevence in the section. Still waiting for that reason.

Regarding the term "respect", that's the claim in dispute, which I have indicated as such, and why I'm asking for a banner. Silencing claims cited from a university is pretty f'ing bold, I must say.

Finally, if you've been paying attention, I have not hidden the PBK influence. In fact, I started to revise the history section to include PBK. I have not written on the specific influences of PBK on PKP, because I don't know that much about it, which is why I actually invited Magkantog to make those additions in a way that would help the reader better understand the organization. But, of course, it hasn't been done. Because that was never the point for Magkantog.

If you want to actually help this article, try writing new prose that helps address concerns on both sides, that's constructive. You know, the next time I'm asked to write an encyclopedia entry, I'm going to tell the editor that I don't want to do any of the writing. I'm just going carry a veto pen but insist my name is added as a contributor. Because that's what it takes to write an encyclopedia entry. George, do you want to tell me when the motto was instated at PKP so I can fix the narrative, or was that just an excuse to deface the page? And Magkantog, where's all that prose on the influence on PBK on PKP you were so concerned about?

That's what I thought. 173.21.20.207 (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look back at any of my substantive edits, I have in most cases attempted to rewrite the narrative in a way that address concerns on both sides of a dispute when there has been one (if not immediately, then soon after a deletion), and I have offered consistent reasons why I have done so so that if someone wants to edit what I've written they can take my concerns into account. That's consensus building in an active and constructive way. I can't say the same for you two. If you all don't like what's written, try to rewrite it in such way that all parties' concerns are addressed, including mine, not just the side you agree with.

173.21.20.207 (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

George sherman 34: Here is what I did to hopefully reach the consensus we need: 1) I removed the repetitive phrase about "all-discipline" and "recognizing all fields, etc" by streamlining the first sentence; 2) I removed the second sentence, just so magkantog will not cite Phi Beta Kappa and also ask the reader to check out the discussion page (fair?); 3) I removed "University of Maine by ten students" because that is not relevant in an introduction -- the history page will do.

I have to look up the present goal of PKP but I am sure it is only a few years old. Will do research and let you know later.George sherman 34 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong: The first edit I'm OK with, except that PKP is the oldest all-discipline honor society, per the ACHS webpage (chronology is not so contentious). The third edit I'm OK with. The second, you won't be surprised to hear I'm not so keen on. The claim, "Some university websites have stated that Phi Kappa Phi is one of the most respected honor societies", is indisputable given that it is cited from primary sources. Given that the respect an honor society has is constitutive of its identity (it means nothing to be a member of an honor society if there's no honor in it), I think if a claim can be made regarding the respect of an honor society, it should be made. I understand why the second clause, "however the authority of these claims is disputed (see discussion for this page)" could be cumbersome, but that was just there to appease Magkantog. Nonetheless, there has yet to be a dispute over the first clause, which is substantively different than the original offending clause. The fact that magkantog has issues regarding "third-rate universities" does not detract from the factuality of the statement in the first clause. One can say that some universities have claimed that PKP is one of the most respected honor societies and also at the same time claim that those universities have no authority to make such claims while others do. They are two different issues, and the statements are not mutually exclusive. Thus, magkantog's ad hominem assertion, even if true, does not prohibit the claim from being made. We're talking about a State University making this claim, not some fly-by-night racket whose very claim to being a university is questionable. There is no reason to delete commentary on an aspect so crucial to the description of an honor society because of an argument not relevant to the claim being made. So, if anything should be deleted it should be the second clause not the first of "Some university websites have stated that Phi Kappa Phi is one of the most respected honor societies; however the authority of these claims is disputed (see discussion for this page)."

I'll wait a day to hear your thoughts on the issue.

If you have the motto info handy, that would be great. Even if you can't find anything more, it would be helpful to share whatever info you have regarding why you pulled the motto phrase from the intro paragraph to begin with, either here or by adding the information somewhere on the page. Otherwise, there's really no proof that what you said is true (about when the motto cam into existence).173.21.20.207 (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, the PKP chapter requirements state "There is a minimum requirement of 100,000 bound volumes" in the library, which might explain why we don't fine PKP at any liberal arts colleges or any college/university that would have a small library, no matter how prestigious. In fact, such a requirement eliminates many top tier liberal arts colleges. Another interesting detail is that there must be at least 15 petitioners, which must be in one of the three oldest honor societies, i.e., PKP won't accept petitioners that aren't PKP, PBK or Sigma Xi.173.21.20.207 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Magkantog:

REPLY TO 173.21.20.207 AND GEORGE SHERMAN

I second the three-point suggestion of George Sherman above, not because I totally agree with it, but because that is obviously something that will enable us to achieve a consensus.

Let us not anymore change the way the present introduction is written. Doing so will only bring endless edits and discussions of the same documented issues that cannot be quantified and are vulnerable to unending rhetoric. You might say that "the respect an honor society has is constitutive of its identity." I might disagree with that and call that your own opinion. Or I might agree with it and paraphrase the same by saying "the precedence and preeminence of Phi Beta Kappa is constitutive of the identity of and respect for Phi Kappa Phi." Then we will each be documenting these things again and calling attention to the discussion page. Unless you really want to insert something on Phi Beta Kappa there and make reference to this discussion page, I will just leave the introduction the way it is now.

As to your last paragraph, I disagree. All the libraries of the top universities I cited days ago such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Pennsylvania, Stanford, MIT (all of which have PBK but not PKP) have more bound volumes than any Phi Kappa Phi member-university you can think of. You can check each of these college websites. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford alone rank as the 1st to the 4th largest college libraries not only in the US but in the world with their multi-million bound volumes. Phi Beta Kappa requirements for petitioners are stricter: They must only be Phi Beta Kappa (not PKP) members, they must constitute at least 10 per cent of the entire university faculty, and they need to complete a 200-page application form.

Magkantog (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong: What is with the incessant touting of PBK over PKP? This is an encyclopedia page for PKP, not a soapbox to extol the virtues of PBK. I was adding information that might help in justifying the claims that are under dispute, it had nothing to do with a competition between PBK and PKP. Again, where is all that prose on the influence of PBK on PKP if it's so important to you? Are you really here to help write this page and constructively build consensus on it or just to prevent claims from being made about the respect PKP might have unless it is clear that PBK is more prestigious? I clearly stated that I took issue with the language with which your intro paragraph statement was crafted, not with the fact that PKP might have drawn from the traditions of PBK in its formation or from the fact that taking after PBK in some ways might have helped it gain prestige. If we are going to talk about the influence of PBK on PKP, there should be a thorough, well documented discussion of it in a dedicated section of the page, and it should be written in neutral language, not a random curt zinger in the intro paragraph.

In addition, I also rewrote the original offending sentence in the intro paragraph regarding "respect" to eliminate the very issues of ambiguity you are now rehashing.

Here's the old arguments against the new prose:

Me: Is the claim "some universities have stated that Phi Kappa Phi is one of the most respected honor societies" correct and documented from primary sources?

I: Yes, but the universities that make that claim do not have the authority to make such claims.

Me: Let us assume that is true. Does the fact that those universities do not have the authority to make such a claim change that fact that they made it?

I: No.

Me: But PBK is the most prestigious honor society, in fact, it is clearly more prestigious than PKP, and there is plenty of documentation to support it.

I: Does the fact that that is true change the fact that "some universities have stated that Phi Kappa Phi is one of the most respected honor societies."?

Me: No.

I: But PKP copied PBK in many ways, and some of the prestige PKP has is because it made itself to look like PBK.

Me: Does the fact that that is true change the fact that "some universities have stated that Phi Kappa Phi is one of the most respected honor societies."?

I: No.

Me: Does the claim "some universities have stated that Phi Kappa Phi is one of the most respected honor societies" necessitate mention of PBK in order to make it any more or less true??

I: No.

That's my argument in a nutshell. As far as I can tell at this late hour, irrefutable. Making that claim does not in any way necessitate a reference to PBK nor does referencing PBK in such a statement add anything substantive to that particular claim. I think that, too, is irrefutable. And are you really going to tell me, after all this debate, that claims about prestige for an honor society are not important enough to be made in an intro paragraph? Really? 173.21.20.207 (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy Review: First Warning to Magkantog for Vandalism
Lhakthong: After reading Wikipedia's content on verifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) and Neutral Point of View (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), I feel confident that the claim just above fits these two terms and therefore should be allowed in. Furthermore, it should be noted to all of us that deletion of substantive material should only be done so if it violates any of these two (or their rule of Original Research). The claim just above does not violate these two, especially in its most recent form, however it is not yet clear how Magkatogs insistence on inserting a line about PBK specifically in the intro paragraph (and a line after a claim about PKP's prestige that just said, "Phi Kappa Phi imitated Phi Beta Kappa, the oldest and most prestigious of all honor societies,[2] leading one historian to note that the former's existence was Phi Beta Kappa's "highest form of flattery.") is not a NPOV violation due to its biased and inflammatory language (again, it's not content, it's the way it's conveyed and the justification for its placement). Magkatog, the creator of this statement, has made no effort to rewrite this or write new language that would be neutral in tone, even after being invited to do so, or provided justification for its placement in what, after some work by the other two editors, is now a very succinct intro paragraph.

I am inserting the most recent claim, both phrases of the most recent version, regarding the prestige/respect of PKP, because it is obvious from the time and effort spent in this debate the prestige is an important item to be mentioned, if it can be done without violating content policies, and until there is neutral language regarding PBK's influence on PKP, I feel it is justified to keep it out of the article (the language and placement, not the content). I will not point to the talk page, because it is cumbersome. Continued deletions done without cause or grounds and without good faith effort to brig them in line with these policies in the three core content policies will be reported as vandalism. Lhakthong (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Magkantog:

RE: POLICY REVIEW

The user above adopts multiple identities (173.21.20.207, Lhaktong) to get his way around consensus-building, and stir up pointless complaints (see User talk:Wikipedian2) and so-called policy reviews (see above), in order to silence all others who have expressed opposition to his edits on "respect", even from the beginning of this Discussion Page, when other people have commented that the Wikipedia article on Phi Kappa Phi seems to have been simply lifted out of the Phi Kappa Phi website.

The issue has not changed. We want to obtain consensus but you do not want to give in. We have asked that you refrain from making references to respect. If Phi Kappa Phi is esteemed, there is no need to say it in the opening paragraph or to discuss it indirectly by making references to it. You have your opinion about it, we respect it. But if you will pursue it thru a side bar type of sentence, then we will also pursue our point that the respect you are talking about is conditioned by the precedence and preeminence of Phi Beta Kappa. We have documented our point above (thru books, newspapers, dean of students and provosts in top colleges, chapter websites, etc.). I am sure you will also want to document your claim about respect. So if you want to do the side bar about respect, then we will also put in a side bar to qualify that respect in relation to Phi Beta Kappa (and then call attention to discussion pages). What is objective to you concerning respect is not objective to us. And what is objective to us in terms of qualifying that notion of Phi Kappa Phi respect (since no one documents it other than Phi kappa Phi chapter websites and member universities, as opposed to reference books, etc.)is not objective or cogent to you. So we will end up again having two sentences about respect and Phi Beta Kappa in the introduction because, in our view point (and there is nothing political about this), Phi Kappa Phi derives respect simply by imitating Phi Beta Kappa (the word "imitation" did not come from me but from Richard Current's book, the New York Times article, the Washington Post article, etc.) and duplicating the election of arts and sciences majors. If that is fine with you, then I will keep your second sentence and add in the qualifier to make it objective and balanced. So I agree with George Sherman that we should just keep it the way it was at the start of today, 02/27. Magkantog (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong:

false claim: Second Warning to Magkantog for Vandalism

I did not take up multiple identities. I just formed my new account. I'm sorry if it came off that way. Any admin will see that my IP address is not tied to any other account and this one (Lhakthong) was just created. Regardless, your argument merely rests now on an ad hominem attack against me. None of your arguments are grounded in Wikipedia content policies, and yet you continue to delete claims that are not in violation of said policies (if they are, you have yet to state why in a way that the manner they are so that the issue can be resolved). You have been asked more than once for you to give such rationales in order to help build consensus on a statement such that it does won't violate concerns regarding content policy. I have made multiple attempts to build consensus by revising the prose to bring it in line with content policy and to reflect concerns of all parties. The reversion you have made has happened multiple times. This is the second request to stop. After the next reversion, I will report you as a vandal. Lhakthong (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

To be clear: the Wikipedia Verifiability policy clearly states, with bold, that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth —that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

Your charges about my the "objectivity" of my edit do not stand on these grounds.

My concerns about your insertion have to do with neutrality, something you have yet to make a good faith effort to resolve. Lhakthong (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Phi Kappa Phi derives its prestige from Phi Beta Kappa is not verifiable. It is one author's opinion. So, if you are going to quote someone, or make that statement, you have to put it in quotes and introduce it in a way that is neutral. For example "So-and-so, a blah-blah-blah at this-and-that, has claimed that Phi Kappa Phi imitated Phi Beta Kappa, which he claims is the oldest and most prestigious of all honor societies… (see history section for more)." You can't just state it as though it's fact. This isn't the date of an event, it's a jugement made by someone else. Just as I have changed the phrase regardig "respect" to "some universities have stated" rather than just say "it is considered", you, too, must craft your phrase in a more verifiable and neutral way. Furtheremore, without using quotes or introducing those thoughts as someone else's, you are violating the Wikipedia policy on Original Research. And then, to make sure neutrality is maintained, I would ask that you write the prose such that it is clear that such claims contribute to a better understanding of the subject matter of the entry. Lhakthong (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Magkantog: I will do that, and point out that the objectivity and neutrality is in dispute and of great concern to the participants in the discussionpage.Magkantog (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just included the role and influence of Phi Beta Kappa and at the same time wrote about the dispute. Now I think we have arrive at a consensus: Write about respect and PBK, but qualifiy it with reference to this entire Discussion Page. Let us now keep it the way it is.Magkantog (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Consensus Reached Regarding NPOV for Lead
Lhakthong: I made some minor edits that I don't think are substantive and that I hope are not too offensive to anyone. The citations for the new insertion require some serious formatting work. Magkantog, since they are yours, could you do that? Although I still think the new insertion is not essential to the intro of the subject matter, I can live with the way it now stands. It's all verifiable, neutral, and not in violation of the policy on Original Research. Lhakthong (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Magkantog: I also made some minor edits to yours. The edit I made to mine was to use the word "prestigious," which is the one used in all citations, not respect. Thanks.Magkantog (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong: I think you were right to rephrase it. I actually came back to try and re-work it because it struck me that there was a verifiability problem with the other two societies. On another point, for the sake of neutrality, I think we have to use the same word, prestigious, in both sentences. Fortunately, we would not violate verifiability in doing so, because the word prestigious is used in the Mercer University release and in other releases regarding PKP that I've read (I can grab a couple others if you think it will help substantiate the claim more without being unnecessary), so I'll change the word in the first sentence as well.

The other problem I'm beginning to notice is that there seems to be a neutrality issue when the claims regarding PKP's prestige have to be qualified, and the PBK ones do not. Any claim to prestige is going to have problems with verifiability. Considering the claims are similar in nature (claims about prestige grounded on appeals to authority whose nature in both cases is disputed), we will have the same problem regarding verifiability (and thus falsifiability), Either both are held to the same standards of verifiability or else there is a neutrality violation. I'll see if I can fix it without it sounding too choppy. It might take a few goes, though. Lhakthong (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear on what I mean, we can't say that newspapers and society chapter pages are adequate citations for verifiability if claims about prestige for PBK and at the same time say that the same exact kinds sources are not adequate for verifiability for PKP. That is clearly a neutrality violation. This brings us back to the discussion regarding claims to authority. A kind of source is adequate for all claims of the same kind, or it is for none. Selective application creates bias. Lhakthong (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your last revision. The citations are better, and the language of the PBK prestige claim is acceptable, other than that, there are the problems I just mentioned. Lhakthong (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

REVERSION Until the neutrality issue is resolved, we should keep what has not been challenged on the grounds of core content policies. I think it is odd enough that one person's problem with the authority of a source for a claim makes for a substantive qualification to that claim when the editor's problem with the source has no bearing on the verifiability of the claim to begin with (see above). Then add that said dissenter uses newspapers and self-referential chapter websites to document their claims and finds those same sources insufficient for similar claims about a similar organization. Nonetheless, I'm willing to keep the aforementioned qualification just to err on the side of caution regarding neutrality. Lhakthong (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Magkantog: No one has ever challenged the word "most prestigious" with respect to Phi Beta Kappa, but I do see that you deleted it again for the sake of neutrality. Since the same applies to the word "respect" (which you can say no one has also denied), I am going to delete it also for the sake of neutrality and to get rid of any superlatives or reference thereto. Please understand that "respect," "most prestigious," etc. are all documented superlatives or descriptors, so we either keep them both or delete them altogether. You chose the latter so I will abide by it. Magkantog (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong: Reply: Final Warning to Magkantog for Vandalism

You are twisting things. The claim that was up there did not violate core content principles, nor has there been any challenge yet that it has. This is your third and final warning before you are reported for vandalism. If you feel the claim "Some university websites have stated that Phi Kappa Phi is one of the most respected honor societies, however the authority of these claims is disputed. [2]" is in violation of Verifiability, Neutrality, Original Research, or any other Wikipedia content policy, let it be known. Lhakthong (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Magkantog: Final Warning for Lhaktong for Vandalism: Do not touch my documented edits and I will not touch yours The history of revision page will show that you are the one who keeps editing what we agreed upon. I did not delete your post this time. But the second time you delete mine (which I restored based on what you originally included), you will be reported for double vandalism. You just cannot choose to delete and retain what you want. Put in your thing about respect. And I will put in my thing about the imitation of PBK and its preeminence. Both "respect" and "most prestigious" are documented well enough and both can be disputed well enough,too. You can let things or objections be known just as you would want me to do the same. Don't edit mine and I will not edit yours. Both can stand on their own and both have been agreed upon earlier today. Keep page as is and consensus is achieved. Magkantog (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong: Reply: Notification to Magkantog on Report of Vandalism

I retracted what I had written before because I thought the violated Wikipedia content policy. Whether it was agreed upon earlier or not is irrelevant. If it is found to violate policy and justification is given, it should be removed, and if it cannot be defended, it should stay removed. Bargaining with other editors is not an argument for or against violation of policy. I would hope you would do the same. After having my wife, President of a PBK chapter (and not a member of PKP) read the history and agree without reservation with my concerns regarding violations in content policy (although perhaps not my occasionally rudeness), and that I personally know all to well that my wife would be the fist person to correct my reasoning, and given the fact that you have evaded defending the claims that I have challenged on the ground of content policy, and given you have evaded giving cause for deleting the phrase I inserted and is now in question, I feel confident Wikipedia admin will not find me at fault.

Consider this notification that you have been reported for vandalism. Lhakthong (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Okay - the wiki editor who put a hold on this site is simply allowing based point of view into the entry and closing the door. This will now be taken to the next level as abuse by the wiki editor. It will be corrected -- it just takes a few more steps. Quoting from sources who express a point of view (e.g. "prestigious Phi Beta Kappa) is NOT eliminating the biased POV.  We could quote hundreds of sites that claim to be the "true" religion the "more prestigeous this or that, etc. The whole verbiage needs to go out in favor of the neutral text post below. what part of this don't you people understand? For sure, it reflects very badly on Phi Beta Kappa -- which is perhaps the left handed intent of the vandals. The PBK material belongs on the PBK site. We have also reported this to both PBK and PKP.

REPLY

Magkantog: To 166.214.16.81: For one last time, there is nothing wrong or biased or one-sided or undocumented about the third sentence about Phi Beta Kappa. It was, in fact, the writer of the Phi Kappa Phi introduction (suspended writer Lhakthong) who originally wrote and included and accepted that sentence if you look at the Discussion Page, but he turned around later and deleted it. And that sentence is not only about Phi Beta Kappa; suspended user Lhakthong even cited Tau Beta Pi, Sigma Xi, etc. By the same token, quoting from sources about "respect" for Phi Kappa Phi does not eliminate POV. As noted above and in the PKP Discussion Page, by me and george sherman, there is need to qualify the "respect" concept or assertion for Phi Kappa Phi, because that is premised largely, if not entirely, on the status, precedence, prominence, preeminence of Phi Beta Kappa, as documented. In some instances, as noted above, we understand Phi Kappa Phi even makes some students think they are Phi Beta Kappa, since their names are almost identical, since it is so difficult to install a Phi Beta Kappa chapter in a college, and because both societies take top students largely from the arts and sciences. So readers of the Wikipedia article need to understand that the "respect" idea is qualified by the role and name of Phi Beta Kappa and this point is well documented by multiple sources through footnotes. Readers need to make an informed judgment about Phi Kappa Phi's issue or problem of "imitation" that has been raised by academic historians, newspapers, colleges, etc. Finally, my colleague sherman reminds me that I need to also point out that the imitation of Phi Beta Kappa is so pervasive that Phi Beta Kappa even sued Compaq in court for the latter's product, Phi Beta Compaq (see:http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-700638.html) which I understand has since been withdrawn. These are the things that make it necessary to qualify before encyclopedia readers the so-called "respect" for Phi Kappa Phi, which suspended user Lhakthong insists should be noted in the opening paragraph of the article without any further qualification or reservation.

If Phi Kappa Phi was not almost a copycat of Phi Beta Kappa (see their symbols, traditions, conventions, chapter organization, ceremonies and inductions, process of choosing students, process of setting up chapters in colleges, even their almost identical names), there would be no need to put in that third sentence in the Phi Kappa Phi page.Magkantog (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin Toddst1: Look folks, there is no WP:Vandalism here. Falsely accusing others of such violates Wikipedia policy on personal attacks. Both and  appear to be in violation of WP:3RR for edit warring. I strongly suggest both of you find other articles to work on and walk away from this dispute or log off. Both of you could end up blocked if this continues. Toddst1 (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Magkantog: Toddst1 - Thank you for clarifying that there was no vandalism. I agree that we should stay away from further editing.  I only edited Lhakthong's sentence when he deleted mine after we reached a consensus this afternoon and after we agreed not to edit any further.  Please note per above exchanges that I always wanted to keep his edits, even if I objected to them or to his reasoning, but had to delete his when he kept deleting mine (which were fully documented and relevant).


 * Lhakthong - We have both been warned not for vandalism but for numerous edits and re-edits. We should end this edit war and keep our hands off from that Phi Kappa Phi piece.  My wife who is also a Phi Kappa Phi chapter president agrees that we should do this.Magkantog (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Block Request for Further Editing of Phi Kappa Phi
Magkantog: Toddst1, The same user edited the same (well documented, salient and relevant) sentence for the third time. We all agreed yesterday to keep the second and third sentences as a consensus, but it has been edited twice again today. Specifically, we agreed to keep them because Lhakthong wanted to include the superlative "respect" for Phi Kappa Phi which I agreed to provided the dispute is noted and provided it is qualified by the sentence and citation about Phi Beta Kappa.

Phi Kappa Phi's respect derives in large part from Phi Beta Kappa's precedence (PKP copied the symbols, traditions, organization, membership, eto. of Phi Beta Kappa) and preeminence (PKP draws the bulk of its membership from the arts and sciences students which is the field of Phi Beta Kappa). Hence, the cited New York Times, Washington Post, Richard Current's history book, etc. indicate that Phi Kappa Phi is an "imitation" (their terminology) of Phi Beta Kappa. Even the name, Phi Kappa Phi (as you will see from the organization's national website) had to be changed three times between 1897 and 1901 to come as close as possible to PHI Beta KAPPA and gain respect or acceptance in colleges and universities without a Phi Beta Kappa chapter. In some colleges, I understand Phi Kappa Phi uses deception to market themselves as Phi Beta Kappa because these colleges do not have Phi Beta Kappa chapters which is considered the hallmark of excellence in honor societies as documented in that third sentence. Hence, because PKP rides on the precedence and preeminence of the name of Phi Beta Kappa, it has gained (questionable) respect, particularly in colleges without a Phi Beta Kappa chapter. Those are the colleges that Lhakthong cited, among others.

If you review/look at the user's IP address, it is the same one that (suspended user) Lhakthong had used when he was deleting the sentence and re-editing the article on February 24 and 25. Can you just put a block on the article after restoring that sentence for which consensus was already arrived yesterday per above Discussion Page? Additionally, I think the suspension of Lhakthong and his sockpuppet accounts should be made permanent. Thanks. Magkantog (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Block Request on Phi Kappa Phi GRANTED
Magkantog: To the WP admins: Thank you for putting a block on any further editing and deletion of any portion of the Phi Kappa Phi page, and for suspending user Lhakthong (talk) and sockpuppet account User talk:74.178.93.137 for various WP violations. This should finally end the edit war. If in the future that user does it again to any WP article or page, I will report it to you promptly. Magkantog (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong: Magkantog, I don't think Toddst1 blocked the page from being edited by anyone, just us for edit warring. As far as I can tell, right now there's a restriction on who can edit the page to prevent the use of sockpuppets and to prevent real editors other than us to jump in and get accused of being a sockpuppet. Lhakthong (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)