Talk:QEBH/Archive 1

June 2008 edits
The whole article should be rewritten from a neutral standpoint using information available from independent sources. I've tried posting some their party sources in the past, but another editor always deletes them and says they're incorrect in the eyes of QEBH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.194 (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice try. All of the references in this article are third party.  There are no references from either a QEBH publication or QEBH website.  BlueGold73 (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There are barely any references at all. I think the whole thing has to be ripped out, I don't see citations for 4/5 of it.129.133.124.194 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Other fraternities have controversies that are often addressed in their articles, so why can't we address QEBH's shortcomings as well?129.133.124.194 (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it. And while you're at it, stop changing the sourced line that says there is six societies. Also there is no TNE at Mizzou.  You can search all organizations at https://theorg.missouri.edu/publicsearch.aspx and you'll find it isn't there.  If TNE is in existence in Columbia, then it is NOT affiliated with this University. BlueGold73 (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

On the whole BlueGold's sources are third party and reliable. Where as TNE is not a third party source. Do you (anon) have any other sources other than this one website? If so maybe something can be incorporated into the article, if not, then the reliable, third party sources trump yours. Grey Wanderer | Talk 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether QEBH was the first society on the Columbia campus is not a question of reference, it's a question of dates. 1895 beats 1897, there's no question. The 1896 Savitar is available online. That they are both class societies is obvious, one is a sophomore society and the other is a senior society. Second, the published history of Theta Nu Epsilon is a third party source, QEBH is the subject of this article. Material from Theta Nu Epsilon is, and can only be, a neutral source in relation to QEBH. Someone may not like it, but likability is no criteria for inclusion. ---But then, what exact detail do mean to challenge? That 1895 comes before 1897? That DeFoe was instrumental in QEBH? What?129.133.124.194 (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * DeFoe provided a great deal of guidance to QEBH, but MU sources, as well as QEBH publications, all will state that Switzer was the organizer. Only 2 members of the founders of QEBH were members of TNE, which in no way supports that QEBH was a way for TNE members to "maintain their connection as Seniors."  TNE was not an honor society.  QEBH was, and is, an honor society.  TNE was the first secret class society and QEBH was the first secret honor society.  The article on the TNE Alpha chapter website is also incorrect because it states that TNE has been active at MU since 2003 and "it has been a very successful chapter of Theta Nu Epsilon, and is earning its position as the pre-eminent organization of the class societies at the University of Missouri."  There is NO chapter of TNE affiliated with MU.  While some students attending the University may claim to be members, such an organization is not recognized by the University.  TNE can hardly been seen as "the pre-eminent organization" if it is not recognized by the University and has gained absolutely no exposure on campus through any press or any public signs of its existence. BlueGold73 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"TNE was the first secret class society and QEBH was the first secret honor society." A distinction without a difference. Where, anywhere in the world, is such a distinction made? It is not made in Stevens, it is not made in Baird. The very thriving condition of the Alpha Theta chapter at the University of Missouri/Columbia, is not relevant to this article. Why do you bring it up? This discussion page is for a discussion of the QEBH article in wikipedia. The history of the Alpha Theta chapter on a different website is for a discussion page on that website, should there ever be one. And that chapter can certainly be pre-eminent based on other scales of measurement than registration with the University and the media, (the chapter avoided a splashy story in the campus newspaper three years ago). It's certainly the most avidly sought and most popular class society on the Columbia campus. And to try to cheat DeFoe of due recognition of the role he played as a student advisor and as a man established the secret society system at Columbia more than a century after the fact seems very uncharitable.129.133.124.194 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A new paragraph is offered in the article that should meet all concerns.129.133.124.194 (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Uniqueness
"QEBH is a senior honorary society that is unique to the University of Missouri." This is untrue. There is nothing that substantiates the claim that QEBH is unique. This senior honorary is entirely in line with the run of senior honoraries. This claim needs to be changed.129.133.124.194 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no QEBH at any other university; therefore it is unique by definition. Likewise, the Seven Society is an honorary society that is unique to the University of Virginia, and The Innocents Society is an honorary society that is unique to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. BlueGold73 (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Then it's an error of multiple readings of the same phrase. Fine.129.133.124.194 (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Founded in 1897, it is the oldest of recognized societies on campus.
There is absolutely nothing logically flawed about this statement, and it follows what we know and recognise to be the historical fact at Missouri. And the phrase has been used elsewhere "MU’s QEBH, one of six recognized campus secret societies," http://www.mizzoutailgating.com/rivalries.html 129.133.124.194 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I just added the fact that it's one of six secret ones, because nearly all of the articles mention the six, including the one you just listed. BlueGold73 (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I could go for currently recognized.129.133.124.194 (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)