Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Phi Kappa Phi

Where's the dispute?
On the talk page of the Phi Kappa Phi page.

What's the dispute?
Recently, I added the edit that "Phi Kappa Phi claims to be X and Y" in a way that I thought accorded with a recent WP:3O. The other editor disagrees with this claim of PKP's. He wants to place information in the lead next to the quoted statement to show that these claims are not true. Although he makes some good points, I'm not sure how to insert the language in way that does not come off as "Phi Kappa Phi says X, but Wikipedia editors think they are liars." My point is that there are no other sources that dispute this claim of PKP's nor are there any other organizations that make those claims. The other editor thinks that this is of no concern -- the facts speak for themselves and should be placed next to the quoted claim. He inserted what he thought were the facts, and because we had not yet reached consensus on their wording I "undid" them. He then deleted the quote with which he takes issue on the grounds that it is also in dispute. Thank you all for you help. --Lhakthong (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read the above summary of the dispute. It perfectly captures my point/s: that factual and verifiable information (no OR needed) exists about other, all-discipline honor societies which contradict Phi Kappa Phi's claim about being the largest and most selective all-discipline society.  So I have nothing else to add.  Thanks.Angtitimo (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the edits, text, and talk page discussions in question. First of all, I would like to commend both of you on keeping it civil. Having said that, in the mire of editing disagreements, it is easy to get caught up in policy without reflecting upon the greater controversy itself. I feel it is necessary to reflect upon the basics of editing. To strip this down to the core, you primarily edit articles for the reader to get the facts, and let the reader make their own conclusion. That is the basis of everything. In terms of membership, your argument stems not from one user being right about whether or not the society is the most selective, but rather what the "most selective" means. This very argument, however, makes conclusions for the reader, not letting the reader make their own conclusion. Also, it does not matter what Phi Kappa Phi claims: sources must be reliable and independent for these types of claims. Therefore, I propose that:


 * The sentence in the lead paragraph about whether or not Phi Kappa Phi is the most selective or not be kept omitted, and that, in the Membership section, you two collaborate together to develop a sentence or two which highlight, using the sources you've found, why Phi Kappa Phi is considered to by some to be selective, and how their criteria compare to that of other all-discipline honor societies, while keeping it brief. 

Do you agree? Any comments?  Jd 027  talk 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Jd027, thank you for your time in reading through the dispute and offering a suggestion. The dispute is no longer for me on the definition of selective. As the edit was most recently written, my intent was to let the reader know that PKP claims itself to be the most selective and state what the selection criteria are so that a reader could then easily compare with other honor societies if she wanted.  This was not to make the decision for the reader.  It was to indicate to the reader that PKP makes that claim and provide the reader with the information necessary for her to test the truth of it.  Because no other honor society of its type makes this claim, and because no third party disputes this claim except for Angtitmo, moving the issue to the membership section would not eliminate the problem.  There are no other sources that exist on this matter.  Thus, if it is irrelevant to the reader that PKP claims to be the most selective, then the claim should be struck, the article staying as it currently is on the matter, and the issue laid to rest.  I am leaving for a conference tomorrow and might not be back at the keyboard until next week (just an FYI to explain my silence in the coming days).   Thanks again. --Lhakthong (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The second part (now stricken) was just a suggestion. It appears that the best course, as you (Lhakthong) said, would be to leave the "PKP claiming to be the most selective" part out of the article, considering that WP:PRIMARY, which outlines the primary source policy (the Phi Kappa Phi source would be primary because it was created by Phi Kappa Phi), says: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." Even though PKP claims to be the most selective, it does not matter because even if we put "PKP claims to be the most selective," this would be akin to stating "North Korea claims to be the happiest, most peaceful, and most democratic country on Earth," in that even though the fact that X claims they are the most Y is true, this is not very useful to the reader. It seems that what is in the Membership section is adequately complete. So, I believe that the article should be left as is. Since it seems like you (Lhakthong) agree, if User:Angtitimo agrees, it seems like we can wind this down.  Jd 027  talk 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So, this makes it neutral by not claiming that PKP is the most selective, but also outlining their membership requirements in order to let the reader make her own conclusion.  Jd 027  talk 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleting the claims about PKP being the "most selective" and "largest" from the lead, as suggested by the mediator (with thanks), is perfectly fine with me. His North Korea illustrates the point I had been making all along.  Not discussing "most selective" and "largest" in the Membership section, as suggested by Lhakthong, is fine with me, too.  Hopefully, this finally settles the issue concerning the content and the wording of the lead.  Many thanks.Angtitimo (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing Statement
It seems that the issue is resolved in that the article will stay as is. I express much appreciation to the editors involved for keeping it civil. You are truly model editors in this regard. Much luck,  Jd 027  talk 20:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. We should keep the lead as it is today, 03/19/09. Many thanks to jd027 for successfully mediating this issue.Angtitimo (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Thanks for the help, Jd027.  --Lhakthong (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)