Talk:Collegiate secret societies in North America

A known secret?

If these societies are known about how are they secret? KingStrato 07:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Their existence, and the facts presented, are (I hope) verifiable from referenced reliable sources. Their membership or other details may be secret. All must be verifiable, and must have some element of secrecy. Any that don't have both of those should be removed. The burden of proof is on those who wish to include an entry. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Care needs to be taken to determine whether or not some of these "societies" listed here are nothing more than local fraternities claiming to be "secret societies" even though they may have a seperate wiki entry. Case in point, I removed The William Penn Society. It's difficult at times to tell what makes an organization a secret society versus just some social club but usually secret societies don't have websites run by them which includes a full roster as well as current events and pictures. That goes completely against what a secret society is. Membership rosters are almost always kept secret unless someone outside the organization happens to come across this information. I was once told that being in a fraternity allows for connections which will get your foot in the door but in a secret society, you're already in. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 05:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So, if Skull & Bones sets up a website, then they're off the list? "That goes completely against what a secret society is."---says who? says what? against what standard? Think for a second---against what standard??? This page is rapidly descending into, it can't be listed unless it's referenced, but anything with a reference is not secret. This is silly. But not in a fun way. 159.247.3.210 (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

I think the point here is S&B is not going to setup a public website like say the Innocents: http://www.unl.edu/innocent it just won’t happen so we don’t need to worry about that. A group that does have a website like that doesn’t seem very secret. A group like Order of Angell does have a website, but you can see it is quite different, and still fits in with the secretive nature of the organization: http://www.michigamua.org/ I understand what you are getting at with the contradictory nature of secret societies, but most of the major secret societies are going to yield plenty of google hits and press from reputable off campus sources, look at all the press S&B had during the last election. Something that many of the groups on this list don’t have. So references to secret groups are good, but they just don’t seem secret when it is the group itself doing the publicity through a big public website.2afterblue 16:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no particular reason holding back Skull & Bones from having a website, and they probably will have one in the near future. It's not secrecy, just lack of organization. ---At one point, Skull & Bones published a newspaper. For a long time they published one of the college annuals. This is no different. They will ALL have a website in a couple of years, and you'll still be looking for unicorns.

Societies, Yale and background

Hello folks: I'm the author of the paragraphs in the past few days giving what I hope is interesting background on secret societies at Yale, however, I am concerned that my contributions in this particular space go beyond the original paramaters of the page, which was simply a listing of collegiate societies. So I would welcome everyone's sense of whether background info. on college societies belongs here or elswehere.

As a Yalie (and close observer of the secret society system there, yes, its a hobby!), I have nonetheless taken care to cite outside documentation for the core points instead of making original assertions. One primary point I am trying to illustrate is that, at least at Yale, its not possible to view fraternities, historically, as separate from secret societies (and the term secret society itself is not a fixed category). There is a complex melange and accretion of traditions that encompass the fraternal organizations at yale. There are commonalities, and there are differences, but they are in degree.

So, yes, I would suggest that fraternities and societies are on the same spectrum as societies, and if others can add information to wikipedia on the background for societies at other campuses -- then such entries will have the broader purpose of putting these undergraduate organizations in context. I'm yale-centric, because I ama Yalie and that is the limit of my knowledge and I don't want to speculate on other schools, but I would suggest that at Yale, the secret society culture is so steeped in Yale history, and has had an effect on the real world outside yale, that this background belongs somewhere, and for now, I've put it at the head of the Yale listings. (Based on my anecdotal experience -- stress anecdotal -- several other US schools have as rich and lasting a presence on campus -- UVA, Georgetown, William and Mary, but Yale is in a class by itself in terms of the presence of the societies in campus life.)

Back to the fraternity-versus-society categories -- all of these 19th century fraternals took things from the Masons. My understanding from reading articles about the Masons in North America was that when their rituals were revealed to the pubic by anti-Mason agitators, the result that the anti-masons wanted was to expose masonic ritual to daylight and snuff out the movement. The opposite happened: many american social groups with no relationship to Masons or to old Germanic university fraternities emulated Masonic rituals in a transparent atetmpt to add spice and drama to their own proceedings - and college fraternals did the same. Nothing more mysterious than that. All those animal-themed civic associations (Moose, Elks and other lodges), and sororal associations too, these are social groups attempting to add ritual and mystery to make their activities seem more meaningful and solemn. In the inbred and isolated setting of a campus, its only natural that these practices would have found fertile soil, evolved in many ways in that incubator, and endured for so long (at Yale) because of the rich endowments and buildings that their alumni established. Thanks for feedback. --BoolaBoola2 19:28, 6 February 2007

• I removed the following from the Dartmouth section:

"Secret society" at Dartmouth, as at Yale, is arguably a characterization rather than a fixed category. Dartmouth societies derive from various 19th c. fraternal organization traditions, "rooted in the Englightenment society-founding boom..." according to an article on the material legacy of these organizations at the link: "Halls, Tombs and Houses: Student Society Architecture at Dartmouth"

See also: "Sense of Mystery Haunts Public and Private Buildings On and Off Campus"

I found this to be a bit confusing, and somewhat misleading. While it's true that at some points in the past, it may have been more difficult to meaningfully distinguish secret societies from "fraternal organizations", it's certainly not true that secret societies (at Dartmouth, at least) are more a characterization than a fixed category. In fact, they are entirely a fixed category. The College semi-coordinates the secret societies:[1] and maintain them in a perfectly fixed category. They are also formally distinct from the Greek system, which is what is understood when you say "fraternal organization" in the contemporary sense. -- schi ^talk 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Schi: Thanks for your explanation; your edits look good given your more accurate information. The "sense of mystery haunts..." article is a good resource but belongs elsewhere in the section then. I'll play with that some more and look forward to your and other's response. -- BoolaBoola2 19:49, 13 February 2007

• BoolaBoola2 is right in that this article is wholly insufficient for the realities of the older New England institutions. I propose that the short section I just introduced on Class societies be spun off to a new article where it can be filled out apart from this list. And the narrow views expressed here by others should not limit the fullest accounting of the actual state of affairs possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.247.3.210 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Alternatives to some guidelines

I recently made a case for Hot Side Hot at the University of Chicago to be included, but it's been removed. As it is, having read the articles here on many of these groups I am not convinced that there is any reason to object to its inclusion. For example, in many well known groups posted here - Skull and Bones is an easy example - it is generally mentioned that membership is known or can be easily determined. The group is a "secret society" by virtue of popular imagination, as well as in the fact that its practices are secret. Many organizations would seemingly fall into the "esoteric" category. This list, then, already allows considerable latitude in how "secret" a group really needs to be. I don't object to this fuzziness of defintion, but if "secrecy" is defined leniently, then this has to be applied across the board.

I also object to some of the guidelines listed above. Certainly #3, #4, and #5 are explicitly relevant to why a group is "notable." However, the articles' title does not specify a particular *type* of secret society, and claims to be an umbrella list. As such #2, #6, and *especially* #1 seem to be biased markers that inform the list based on irrelevant criteria.

1. Historic in nature say apx. 100 years of continual activation.

The number is completely arbitrary and has no function whatever except to proclude any university/college founded in the last century. The only reasonable justification for such a requirement is as a vouchsafe of continuity. However, this is an unreasonable measure since, 1) it doesn't guarantee continuity, only "activation," and 2) it bars many groups that may have maintained continuity since their inception. I think this criteria can be stricken. Since you are already asking that groups included warrant their own Wikipedia page, any self-defined "secret society" will have to demonstrate continuity in order to maintain their own article. As such, continuity is self-regulating. If there is going to be a criterium of continuity, however, it ought to be flexible and relevant to the candidacy of any particular group for this list. In other words, a robust and influential secret society founded in 2000 and still functioning today ought to be included. All it needs to demonstrate for the list is that it is "notable," "collegiate," and a "secret society."

2. Track record of pipeline networking.

The context is vague. Is this a measure of how members are selected to be included in the society (a more relevant criteria) or is it a measure of how the group interacts with external institutions (less relevant)? The former is legitimate criteria by any definition of "secret society" but still suffers from vagueness of phrasing. The latter - promtion from within to without - is one measure of notability, but does not reasonably seem to be a requirement for a notable collegiate secret society. A group could also be notable based on influence despite a lack of outside networking (eg. through the group's own policies/statements/traditionals/reputation).

6. Shown to have many members who are/were influential at a national level.

Same objection as above. A group whose members are influential at a national level may be notable, but not all notable groups will have this trait. A group could also be notable if it directly influences university or government policies without membership involvement, as an indirect instigator of social, political, cultural, or artistic movement.

I don't think that this list should broaden itself to meaninglessness, but I also think a list should be what it purports to be. All of my objections above are to criteria that would disallow notable secret societies from making this list. While I am thinking of this partly in terms of Hot Side Hot at the University of Chicago, I'll have to make the case elsewhere that that organization warrants its own article. Independent, though, of this concern, I don't think this can credibly perport to be an authentic and valid list until these discrepancies are corrected.

BlueSkiesFalling 11:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with your points. The problem with this list is it will likely keep growing to include any student group that has a bit of secrecy about them, perceived or otherwise. As you mentioned the guidelines 1-6 have some vagueness and they can't be used as absolutes, but just as suggestions. Maybe there are a couple of these every group on this list should meet, the notability ones, and the other criteria maybe a group fits maybe not. Having their own wiki page should be a requirement though. The header of the article does say this is a list of “notable secret societies”, which the list currently is not, it is currently a list of notable and not notable student organizations that choose not to disclose some aspect of their being.

Readers / conspiracy theorist would want to use a list like this to see what groups have an influence on a national level or in directing policy behind the scenes at their school. That is the image that seems to be conjured up when you think collegiate secret society. If that is the case then putting a group like “Wingless Angels”, whose biggest accomplishments seem to involve vandalism and some pigs, in with a group like Skull and Bones, whose members have used their affiliation to be in positions that affect your life right now, is silly. If we use number 3 and 4 and require a citation we would trim the list and improve it so that important information is not buried with non-notable items. --2afterblue 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything posted above in this thread. Non-local media coverage and an independent Wikipedia article for each entry (with their own citations including influence and esoteric/secret status) are particularly good, because they're more objective.

BlueSkiesFalling 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New Plan

My proposal is the chart I added. (Some of that material is little more than guessing, but it gets us on the right path.)

Instead of trying to impose a set of guidelines on the variety of societies, let's do what we should be doing, and that is cataloging what societies there are with all the multiple variables they have.

We can have functioning societies, (regular meetings, elect their own members, etc.), honorary societies, survivning old latin societies, male only, female only, fraternity only, etc., etc. and not make up crteria not based on the actual lay of the land. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.133.124.163 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

This list needs stricter criteria or separate pages for different types of groups, otherwise it is just going to grow and grow. It already has become less useful than what it was. Notability needs to be a key factor in what appears on this list. Public intrigue, media coverage, and at the very least an individual wiki page should be requirements. Groups that are defunct probably don't need to be included, unless they were merged into another secret society. Also differentiating between class and honorary is some what misleading. I think the differentiation could just be called member elected and nonmember elected. The page is simply becoming a list of any student recognition organization. The groups on this list that have national level influence and/or media attention should be pulled out from those that generate only one or two Google hits from their own webpage. 2afterblue 14:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Public intrigue? So the criteria for inclusion is uninformed rumor?

Public intrigue as in media coverage or having a good deal of Google hits. Half these groups are not notable or verified. I doubt many are even secret. If you want a list of all student groups let's change the title of the article.

Let me ask this, is this supposed to be a comprehensive list of societies, or a hot list for gossip -- something like a tinfoil hat conspriacy theorist fan site? If you claim less useful, then less useful for what?

When the article was a narrower list of the big name organizations and groups that have garnered national media attention it was easier to make connections about schools, groups, influence, and even politics. It also was easier to verify the groups that were on the list as being legitimate.

I personally would be in favor of dumping student recognition organizations entirtely, but that's a component of almost every one of these societies from Skull & Bones to the Florida State Key Club. Since no firm line can be drawn, then it ought to be as inclusive as possible. After all, that's part of the spirit of the whole wiki project, that we can finally compile comprehensive data that would have been impossible to assemble before.

More information does not always equate to a better article if the information is no good. What we have now is list filled with unverified and/or non notable groups. If the list was long and all the groups notable it would be fine, but that is not the case.

Here's a hint, on the right hand side of your screen there's a scroll bar. Use it.

Thanks for the tip. 2afterblue 00:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its important for us to define what a college secret society is. There are a lto fo them, and they may differ from the definition of a general "secret society" like the Mafia. The definition will of course vary from campus to campus, but secret societies (especially today) aren't necessarily only about "pipeline networking" and other stereotypes. They are also pretty different from fraternities, even though the ritual for fraternities is secret. No one at University of Virginia would confuse a fraternity like KA with the Seven Society - everyone knows what type of organization is, and it is our job to be able to recognize and quantify that. Also, the 100 year timeline isn't helpful. At Yale, Manuscript, one of the best known societies, is around 50 years old. Sage and Chalice, which Barbara Bush is a member of, is even younger, with no building, but everyone at Yale will definitely tell you it is a notable secret society.

I think one of the main differentiation points is selection process. At a fraternity, or a Harvard final club, you rush, punch, or otherwise try out for a position in the organization. At almost all secret societies, you are simply given a tap or an interview - you don't apply, you are chosen based on friendships, connections, achievement, luck, whatever.

Membership may not be concealed very well, but what rituals, rules, and what each group actually does with each other is the "secret" part.

As far as pipeline networking, even members of Bones nowadays don't network like they used to, so I don't think you can make that an overarching qualification.

The funning thing about this is there are a lot of good sources for information. For Yale in particular, the Yale Rumpus and Yale Daily News cover societies pretty regularly. Every year, 9 societies (Bones, Keys, Wolf's Head, Elihu, Berzelius, Book and Snake, Mace and Chain, Spade and Grave, and St Elmo) take out an ad every year in the Yale Daily News announcing Tap Night rules, so there are 9 confirmed there. Manuscript and others are also well known and noted. The Yale Light and Truth has a good article on Yale societies. I am sure other schools also have good sources. College newspapers typically know how things should be categorized.

I'm pretty well versed in this stuff so let me know if you have any questions.

Griffeyin96 19:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mass pruning

I have removed all entries from the North American lists which were red links or no links at all. Once there are articles which can stand up to WP:V scrutiny, then please re-add them. As it is, there should be references here, we shouldn't have to go to each article to determine whether the references are valid, but I guess I'll have to start that. Corvus cornix 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now also removed all entries whose links did not go to to pages about the societies. Now, explain to me what makes some of these "secret" societies? Their articles don't say they are. This will take some more research. Corvus cornix 23:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting information.

Whatever you think you're doing, you're removing valuable and useful information from the page. Please stop it. This is completely irrational. DO NOT VANDALIZE THIS PAGE ANYMORE.

Removing unsourced material is not vandalism. Source it, or it cannot stay here. WP:V is a policy. Corvus cornix 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How stupid can you be? You're advocating destroying information that dozens of people have helped to compile. That is vandalism. Compiling information, THAT is a Wikipedia policy. If you can't do something constructive, please do not do anything destructive. If you want sources, go and find them. Otherwise, you're just a vandal and a hooligan. This is insanity. ... added at 01:10, 26 June 2007 129.133.124.195

Wrong, wrong wrong (and rude too). It's not Wikipedia policy to compile hearsay, claim that it's information, and expect that others will find sources for it. It's not destructive to delete unsourced information. If you want to add this material, go and find credible sources that show it's information rather than mere rumor, and specify those sources. And when you write something on a talk page, sign it by hitting the "~" key four times in a row. -- Hoary 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Corvus cornix and Hoary. This page is useless with all the unsourced and inaccurate information. In this case, less is more. Let's keep this list limited to organizations that belong on it please. The efforts to do so are appreciated. -- Cornell2010 01:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are destroying information for no good reason. "Unverified" is not an absolute rule. Adding the unverified warning is done on hundreds of pages, if not tens of thousands. You do not understand what you are doing. You need to stop. Please stop destroying information that is valuable to others for some absolutist crochet of your own. This is only destructive. This is a list page, not an article. You obtuse lump. Wake up. ... added at 03:47, 26 June 2007 by 129.133.124.195

You are the one who appears to be drowsy, IP. CC is not "destroying information", he's deleting hearsay that might be based on fact and might be mere twaddle. Verification is an absolute rule. Meanwhile, your persistent rudeness is not making you more persuasive but instead leading toward a block. -- Hoary 05:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find reliable sources to create articles from, then the information can not, and will not, be here. I don't understand what's so difficult for you. [[WP:|Verifiability]] is one of the inviolate policies of Wikipedia. Corvus cornix 05:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Corvus cornix and Hoary. As was stated months ago and throughout the discussion page, this list needs standards. If someone comes here looking for information on influential secret societies, finding a huge list of non-notable, uncited little boys and girls clubs is not useful. Without efforts to cleanup this page anyone can make up a spooky sounding name for a group and place their group on this list. 2afterblue 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely incorrect. This is a destruction of information. There have been dozens of people who have been adding information here for months, and most of it free of any foolishness. A large portion of the articles in Wikipedia have verifiability issues, and have appropriate warnings, and there is a template just for that purpose. There IS NO ABSOLUTE RULE that information with verifibility issues must be deleted; Corvus cornix is wrong. Corvus cornix's claim that "the information can not, and will not, be here." is the stubborn petulance of a misinformed mind.

2afterblue's desire to see a list of "influential secret societies" is like asking for a list of good places to see unicorns. He ought to prove that such a thing exists beforehand. Despite conspiracy theorists fantasies, there is no such thing. ---But perhaps that is what he wants, a list with no societies on it.

Many people have used this list, and many people have added to it and improved it. For a couple of people with limited comprehension abilities to destroy it is unconscionable. 159.247.3.210 14:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are getting hung up on the word influential so let’s take that out of the equation; we still have an uncited list. Just because I say the Secret Club of the Gilded Doughnut exists, does not make it worth including on Wikipedia, unless it is cited. Saying that many articles have verifiability problems so it is ok for this one to have them is like being in a riot and saying its ok to steal because everyone else is doing it. If we don’t verify things what makes Wikipedia different from any old nut job’s website? 2afterblue 14:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not. It's many old nut jobs' website. If there is a Secret Club of the Gilded Doughnut posted, then challenge it, delete it, do what you want. A lot of people have added information here. Some have put up bogus things, and they were challenged or deleted. Why is this different? Just because some anal-retentive with no cognitive discretion wants to apply an arbitrary rule ro a list? A warning is sufficient. It is incomprehensible that if I put up a fictional group that actually was used in a published novel, that would fly with the literalist, because it's cited. But a real group that doesn't have a website, that can't go. This is idiocy. ---But no one can doubt that a lot of people are using and viewing this list and find utility in doing so. Just because two or three cannot conceive of how the list is used is no reason to destroy it. Currently this is the most extensive list of college class societies / secret societies available on the internet. Naturally, if this is the most comprehensive list, then some of the list will be unreferenceable to other places. Why shouldn't Wikipedia have the most comprehensive list? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THAT? That's supposed to be the point of this little exercise. If information is not welcome here, which I more and more suspect is actually the case, then it will be time to abandon this project and go elsewhere. If I have to make up my own list and post it elsewhere, then I sure as hell will not share the copyright back to here. ... added at 21:31, 26 June 2007 by 129.133.124.199

1. "The problem with that" is clearly explained in WP:OR and WP:V.
2. "Information" is not welcome here if it's not verifiable.
3. It would not be a matter of "[sharing] the copyright back to here"; it would be (in part) a matter of releasing the material under GFDL.
4. Please sign your contributions (by hitting the "~" key four times).

Hoary 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I have instigated a Request for Comment. Please respond here as to how best to resolve the impasse as to whether or not there should be redlinks here which do not even source their claims to existence. Corvus cornix 23:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved party I think it's clear that there needs to be some sort of sourcing for an addition. I don't think that it's necessarily the case that each entry needs to meet notability criteria, but there needs to be something that other editors can check in order to confirm an entry on the list. I think that even trivial mentions in a school newspaper would suffice. But there does need to be something. -Chunky Rice 23:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment These red link items must be sourced. A quick check shows that for some of them this is not difficult. The problem with having a list of societies without sources is that it is just to easy for some one to insert a phony or non notable society into the list. Wikipedia has a problem with vanity, hoax and non notable content and without verifiability it would be out of control. It is true that there is a large amount of unsourced content and it should not all be deleted, however if any unsourced info is in the least bit dubious it should be removed immediately. The anon involved in this really should relax. None of the info is lost it is all saved in history, when sources are found just add it back in. No reason to throw around insults and threats. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment For me, I don't think the problem is necessarily that unsourced or non-notable organizations are being listed (although I agree that all groups need to have some sort of actual existence and legitimacy). I think the list's main weakness is the lack of organization and the huge differences in the societies listed. Differences in purpose, membership, respectability, history, etc. The creation of the table format was supposedly a method of differentiating society types, but instead the list became disorganized, ugly, bloated, and unreadable. I much preferred it when it was a little more simplified as it was back in March 2007 [2]. Maybe the solution is to divide the list into better categories so it's more organized? I'd love to just see the page more readable and organized instead of a jumbled mish-mash of a table with misplaced paragraphs and comments underneath. Unfortunately, most editing on the page is reverted immediately. Cornell2010 00:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• I don't understand the situation or request. If you've instigated an RFC [yawn], then link to it and people can read it there and respond to it there as appropriate. Meanwhile, there's no need an RFC or even a discussion here to decide whether or not WP:OR or WP:V should be waived for this article. They should not be waived: they apply everywhere (which of course doesn't mean that a lot of people don't ignore them and add hearsay, press-release content, misinformation and mere fiction to a lot of articles). -- Hoary 00:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I instigated the RfC as the first required step towards Dispute Resolution. Following that is mediation. Following that is Arbcom. Following that is getting the people who keep disrupting this page blocked from editing. I don't want to be blocked for violating WP:3RR because the anon keeps changing IP addresses at his school. Corvus cornix 02:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Someone has posted that you. "Verifiability is one of the inviolate policies of Wikipedia." That sounds nice but isn't true. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) The policy states that 1) Verifiability "has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." That is, 'should follow" not ironclad. 2) "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." Virtually none of this material has yet been challenged.

Clearly the consensus about verifiability in Wikipedia is a standard that should, when possible, be met. And, that the process that achieves verifibility is one where something is posted, then challenged, then the original editor has the opportunity to provide a source, and then (and only then) the material "MAY" be removed. (Not "must".)

Read the page, that's what it says.

As it is, I could go to a million wikipedia pages and after almost every sentence put 'citation needed' and then delete the whole of the million pages. If the rule were applied absolutely, then every sentence would need a footnote.

Second. we need to consider that this is NOT an article. This is a list, and a list about a topic at least semi-confidential. Furthermore, it is about a topic about which there IS no better compilation.

It being a list is important two ways, first, it will probably be changing on a continual basis. Unlike a set biographical article, this list will be especially fluid, and people already will understand that just in the nature of the document. There will always be new things not-yet-sourced coming in. Should they be? Sure. Should something be found for all of them? Absolutely. But let's not lose what there is, or hinder people freely adding to the list, in the meantime. Further, in a list it is clear that we are looking at raw data, not a finished piece. This is the rough draft from which finished articles can be developed. If the X society is a red link, that will serve to prompt people to add a page for that society. Let's at least have this as a way to lay out what the topic covers and where efforts should be made. As I take it, that's one reason lists are appended to articles.

Second, we have the luxury here of getting anonymous 'tips' about the societies on their campus, something that would be impossible in most fora.

Third, we ought to realize that we are talking about a growing body of information that has never been compiled anywhere else. The longest similar list I know of online has about 20 societies on it. My own personal list I developed has about 40. I think this list is even longer already.

Clearly a lot of people are using it and using it for it's intended purpose, as an initial register of college societies, not fraternities, and presumably the individual articles will come with time. For those who find this usage incomprehensible, then leave it alone. It doesn't have to be useful to everyone. **It certainly isn't hurting anything.**

Put a verifiability warning on the top of the list, (as I did once today), even add an explanatory paragraph, and let the thing grow. If people want to challenge society X, or society Y, or Z, then it can be cleaned up that way. That's how this whole thing works, and THAT is what the Verifiability policy requires.129.133.124.199 00:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You did see that part of WP:V which says official policy ? Why would we want to include things which no one can prove, which you keep insisting must be done? Corvus cornix 02:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• More Comment The real problem with this list is that there are a bunch of teenaged boys who come to this page expecting to find Skull & Bones and the Machiene and the Orthogonians, and want to evaluate which one is really controlling the U.S. Senate and Wall Street. The very existence of the list is a disappointment to them, because it shows that societies like this are a dime a dozen. Most every university has two, and therefore, these groups are probably not the high road to secret power right out of the movie 'The Skulls'. THAT disappointment is what's pissing people off. But if it's a choice between gratifying that adolescent dream, or reality, I'll pick reality. This verifiability question is just a side issue & is really beside the point. 129.133.124.199 01:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • then I suggest you fork this article off to your own website, because verifiability is never beside the point at Wikipedia. Corvus cornix 02:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you bothered asking for comment when you can't even bother to read the Verifibility page. Look, I've proven you wrong. It's plain for anyone to see. Suck it up.

You mean that part of the Verifiability page which says The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source? That material I have been challenging repeatedly which you keep adding or restoring without reliable sources? And have you noticed that you seem to be the only editor who so far has objected to my actions here. And please try to keep your comments civil. Corvus cornix 04:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1- you haven't challenged anything. You just show up and delete everything. Where once have you challenged anything? Where??? 2- verifiability is plainly not meant to be applied as an absolute rule. You clearly can't conceive of rationally weighing variables. That's YOUR intellectual shortcoming. Anybody can see your approach to verifibility is baseless. 3- I took this request for comment as legitimate and read off chapter and verse. You have no position left. Delete what you want, but you are clearly wrong for doing so. ... added at 04:31, 27 June 2007 by 129.133.124.199

Look, signing comments is really easy. Your keyboard has a "~" key, right? Hit it four times in a row. -- Hoary 10:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it clear that verifiability is not meant to be applied as an absolute rule? (Incidentally, I'm all in favor of disabusing teenagers of their conspiracy theories, but I think there are better way of doing this than serving up hearsay as encyclopedic "information".) -- Hoary 10:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The list is very useful as it is, and it collects information unavailable elsewhere. This verifibility issue is silly. Obviously it cannot be imposed absolutely. I don't know what the agenda is behind this Corvus cornix's demand. Reading the verifiability policy statement makes it quite clear that it is not absolute and "verifiability is never beside the point" is clearly a mistatement of the official policy. It's just wrong. ... added at 14:07, 27 June 2007 159.247.3.210

1. If "information" isn't available elsewhere, why should the reader believe that it's information and not misinformation?
2. Why can't the the requirement for verifiability be imposed absolutely?
3. I don't know the agenda behind this Corvus cornix's demand. I don't know the agenda behind yours. You don't know the agenda behind mine. So let's forget about motivation, OK?
4. Where has there been a misstatement?
5. I believe that keyboards for the Connecticut market have a "~" key.

-- Hoary 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My only agenda is to keep Wikipedia sourced with reliable sources, not somebody's claims that they refuse to explain where they got the information from. Corvus cornix 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - First of all everyone needs to calm down and brush up on Wikipedia's policy on civility. Involved parties are only hurting their cause by presenting their case in a sometimes rude and/or aggressive manner. I've seen this list grow from a handful of societies to a whole bunch of red links. One of the main problems is what constitutes a "secret society" as a opposed to nothing more than a local fraternity? I don't think a consensus will be reached anytime soon. However the key issue in these deletions is verifiability. Daniel J. Leivick makes an excellent point. Without verifiability, this list would get out of control (and it looked like it was heading that way). Without sources, anyone can insert any hoax entry. Dealing with vandalism and vanity and hoax entries is very problematic on Wikipedia. For this reason, I would rather see only verified societies on this list. As for adding fact tags, I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on unsourced material. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is hillarious, Corvus cornix and Hoary are trying to enforce a policy they can't even understand. All I can do is quote the words of the policy directly to you. If you can't read and understand them, then there is nothing more I can do. Imposing rules you can't even read is a joke. ---As for Dysepsion's comment, he both admits he isn't sure what the topic is about, but he thinks it's veering out of control anyway. Brilliant. "Verifiability is one of the inviolate policies of Wikipedia" is an utter misstatement by someone who can't understand the paragraphs he's reading on the official policy. I've read and linked to that official policy. What else can I do? Corvus cornix is also lying when he said he challenged other posters on their additions to the list. If he had, there would be a record of it on this page. Look at this page, please, and find such a dialog once, I dare you. So the lot of you aren't even applying the verifiability policy the way it's written. This is Bull. But the ignorance of another poster is not my problem. Live in it, yourself. 129.133.124.199 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment With this page trimmed down the way it is we might as well take a look at some of the text that is there now and fix it up, like get the contents box back up to the top of the page. I'm not sure why 129.133.124.199 took down the whole list after arguing this whole time how valuable it is. I feel a bit like I'm watching some kid who is unhappy they can't have their way so they are taking all the toys and going home.

Being called a liar is the last straw. I see no point in continuing this discussion. The next step will be mediation. Corvus cornix 02:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• The IP says: Corvus cornix and Hoary are trying to enforce a policy they can't even understand. All I can do is quote the words of the policy directly to you. [...] I've read and linked to that official policy. I took the link. I read it. What don't I understand within it? -- Hoary 03:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Now that the page has become what it has become, I have saved the original list as very valuable. I am a professional historian, connected with a major university and I do historical research in the field. I saw the list as a very informative collection of basic information, even if some of the listings may later prove erroneous. I am only writing to note that it seems that for people who understood the purpose of the list, they wanted it to remain, but for people who didn't understand the purpose of the list, they were the ones who wanted to delete 2/3s of it. I suppose it makes sense that it should be that way. It's a shame that such a list cannot exist on wikipedia, 'cause I don't know where else to find the same elsewhere. 66.217.179.179 04:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Seems like the issue is not one of understanding but that the "purpose of the list" was inconsistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. -Chunky Rice 04:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, at least two or three people here clearly do not understand the rules they are attempting to enforce. 1. verifiability can only be a goal, not some absolute 2. the proper protocol is to challenge the poster questionable information, and then wait for a response, if that was done, there would be a record of it on this page. This is how wikipedia is supposed to work, where any original draft is continually refined. That's not what happened here. 159.247.3.210 15:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How about a compromise? If I restore the redlinks, and put a "citation needed" tag on all of them, how long should the tag stay there without a sourced article being created, before the item can be removed from here again? Corvus cornix 15:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Purdue

Oh, this is good. This Purdue stuff is priceless. Welcome to the new era of of the "List of College Secret Societies." Pure gold. You guys are going to make a great body of knowledge together. 159.247.3.210 20:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Purdue's material is cited, there has been an exhibition displaying genuine artifacts of the Crescent society (thus, concrete verifiable evidence, such as Chase's original letter which is preserved), and the school even today continues to reference the name and culture of the order by calling one of their current honor societies "Skull & Crescent" (verifiable as well).

I’ve got to agree with you on that. I’m not sure what all the edits for such a small section are about. I’d be all for taking all that college specific text jibber-jabber and merging it to the college page it pertains to. That way people familiar with the college can help make it more accurate. 2afterblue 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• The numerous edits were a means to avoid edit conflicts(which makes a person loose all of their writing). Since it seems to be common that people want to change this page frequently, often while someone is in the process of their own edit. It is more secure to write something quickly, put it on the page, and then go back to correct spelling errors or other minor mistakes after. Thus, preventing an edit conflict and loosing all of their work by being forced to start their edit all over again.

• • The page was better with the trimmed down list, hopefully the citation needed tags will help though. The text 159.247.3.210 keeps removing is fine with me if it never comes back. The Purdue club can stay if cited, no problem, though I wish it had been put in the right alphabetical order. My comment above, which you oddly got all twitchy about below, even though I was trying to agree, was simply to suggest the college specific text get moved to the respective college pages to keep this as just a list, as it originally was. I also found it amusing the Purdue dude took about 20 tries to get his text right, which a perfectionist should find funny if using wikipedia didn't wind them up so tight. I won't go as far as another user did and suggest missing meds, but seriously deep breaths can lower your blood pressure.2afterblue 02:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Purdue listing has now been placed into the right alphabetical order.

Oh, no, this is beautiful. This makes my point as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer. This is EXACTLY what KingStrato, Dysepsion, BlueSkiesFalling, Corvus cornix, Hoary, and you, 2afterblue, have always wanted. A real tell all of mythic proportions (literally); the dark, secret corridors of power, the influence, the intrigue, every single thing that every 'secret society' promises and which, really, it takes Hollywood to deliver. Here it is, in the mind of some old Purduian coot, the fantasy you all wanted fufilled.

• That is an incorrect perception based on ignorance. There is no conspiracy attached to Purdue's society, and neither the society itself or any other creditable person has ever claimed that this group's secrets had anything to do with "corridors of power". In fact, Crescent has even said that their mysteries pertain to the "culture" of our early American forefathers, not their politics.

Look at your own criteria :

"I would think that for a group to be considered "notable" it would need at least a couple of the following factors:

1. Historic in nature say apx. 100 years of continual activation.

2. Track record of pipeline networking.

3. Mentioned by a major news outlet that is independent, in other words not the school’s paper.

4. Public intrigue, for example non-member interest shown on online discussion forums, individual page on wikipedia.

5. Significant known contribution as a group, such as the contributions known to be made by the Seven Society.

6. Shown to have many members who are/were influential at a national level."

And these Purduians meet all six, in spades. It's a prophecy fufilled!!!

• Yes, Purdue's Crescent has always been one of America's most substantial collegiate societies, and Wikipedia desperately needed to have a page listing about them for some time now. Crescent should also be of particular interest to American historians interested in our early American culture. Crescent's page will have cross-over appeal to many groups, not just those searching for secret collegiate societies.

And I love number 6. Because this Purdue guy's got it all and more. You know why? Because if you get him going, he'll tell you that The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent, also known as The Society of Bubo and Bones, actually controls NASA.

• The statement above is completely false, and it is referencing a former argument held between this critic of Theta Nu Epsilon of Wesleyan and some Purdue students. It began when some Purdue alumni found Theta Nu Epsilon's page on Wikipedia and thought they they could enrich it's information by also adding the important history of Purdue's own Alpha chapter of TNE. Purdue was TNE's Alpha in Indiana and Purdue's group was one of TNE's most important and prestigious chapters. Alpha Indiana even required the tapping of members, something that the Wesleyan group does not even practice today. Instead of embracing the addition of Purdue's glorious TNE history, which Purdue alumni thought would have been welcomed out of brotherly bonding, Wesleyan's group viewed it as a treat to their own legitimacy and had a chip on their shoulder about Purdue since. The NASA point above is pertaining to the fact that Purdue has put two men on the moon (Neil Armstrong etc.), and Purdue is legitimately one of the major schools NASA recruits astronauts from, the other major school is MIT. After many times of clarifying that there is no conspiracy with Purdue and NASA, after many times of trying to make this indiviual understand Purdue's engineering/astronautical history, it always goes back to this nonsense. It is a waste of time to try to clarify what has already been clarified countless times already.

---Yes, the space agency. How's that for "influential at a national level". All of our astronauts were actually arcane alchemists sent from a secret society in Purdue to colonize the Moon! Now, that's pretty damn influential.

• Again, this TNE critic of Wesleyan feels motivated to continue on about issues of conspiracy as well as adding the "alchemist" part to try, out of desperation, to diminish the glorious astronautical history of Purdue and it's profoundly honorable Crescent. Let me elaborate even more about the Wes TNE conflict with Purdue: after Purdue alumni agreed that Wes' TNE today is nothing more than a start up after a substantial period of being defunct on Wes' campus, Purdue alumns did not feel that they even wanted to be associated with the current outfit, which in Purdue's view point, has serious legitimacy issues. Purdue went so far as to even let Wes TNE control what ever they wanted to write on the Theta Nu Epsilon page (as if Wes TNE even has the right over Wikipedia to do so), and just requested to add Purdue's Alpha status to the chapter list at the bottom of the TNE page (as it is now, or was before I started writing this). As a measure of good spirit, Purdue alumni even suggested that there should be deletion of the argument referenced between the two groups on Theta Nu Epsilon's talk page because, since it started, several other groups began siding with the Purdue camp and were also adding Purdue infomation back to TNE's page. By removing the talk page argument, it would help prevent Purdue from being added back on since it was frequently occuring after a growing number felt Purdue's argument was the correct and fair position. Purdue alumns specifically said that they were not interested in either Wes' current TNE outfit or TNE's listing on Wikipedia any longer. If Purdue is referenced as an Alpha on the bottom, that would be enough, we can then delete portions of the talk page that could inspire people from putting Purdue information back on, and then each group could part ways and go on with their lives. Wes' camp agreed. After Purdue upheld their word, Wes TNE showed their lack of taste and class by starting a new talk category labeled "Oh stop" that tried to point fun at the 1882 connection of Purdue with Yale's Skull and bones by again making snide alchemy digs. This "Oh stop" category just began to fuel defense for the Purdue camp all over again, a defense that wasn't even coming from Purdue alums but by other groups that knew much about Purdue's Crescent(of which Wes TNE knows nothing). Purdue again took the high road after checking the talk page and just removed the trouble making "Oh stop" category.

• This can all be verified by checking the Theta Nu Epsilon talk page history (if it wasn't changed by that group).

So, you've got what you've made. Live with it.

• Here is a classic statement by Wes TNE again putting belame on Purdue and others for trying to enrich the page of TNE's history, a history that Wes TNE currently isn't even fully educated on. This cry baby behavior of Wes TNE wanting to have control should be tolerated by none of us, especially since it's coming from college sophmores with no real world exprience and very little knowledge of all of TNE's true history.

• • Damn dude, did you miss your medication or are you naturally a cry baby, or is it anger management issues you suffer from? Congratulations on making an ass out of yourself

• Yes, Purdue alumns agree with this person's contribution. It does appear that Wes TNE's are cry babies with anger management issues and have made an ass of themselves. Even after Purdue alums give in to their temper tantrums over "their" TNE page, they are still not happy and have to come to other talk pages to continue to make trouble and bash other groups.

Crying? I'm happy as hell. You seem to have missed that. If you'd like, you can print out what I wrote and ask someone to explain it to you.

• Here is a classic defensive flip flop that demonstrates insecurity. This Wes TNE person now feels embarassed and is trying to redirect his own shame into insulting other people's intellegence by asking for "someone to explain it to you".

• In short, the truth of the matter is that none of us should put up with bullying from nothing more than sophmore punks of zero consequence. Information of all legitimately sourced collegiate societies should be out there for everyone searching Wikipedia and written in the most objective manner possible. Moreover, there is no such thing as one "it" society. Each society is unique and has something of value to offer to the history of America's collegiate experience. It is not a competition on which one is the best, because there is no such thing as one truly being the best. To give an engineering example, as us Purdue people love to do, which of the following cars is the best car? Ferrari, Rolls Royce, Lamborghini or Aston Martin. The correct answer is none of them. They are all classified as great with every person only able to choose one based on their particular taste rather than objective truth. Bones may be the most famous, possibly Crescent is the most mysterious, I would say final clubs like Princeton's Ivy may be most aristocratic. They are all unique, and we should all take a page from the 1882 history book of Bones and Cresent's meeting that demonstrated nothing less than mutual respect and true brotherhood, not what Wes TNE has demonstrated lately. Moreover, in all of Wes TNE's referencing of Wes TNE's important chapter connections to Bones, why than is Crescent being the one invited to Yale and honored with gifts (that still exist as verifiable evidence today) instead of Wes TNE. Bones must have always looked at Wes TNE as the "Volkswagen" to their "Porsche".

• The best thing Wes TNE can do at this point is to try to improve upon their own image by demonstrating respect towards others as well as spending more time into developing their own organization into something worthy of higher respect, rather than using all of their energy towards hoplessly trying to bash societies that are already highly respected by countless people and other highly honored secret societies, societies that Wes TNE is not in league with now and will probably never be in league with ever.

Sure.

Compromise

User:Justinm1978 and I have worked out what we hope is a fair agreement. This evening, I will restore all of the red links, and tag them "citation needed". On August 1, any red links will get removed. Does this work? Corvus cornix 20:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I could care less.

Thanks for the useful input. For those who do care, I've put the table back, and will wait till August 1 before pruning again. Corvus cornix 01:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Delete whatever you want. You can do what the hell you want with it. I take no responsibility for for this page or its contents. There's going to be another one of you showing up every couple of weeks, and this whole cycle will repeat. I'm not wasting my time. And every time some nutjob posts tinfoil-hat nonsense, I'm going to laugh my ass off. : )

The New Skull & Crescent intro

Let's go through it line by line... Collegiate secret societies are typically college class societies that will have some part of their initiation ritual, internal structure, or general culture kept private from those who are not initiated into it. Fine, although general culture is an idiosyncratic term of the author, and undefined.

They may at times, though rarely, be concealing a more substantial secret about their university or society at large. This is only a claim of one society, Skull & Crescent, the author's own. Of course, the whole purpose of this intro is to set the ground for the author's own society, and is of little practical value in introducing the topic.

Secret societies typically have symbols that identify membership and typically have club houses often called "tombs". Calling meeting halls 'Tombs' is an especially Yale-ish idea, copied at a few other colleges.

Death inspired imagery or mystical symbols often surround many secret societies. Mystical?

At certain universities, senior class secret societies are sometimes called "Final Clubs". One of the other paragraphs by a different editor makes it clear that this is only true part of the time, and only at Harvard.

Some secret societies are more selective with membership than others. The most selective societies require that an already established member chooses a future initiate, rather than the individual wanting to join having the right to go to the society first. Those societies that select members by the most exclusive model, typically call the potential initiate as being "tapped" to join. Some other common names for tapping have also been "punched" and "bickered". Incorrect. "Tapping" literally refers to tapping on the shoulder, which is the central gesture of the process as it is conducted at Yale. ---You go into the quad, and someone literally taps you on the shoulder. Yale invented what is called tapping, and it is what it is. Having individual members select new members as replacements is something other than tapping. It is not an uncommon practice. Nor does it guarantee that the society that practices it is any more exclusive than election by other means.

Below are a list of many well known collegiate secret societies and opening many group's listing will lead to a page discussing that particular society's culture and history. The unmeaning term 'culture' again.

At the bottom of this page are additional details pertaining to some of America's collegiate secret societies. Something like , 'The individual practices at different universities is described afterward.'

• Well let's talk about this, 1) what does one call the unique idiosyncracies of any society that perpetuates traditionally over time, but a "culture". I guess you could substitute the word "tradition" possibly, but culture does seem like a perfectly acceptable word. 2) As long as there is even one society that is known to be functioning with a more substantial secret, than that point needs to also be addressed inclusively when talking about how all possible known collegiate secret societies may work. 3) By calling meeting centers "club houses" is a way to be inclusive of all society houses, however, "tombs" are commonly used terms on many campuses, it is used at times on Yale's, Dartmouth's, Penn's and others as well. It's common usage warrents to be pointed out in some form. 4) What else would you call a symbol such as an Egyptian anch used by Wolf's Head or the Ouroborous snake used by Book and Snake as well as many other symbols used by secret societies- these are ancient mystical symbols- symbols of alchemy, symbols of religion, etc. 5) All Final Clubs are also hiding portions of their internal workings from outsiders, thus by definition, they are also secret societies. Also the most famous Final club isn't even at Harvard- It's the Ivy Club at Princeton as well as many other schools having Final Clubs. 6) Yes, the term tapping was invented at Yale, and yes you are historically corrent in how that term came to be, but tapping is a gerneral term that is also now used throughout America as to refer to that type of exclusive selction process. We simply don't have a better, one word choice, in our english vocabulary to express that idea without using some cumbersome phrase like "having individual members select new members as replacements"- a phase that also does not imply exclusiveness since there are societies on Yale's campus that invite every senior to join and then also select 15 as members, this is far less exclusive than say a society like Bone's that doesn't even give more than 15 members the right to even be considered. 7) I already addressed the "culture" issue previously. 8) "At the bottom of this page..." was needed because of the general sloppiness of the whole page. The page is labled as "Lists of collegiate secret societies", but all that additional stuff on the bottom are not technically lists, and if we remove it and just have a true list, we are also removing some valuable information that is contained in that portion. Hence, the need to phrase as it was. Morover, Purdue was also needed to be there to help those also understand the way that society is functioning which, as we all agree, is functioning slightly different than the others. It is a futher clarifcation about secret societies in general.

• In short, the page is now organized successfully, and as a result, I don't see wikipedia's volunteers flagging this page as "confusing" as it was flagged before. It is easy to criticize, my friend, but much harder to actually do something benificial. No one else stepped up to do something, and your criticism now did not really pan out into something that was even constructive to use.

---

1) what does one call the unique idiosyncracies of any society that perpetuates traditionally over time, but a "culture". I guess you could substitute the word "tradition" possibly, but culture does seem like a perfectly acceptable word. Except that is suggests a more comprehensive worldview. Societies generate gultures, fraternities generate traditions.

2) As long as there is even one society that is known to be functioning with a more substantial secret, than that point needs to also be addressed inclusively when talking about how all possible known collegiate secret societies may work. No, one starts with the general and then moves to the specific. There is no 'functioning' society with any such secret.

3) By calling meeting centers "club houses" is a way to be inclusive of all society houses, however, "tombs" are commonly used terms on many campuses, it is used at times on Yale's, Dartmouth's, Penn's and others as well. It's common usage warrents to be pointed out in some form. Tombs are associated primarily with Yale, and it is generally conceded that the usage originated there, (and with Skull & Bones).

4) What else would you call a symbol such as an Egyptian anch used by Wolf's Head or the Ouroborous snake used by Book and Snake as well as many other symbols used by secret societies- these are ancient mystical symbols- symbols of alchemy, symbols of religion, etc. You could call them the ordinary symbols of American fraternalism, for example. 'Mystical' as an adjective adds nothing substantive, but only pretends to indicate something substantive.

5) All Final Clubs are also hiding portions of their internal workings from outsiders, thus by definition, they are also secret societies. Also the most famous Final club isn't even at Harvard- It's the Ivy Club at Princeton as well as many other schools having Final Clubs. I did not object to final clubs being listed as societies. However, the usage of the term is very limited.

6) Yes, the term tapping was invented at Yale, and yes you are historically corrent in how that term came to be, but tapping is a gerneral term that is also now used throughout America as to refer to that type of exclusive selction process. We simply don't have a better, one word choice, in our english vocabulary to express that idea without using some cumbersome phrase like "having individual members select new members as replacements"- a phase that also does not imply exclusiveness since there are societies on Yale's campus that invite every senior to join and then also select 15 as members, this is far less exclusive than say a society like Bone's that doesn't even give more than 15 members the right to even be considered. Nevertheless, it is NOT tapping. There are semi-public tapping ceremonies at Yale and Missouri, and there formerly were at Berkeley, perhaps elsewhere. Let's call things what they are, not something else. You can call it gobbledy-gooking if you want, but no one is going to understand you.

8) "At the bottom of this page..." was needed because of the general sloppiness of the whole page. The page is labled as "Lists of collegiate secret societies", but all that additional stuff on the bottom are not technically lists, and if we remove it and just have a true list, we are also removing some valuable information that is contained in that portion. Hence, the need to phrase as it was. Morover, Purdue was also needed to be there to help those also understand the way that society is functioning which, as we all agree, is functioning slightly different than the others. It is a futher clarifcation about secret societies in general. I have no problem with the campus paragraphs, the only question is whether they should be with the American colleges, or at the end of a single world list, and based on that, where the headers should go.

• I feel no need to respond to this issue any further. My previous answers were satisfactory. If someone was to come to this page now, who never knew anything about secret societies, they would now have a general understanding of what they are, and it was written as best as could be done in a simplified form without going into high detail that simply would have been inappropriate for a minor introduction. My work on that page also achieved it's goal, to no longer have the page flagged as "confusing".

Um...except that we still have no consesus on what the hell this page is supposed to be about. 159.247.3.210 13:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I share much of your sentiment my friend, I too wish that it would have been structured more neatly from the begining. I guess that the page was started to be a list of college secret societies in general that was meant to compliment the other list of general secret societies on Wikipedia already. I would also like to see many of those labeled societies on the list go. There are ones on there now that have no date, no information about them when you open their specific pages, and not even the smallest bit of evidence that they do/did exist. How am I suppose to believe that half of those so called societies are real without anything written about them. If any society exists, shouldn't someone out there be able to write about that groups speccific culture, symbols, meaning etc. Why are half of those groups with absolutely no information about them still on the list?

• Let me also elaborate on your point #8 which I think is a very good point, and I am completely in agreement with. I also think that it would have been best structured by having the list of societies in America first, followed by the list of societies in Latin America second, and then folloed by the list of societies for Western Europe third with this page completing with specific details of some of American societies at the very end. But previously, I was only trying to patch together a sloppy pre-existing page into some mildly organized order without going in breaking up the whole thing with major work involved. It is satisfactory now, but could have been and still can be better as a whole, but I think it's good enough as is for general acceptance to stay this way without greater additional work.

---

We Need to Clean House!

There are way too many societies on this list that are suspect. I propose that if a society does not have an individual page attached to it, it should go, and if some of those societies that don't are trully legit, than someone that knows something about it must step up soon and fill the rest of us in why it is there in the first place. What is the deal with all of those societies that have no date, no info- come on. Any legit society would have that known. All this excess is making for a sloppy page, crowding those societies that should truly be focused on, and is confusing to those out there that want to research well estblished societies with unique/specific identities.65.54.97.190

That's what I was trying to do before all of these rude single purpose accounts showed up making personal attacks and edit warring without creating any useful content. On August 1, I will be deleting all unreferenced redlinks, blacklinks, and links to articles which have the same name as, but are not articles about, Secret Societies. Corvus cornix 03:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think Corvus' response is a fair and a good idea. Only after a society is well researched and sourced should it be on this list. There can always be legitimate additions to the list at any time. Let those individuals that added societies to the list without information or sources do their homework first, and if they can't provide useful sourced information or are to lazy to do the work required to find it out, than let me be the first to say Bye Bye! The body of legitimate information that we have for secret societies was based on individuals' hard work, researching and compiling of info as historans that often took years of study. Don't dishonor true societies out there as well as substantial historical work on the topic by all of these "hear say" additions- they are additions that may take some researchers using the list as a research guide on a fool's errand by looking into societies with nothing out there to find and wasting that individual's time and energy. Also, a list like this is expressing a general idea of what collegiate secret societies are like as a collective whole. When we have bogus groups on the list, it throws off clearity on that perception.

---

Comments

1. As far as "tapping" goes at Yale, it originated with you getting tapped on the shoulder in the main quad at Yale. However, that doesn't happen anymore, though it is still called "tapping." In fact, "tap" is now the terminology used for all selective groups at Yale, including fraternities, singing clubs, etc. As far as society tapping is concerned, the dozen or so senior societies at Yale (all of the current ones on the list for example) have meetings starting January of every school year to select the new class. It takes up a lot of time and effort. Each member typically has one or two people in mind (his or her favorite junior in a student organization, for example). Some societies do a screen of the entire student body, looking for valedictorians and such (Manuscript and Scroll and Key). Some simply choose those who occupy leadership positions in traditional groups (Bones, which takes the president of DKE every year, for example). However, none of them take applications or anything like that, which is "public tapping." Many of them conduct some initiation ritual (i.e. hazing) in public on the publically announced "Tap Day" (9 of the societies, including Skull and Bones, Mace and Chain, Scroll and Key, Berzilius, St. Elmo, Wolf's Head, Book and Snake, Mace and Chain, Spade and Graves, and Elihu, take out an advertisement in the Yale Daily News every year to announce when they agreed Tap Day would be and certain rules regarding the Tap period). The only society that I know that takes "public applications" is St. Anthony, which is a three year society (more like a final club) and probably should be separated from the list.

2. I don't think final clubs should be included. Yes, they have ritual and such that they keep from the public, but so do eating clubs at Princeton and Greek letter organizations worldwide. Eating clubs are mainly social organizations and social clubs, just like eating clubs and Greek leter organizations. Many types of clubs have "secret ritual," but not all of them are "collegiate secret societies." Again, the best way to figure out the distinction is to ask. You can ask any member of a Harvard Final Club if he is in a secret society comparable to Skull and Bones or Wolf's Head, and he will say no. You ask any secret society member at Yale if Harvard final clubs are secret societies, and she will tell you no. I can understand why people would think they would be alike though, but final clubs should have their own Wiki page.

3. I guess I should somehow define what I mean by collegegiate secret societies. The qualifications vary from campus to campus (which is why the article is "collegiate" secret societies, not general ones, but I think you have to take the lead from schools like Yale, UVA, Wesleyan, and others that have had these organizations for a long time. They typically are not for freshman and they typically choose their members based on extracurricular activity, prominence on campus, academic achievement, social achievement, legacy status, or whatever - i.e., members do not directly seek out or apply for membership, rather they are chosen.

4. Again, the best source for information here is college newspapers. They typically know which societies are still in existence, which are powerful, etc. Age may be deceptive - some societies that are 25 years old or younger may not draw "better" students than 100 year old societies regardless of how famous those societies used to be. This is why people should not be quick to delete societies when they may in fact be highly regarded on their campuses. Again, this is a collegiate society list, there need not be conspiracy theories regarding every society included.

Griffeyin96 20:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Well, that almost sounds rational, so it has no possibility of succeeding on this list. People are coming here solely looking for conspiracy theories, and when they find non-conspiratorial societies listed, then get pouty and post comments declaring their confusion with the list, and then they start deleting things like mad. It is an unworkable situation.

• 2. And the second major problem is that since the traditions are so distinctive between colleges that what counts as definitely a secret society at one university would make it impossible to be considered at another. There are people here who claim that it is impossible for a secret society to have a website, but can't say why, or what to call the secret societies that DO have websites.

• 3. My plan was to have everything listed in the same place -put it all out on the table-, and then patterns and trends would emerge, and things could sorted out from there, but that has been rendered impossible by those literalists who whant to delete everything they possibly can and return to the conspiracy theorist theory of this page, (which has had wonderful results in the past week) :)!

• 4. Even your distinction, "Many types of clubs have "secret ritual," but not all of them are "collegiate secret societies."" doesn't really solve anything, (I know you tried to clarify later). But I'm sure you know how the singing groups at Yale conduct themselves, with their initiations, and although you and I and the singing groups wouldn't count them as secret societies, why not? Because they sing? I suppose, but for an objective observer, everything they do is what the secret societies do. I am not arguing they should be included, just drawing attention to the fuzziness of the lines here. I don't think there is a *rational* argument for keeping them out. Saying that they're ""collegiate" secret societies, not general ones" almost sounds like something, but pondering it, I have no idea what to make of what distinction you're making.

• 5. A serious problem is the preconceptions of people reading this page. You and I both know that if you were to inquire of a handful of seniors at Yale, you could probably reconstitute the member list for Skull & Bones. (Or if you couldn't, you could probably take a different handful and then you could.) My point being, although it's secret, it's not all that secret. Certainly S & B is not the MOST secret society on an American college campus. It shocks people that there could be information like this available, or even how this page could exist. It's like the first comment on this discussion page, "If these societies are known about how are they secret?" I don't know if that poster was being serious or just joking, but he seems to have spoken for a lot of people who can't get past that conundrum.

• 6. A quick comment on the age of a society, it seems to me that there has been an increasing interest in establishing secret societies today & for the past 10 years or so. I think there are a lot of new societies out there. Granted, many, if not most, will die off, but I'm confident there could be many which will survive and make a real reputation for themselves. So I was willing to see them catalogued here, but of course, that was a no go.

• 7. I think perhaps the ideal thing to do is to kill this list altogether, and only have the short college articles left. (And by ideal, I do mean I have no belief that it will happen.) But that way the practices at each university could have their day in the sun, and it wouldn't matter if what counts as a "secret society" at university X wouldn't count at all at university Y.

There was a great means here for getting people to all list in one place all the secret societies there were, strong, weak, and imaginary, and then subjecting them to some scrutiny to eliminate the obvious imaginary ones, and to start to sort out what kinds of societies there really were out there. But, it is true, this is not the place for original research, and wikipedia is only for information referenced elsewhere. All subsequent work needs to be based on those limitations. That being said, it means that nothing here will be above the level of an answers.com query. Further, since no one here has a way of reconciling the variety of societies that could be called "secret societies" this page is really meaningless. We have a page with no definiable topic. Might as well let it be full of the Sacred order of Skull & Crescent as anything else. 66.217.176.121 03:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Defining a "Collegiate Secret Society"

A lot of the debate on this page is due to the fact that we can't agree on what we are trying to list. Let me take a crack at it, knowing a lot about the Yale system.

"A collegiate secret society is a group of students that meet in secret in order to pursue certain educational and social goals. These goals are often determined by alumni boards and / or tradition as passed down by prior members of the society. While membership may be formally or informally known by outside members, the content of the meetings typically are considered private, giving the societies their "secret" nature. Often, societies are consisted of members of a single class at college (seniors, for the most part). Societies typically exist within the unique framework of their host colleges as opposed to other groups (such as Greek letter organizations) that have multiple chapters across campuses."

So here are a few notes...

1. A secret society does not have to be an old, aging group of men with conspiratoral aims. While many of the oldest secret societies may have had the appearance of being this type of organization, and while many of them did (and still do) network, this is not a requirement to be a collegiate secret society, as members of these societies would tell you. They do not have to be old at all. I give you the example of "Sage and Chalice," the society that George W Bush's daughter joined. It is apparently not more than 10 years old, but it is a secret society that any Yale student would say is notable and carries prestige. As many of the oldest societies have become more diverse, their conspiratorial nature (if it ever was there) has likely decreased. In addition, there is no way to really tell whether any secret society networks more than something like the Fly Final Club at Harvard or the University of Texas chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon (both of which are reputed to have really wealthy members). If you want "pipeline networking," you may as well start including these groups.

2. Characteristics, prestige, and other factors will vary heavily campus to campus. The best way to find out which societies are respected, with societies are actually secret societies, what they do, etc. is to simply ask alumni and current students at each school. No other way really works, given the fragmented nature of "secret societies." This is why college newspapers, often derided on this talk page, are probably the best print and online sources for information on these groups. If you only look at national newspapers, you miss groups that often compete against the alleged "conspiratorial" groups for students and sometimes even beat those groups out. Even Bones loses members to groups not even listed on Wikipedia every one in a while.

Overall, people may be trying to limit the list to something that truly doesn't exist. You may ask "why should I care about the groups on this list?" The answer is, maybe you don't care. But as long as the list exists, we should try to be as correct about it as possible and not try to limit it to conspiracy theories and outdated biases.

Griffeyin96 17:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough. You actually have two techniques here. That is, techniques on how to create a definition of what a secret society is. The first technique is to provide a formulaic statement that hopefully includes all important secret societies and excludes all societies that are not. (I'm not commenting at all about the content of your definition, just saying what it is.) Your second technique to create a definition is wholly subjective. Ask the members and their subjective response is the answer. (Again, at this point not commenting on the value, or relative value of either approach, just noting what you have.) Perhaps either will be adopted by wikipedia. There is a third method, and it has been rejected, but just to make the record clear on what has been previously posted, the method I advocated was to do a taxononic analysis of what traits that a hundred or a thousand societies had, and then seeing which collection of traits together make up a secret society. But lets see what comes of the definitory statement you offered. (I may make comments on it later.)

• It is important to note that while tapping does refer to a technique of selection exclusise to Yale, for lack of a better term, tapping sometimes is a word used for a very selective process of membership in general. I.E. "tapped" members of any secret society

---

Yale Secret Societies

Yale's, Scroll and Key began when there was an argument with Skull and Bones on which juniors to tap, Scroll and Key actually has a larger endowment tha even S&B. Later when the Sheff school was added to Yale, Wolf's Head and Book and Snake were added to the school's list of secret societies

• The tombs of Yale's societies take on different identities. S&B is an Eyptian style tomb while Scroll and Key has a North African designed tomb.

It's August 1st

As was promised, I have removed all unreferenced, red links, black links, and links to articles which just have the same name as the so-called society but do not actually link to articles about the society. If societies are put here without an article, they will be deleted. Corvus cornix 02:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for holding true to the month we agreed upon. Please delete away :) Justinm1978 04:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You do not make contributions, you make deletions. You are not constructive, you are destructive. You do not help, you harm. You do not increase intelligence, you advance ignorance. You are what you are.

Okay. Thank you for sharing. Corvus cornix 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Corvus Cornix out of control

Corvus Cornix has now posted this "(<! Please don't add societies here until you have created an article about them. Redlinked societies will be deleted.-->)" Apparently this new rule is his own imposition on everyone else. It certainly wasn't discussed here. I guess this is his page now, and everyone else is just a visitor here.

No one in wikipedia is allowed to simply impose their own rules on everyone else. Or at least no one should be allowed to do so. It seems you can get away with it if you push hard enough.

People were given more than month to find common ground with notability and verifying, and yet you still complain. You did absolutely nothing. Enough with the complaints and actually do something.

He is correct in his actions. If you can't prove something exists, then it is not verifiable. He and I agreed upon a month moratorium to give people a chance to validate their contributions (see the above discussions). People had a month, now that month is up. Get some citations and it'll be left alone. It's not too difficult of a request, I think... Justinm1978 00:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

First, it's not my job to provide verification for things I didn't post. Second, I did contribute extensively in the introductory paragraphs, and with several verified entries, not to mention the whole organizing format of this page. Third, one month was a short period of time for many people to collectively provide verification. Fourth, your new rule, that you stated above, is "Please don't add societies here until you have created an article about them," which is a wholly different arbitrary rule you are imposing on a page THAT YOU DON'T EVEN CONTRIBUTE TO. Fifth, Justinm1978, who the hell died and left you two kings? "He and I agreed upon a month moratorium..." That, of course, was after a 'request for comment' where neither of you were in the least interested in hearing anyone else's opinions. But the real point is, it is not up to you two to be making decisions for everyone else.

What you have now is a page where no one is even sure what the topic is, where people are coming on and adding whatever they like in any random manner, and you two are deleting it all. What the hell is the point? Now you are aribtrarily imposing new and higher standards (meaningless ones at that) just because you want to. If neither of you can see how childish that is, then there's no hope at all.

No one in wikipedia is allowed to simply impose their own rules on everyone else. Or at least no one should be allowed to do so.

You accuse others of imposing their own rules on everyone else, but what I see is an attempt by you at bypassing official rules. Verifiability is not some arbitrary thing to be enforced from time to time, it is a core tenet of Wikipedia, without which it would quickly fill with hoax and vanity material. If you think it is just a couple of editors who think this way you are mistaken. I don't understand the problem, source the entries in question or stop complaining. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Daniel J. Leivick...I'm not making decisions here, Corvus was making edits, I asked him to stop and give a month for people to verify the content and make it a real article instead of a bunch of non-verifiable hearsay. He agreed, and posted as such that he would take a break from this page. Since it is up to the individual contributor to validate something they want posted, these actions are correct. Either find some sources, any sources, or the contributions will be deleted. You can take it to RFC and arbitration all you want, but I guarantee you they'll come back with the same statement: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." It's one of the main tenets of Wikipedia. Justinm1978 04:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The two of you are moving from one point to another with a clumsy slight of hand. 'Encyclopedic content must be verifiable' but that is NOT justification for anything you want to do. If Corvus Cornix or Justinm1978 ever actually read the verifiability guidelines, they would find that 1) they are guidelines, 2) it is a goal to move toward. It is NOT an absolute rule, and CANNOT be, sonce otherwise, you would have to have a footnote for every sentence posted in every article. And then you'd have to have footnotes for every footnote. Just because content must be verifiable does not mean that it justifies the capricious rules you adopt.

You now have stated that if a society does not have a page of it's own, you'll delete the society. That is an entirely arbitrary rule you two have adopted, without discussion, without any consensus, without considering alternatives, without considering what other editors think they are doing with this page. It is a blundering, thoughtless rule. You have no right or perogative to impose it. It has no constructive purpose.

"I don't understand the problem". I know. I've been telling you you don't understand it since the beginning of the summer. I think you should stop deleting content until you DO understand what the verifiability guideline means.

If I just deleted any unverified content wherever I found it, I could delete 3/4 of all of wikipedia by the end of the night.

Ok here is the deal. You are right there is a significant amount of unverified material on Wikipedia (alot of it should be deleted). However when there is a good possibility of a hoax or vanity issue, I feel it is better to remove questionable or borderline material than to let it remain. This page was involved in a hoax recently, and I feel it is likely to continue to be the target of vandal jokes and vanity postings of illegitimate societies. Because of these concerns I agree with the other editors with accounts, and feel that societies should either have a page of there own or at least a quality reference. I would not be opposed to having the in text warning reflect the possibility of both blue link or a reference. Finally please sign your posts with four tildas, even if you don't have an acount that way we can easily keep track of what each IP is saying. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing unverifiable material. I have no problem with establishing a reasonble rule to cut off entries beneath some rational standard. Corvus Cornix first started out deleting everything and ranting about his misunderstanding of the general verifiability guideline. (And by ranting, he was threatening me with all sorts of repurcussions, et c.) He then relented, and said after a certain date, he'd delete. I wasn't entirely happy with this result, but I let it go because at least it was moving toward the right direction of allowing posters the time to support their entires, and allow a verifiable list to develop. He now claims, and Justinm1978 supports him on this, the prerogative of deleting anything at any time again, and also has imposed the new rule that if it doesn't have a wikipedia article, it must be deleted. I oppose automatic deletion without time to ADD verification, or some process where somebody somewhere can post a society, and someone later can add appropriate references, (which IS how this is supposed to work.) There are 'fact date' tags for a reason. Delete-aholics should use them, just like everyone else. I also am opposed to some clique of two declaring some new rule that's supposed to apply to all entries, said rule imposed simply because they feel like it and everyone else be damned.

Problems about Wikipedia in general

Wikipedia does suffer from substantial problems across the board- beyond that of vandalism. One of the major problems is that Wikipedia's own editors have privileges beyond what other editors have. For example, Wikipedia does not want anyone to edit or change the talk page discussions, yet their own editors do it all the time, or even shut down the discussion page so no one else even has a chance to discuss issues. Their editing process is very manipulative and always controlled to suit their needs and appreances. The organization as a whole has no direct number where problems can even be addressed by phone, making the Wikipedia organization appear highly suspect. There is hardly any information about the Wikipedia organization out there that people can look into, yet they freely feel that they can choose to put whatever information they feel about others on to their Wikipedia site, and then when things get too hot for them to handle, they just put an editing freeze so no one at Wikipedia has to actually deal with it. The emailing option is also very controlled and of very little help. Often, their assistants say one thing, but in reality do nothing to correct problems. Their own editors even base much of their edit making process on consensus rather than fact. Often, at times, when valid sources are given, they still do reject them. That is not the way scholarly writing works. Moreover, when hoaxers put out personal information onto the talk pages to try to hurt people, Wikipedia's editors don't even have the good judgement to allow it to be removed by the innocent victims, and in essence, allowing for the true goals of the hoaxers to be achieved- to hurt people.

I also think the majority of the editors are unprofessional and opinionated. They often make rude comments and edit with an attitude. They are highly suscpicious of everything and are looking to destroy more knowledge than build up. There are people who contribute to Wikipedia's pages based on their research and knowledge, and genuinely want to share their knowledge with the broader community, and rather than Wikipedia being appreciative for that, they take people's charity for granted. No one who contributes to Wikipedia gets anything for it in return- and not even appreciation. As time goes by, I think more and more people will see Wikipedia for what it is- not some web encylopedia as it trys to market itslf as, but rather a private editing club for its own Wikipedia editors that choose to work by different rules than what all others have to work by. I think the broader international community should spend more time discussing the problems about Wikipedia as an organization or even start to put more pressure on to it's director to make changes. As it stands right now, Wikipedia is a biased and elitist organization based on their own editor's taste and opinions. It is the fartherst thing from any kind of creditable encyclopedia and nothing more than a power trip for those who edit from the organization.

Your opinion is duly noted, but carries little weight as an anonymous contributor. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~ to make your posts known. Justinm1978 04:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bull. Him being anonymous is no less credible than you being signed. The name "Justinm1978" has no more weight than no signature at all. You're just another John Doe typing you're ideas just like anyone else. Actually, the first poster's anonymous contribution makes more sense internally, and is more compelling because of the points it makes, than anything I've ever read posted from you.

That 'Anonymous=less creditable' is just the sort of myth that props up the in-group of editors in the self-congratulatory circle it is,--- which is just exactly what the first poster is protesting.

Noooo, the lack of credibility is because it is impossible to tell if comments are made by the same person since IP's can be used by more than one user. It also shows a lack of real intersest in the project and making contributions of substance because you can be fly-by-night. I could care less if you use a name or a string of random characters, I just want to know that contributions made by one person are actually made by that person and not somebody else. Also, please sign your posts so we know which IP is who if you're not willing to make an account. Justinm1978 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, the above statement is a typical Wikipedia mindset that only makes sense to the people who control Wikipedia and want to reinforce their own need to dominate. If one person in their entire life makes a single edit to Wikipedia or a single comment on its talk pages, but that contribution is of value, why should it matter, except to Wikipedia's editors (who want control over all information), that anyone really knows who wrote it, or if the person who wrote has shared IP's with others. Can't the statement alone speak for itself, and can't a single statement also be enough to be a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Where does it say in Wikipedia's rules that a person has to have a long history of contributions to establish validity.

There are many people who started out enthusiastically editing with Wikipedia, but are now completely turned of by the double-standards and don't want to waste anymore time with this bogus encyclopedia anymore. How many times have contributors done enormous amounts of work putting together top articles with valid sources listed to have some person working for Wikipedia just come along and destroy it all by editing it away according to their taste. People are not being paid for their time spent on putting together these articles, I think Wikipedia needs a reality check with that point. Wikipedia should thank their lucky stars that people are willing to contribute for free. Wikipedia is surviving, and making their MONEY from, what people do for free. I don't think Wikipedia's director would be happy if her fat paycheck was taken away- but again that is probabaly why their is no number to reach the organization by, so that the ones on top can keep rolling in the bucks without having to answer to anyone. More and more people are getting turned off by Wikipedia in general and see the organization for what it is really all about- money not knowledge.

I don't know about the second paragraph---I have no idea what the corporate structure of wikipedia is like. But overall, I couldn't agree more. I would not bother writing articles for wikipedia. It's not even so much some administratively-priviledged editor that's the problem, it's the nobody with an attitude that is the real problem. Wikipedia is like having a bunch of high-school grads editing a paper by Albert Einstein---they can take out everything they don't understand or disagree with.

And Justinm1978's claims about IP's are bogus as well. If you gave me ten minutes, I could log in with his IP. If anybody wants to check IP's, they'd go to the history page anyway, regardless of the sign in. 'Anonymous=less creditable' is just a myth. I am far more persuaded by the anonymous poster here then by Justinm1978, and that's because I know how to read, comprehend, and evaluate; in short, to think,--regardless of what characters are added to the end of a paragraph.

Look, you're not contributing here, so just go away. You have no credibility here, you're just being disruptive. Learn how to follow policy or make recommendations in the appropriate place to change it, but don't waste our time with your childish rants about how you're not getting to put up whatever you want. Wikipedia has no use for people who are unwilling to make real contributions to the project. Justinm1978 05:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE contributed, YOU HAVE NOT. I understand the policy, you have said you don't. If I have posted "childish rants about how you're not getting to put up whatever you want." Then quote me. I dare you.

And I also dare you to cut and past anything that authorizes Corvus Cornix and Justinm1978 to impose their own rules on this list.

Well, they've both posted here since you dared them, and haven't posted what their authority is to impose new rules here. 66.217.176.222 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tags for list section

I am going to start a new topic heading because I have no interest in debating generalized criticism of Wikipedia here. If you have gripes take it to the village pump. One of the anon IPs involved want to tag the list of societies for numerous issues, if they want to do this they will have to itemize their concerns here first. Otherwise they cannot be addressed. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Its neutrality is disputed." The entries on the list have been claimed to be self-serving and vanity postings. "It may contain original research or unverifiable claims." The entries on the list have been claimed to be unreferenced or unverifiable postings. "Its factual accuracy is disputed." The entries on the list have been claimed to be factually inaccurate postings. "It does not cite any references or sources." The entries on the list have been claimed to not have citations or references. "It may be confusing or unclear for some readers." There is no criteria for being on this list at all, most people are unclear on what kind of societies should be here. All of these things are plainly evident on this discussion page. If you cannot see it here, then you are incapable of reading this page.

This page really ought to be deleted outright because it has no plan at all. However, although you pompously claim to be one of the only three real editors here, I was one of the few people who tried to get at some valid basis for it in the 'Defining a secret society' section. Your posts here are self-serving and create an impression of bad faith. You need to stop posting insulting rants and ad hominem arguments.

If you want to have the page deleted see WP:AFD. Otherwise please specifiy which articles are vanity, unreferenced or vactually innacurrate, otherwise I will remove the tag. -Daniel J. Leivick 09:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

???? There's only one article here. 66.217.176.222 18:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I meant entries in the list which at this point are mostly articles themselves. I am looking for specific issues that we can fix. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What was Corvus Cornix's point about deleting all the redlinked articles If it wasn't that he was accusing them of being unverifiable and vanity postings? Isn't that what we're all arguing about, the merit of those deletions???

Cornix deleted all the questionable postings, so why should the tags remain. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Because his deletion was wrong. Have you been reading this page?

You have claimed that the deletions of unverified material removed valuable info, this does not mean the page is "confusing, POV, or unrefenced. " Those are specific issues and in order to keep a tag up you must address specific areas where each is a problem. In addition your combative attitude throughout this page is a major baricade for discussion. You need to put your personal issues behind you and start being more civil. --Daniel J. Leivick 08:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely confusing since no one has a clear idea what the topic is. POV makes sense as a complaint since we have no standard for inclusion beyond different people's points of view. And using a "acceptable if cited to other wikipedia article" is as good as unreferenced at all. ----The warning should be up there. It serves as a caution to everyone using the list. That warning alone could have replaced two months of discussion page fighting. I don't know why anyone would want to hide the fact that this page has, has had, and will always continue to have verifibility problems,--why hide it??? Do you have a reason for hiding it?66.217.176.118 05:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• The list is not confusing it is a list of independently identified secret societies. If there are societies on the list that are not identified as secret they should be removed.
• The standard for inclusion is either a blue link or a reliable source.
• A list page composed of a list Wikipedia articles does not need to be referenced, the individual articles should be referenced and if they are not that is the problem pertaining to that article not the list for example see List of sports car manufacturers.
• I do not have a problem with having a tag, but however puts it up must make it clear what the problem is so that it can be fixed. If someone slaps on a tag and says that unless the article is the way the want it the tag stays, it is a problem, tags should be used while a solution is being worked towards not once a solution is reached that an editor disagrees with. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"The standard for inclusion is either a blue link or a reliable source." ---Says who? No one has debated this or discussed it. Two or three posters have tried to impose different criteria without any discussion at all.

"The list is not confusing it is a list of independently identified secret societies." ---No one can even define what a 'secret society' is. Since you can't do that, then this list is meaningless. Delta Kappa Epsilon conducts its affairs in secret, publication boards and singing groups have secret initiations. You can go to court and sue for admission to Phi Beta Kappa if you qualify, what, then is a secret society?66.217.176.142 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the standard for inclusion has come close to consensus at the bottom of the page. As for what is a secret society exactly, I don't know, but all the articles linked should describe their subject as a secret society using a source and Red links should have sources that describe them as a seceret society. --17:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel J. Leivick (talk • contribs).

No the bottom of the page is NOT consensus. How come the rules for the rest of wikipedia do not apply here? This discussion page is so full of argument because people are NOT using the various procedures for establishing guidelines. Two guys declaring a rule is NOT how pages are developed. ----And if you admit you don't know what the page is about, then A) how can you say what societies do or do not belong in, and B) how can you say that the page shouldn't be tagged for being confusing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.133.124.199 (talk)

It doesn't look like you are still arguing to change the page, what is your problem with the rules as they have been laid out? Unless you can raise clear and specific concerns for each of the tag issues, the tags should be removed. As it stands I see consensus as each entry must be a blue link or a sourced red link that specifically states it is a secret society. I know you may disagree, but that does not mean consensus has not been reached. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with the wikipedia procedures for dispute resolution. Three people agreeing in the past week, and as many disagreeing, is not consensus. There have been quite a few posters here as this page attests, and one week is a small time window to allow for responses. The 'confusing' tag definitely applies, and the others apply with greater or lesser weight depending on who's deleted what when.159.247.3.210 16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the dispute has stopped I have laid out my view of what the consensus is and no one has challenged it or the actual state of the article. As far as I can tell right now we are only arguing about whether we are arguing or not. What can we do to remove the tag? --Daniel J. Leivick 02:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've grown tired of this...it's not prouctive to the article, so I requested semi-protection for the page. Justinm1978 04:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You've grown tired of it???? Does anyone care what you're tired of? "As far as I can tell the dispute has stopped I have laid out my view of what the consensus is and no one has challenged it or the actual state of the article." Liar. You've been challenged every step of the way, and you've been shown ridiculous the whole way. You contribute nothing and troll constantly. You're pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.133.124.194 (talk) 03:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is over. Next step will be admin involvement. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to this article

If you don't like what is being done here, how about taking your desires to the WikiProject listed at the top? Justinm1978 05:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• • What a cover up scam! Just change the topic when things don't suit Wikipedia's desires and money making goals. Just another confirmation of how bogus Wikipedia is, and how much of a double-standard the whole projet is. Sure, write whatever you want about other people, discredit all the people and articles that you don't agree with, but god forbid if King Wikipedia is criticised. Wikipedia is elitist and biased- without any doubt, and only cares about anything when it starts to effect their fat wallets. More and more people are fed up with your nonsense and bogus "encyclopedia". Wikipdia corp says they are based in Florida, yet there isn't any number listed and there is no official record anywhere for their existence in Florida- you guys are nothing more than a money making scam- and the better buisness bureau should be contacted for what you do. You are slanderous at times and liable. Wikipedia undoubtly should be shut down untill better buisness practices are implemented. There should be better checks and balances to the whole organization, telephone contact imformation, information about it's CEO's and officials listed, background checks of their editors who work from the organization. Safe guards for people who are victims of hoaxes, and many other changes. Morover, these discussion pages are suppose to act like the discussion grounds for issues pertaining to Wikipedia.

Are you really interested in creating a useful, sourced, reliable article, or are you here just to criticize Wikipedia? Why do you feel that unreferenced redlinks should be kept? Corvus cornix 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • OK, first off, I don't think this is just an issue about redlinks. Issues about redlinks are just the tip of a broader problem about Wikipedia in general. I will give you an example, awhile back there was some Purdue/Barbaro hoax, and Wikipedia created a new article about "Palazzi Barbaro". Several people removed portions about that article, stating it was a target for hoaxers, but what they removed clearly had verifiable sources listed. Sources that could be checked by online articles. Well, what does that say- it says that Wikipdia makes up the rules as they go along- or will edit according to their own tastes, but then you list such articles as a stub and ask people to expand on it. Why should anyone do that when Wikipedia ends up destroying it anyway. There is some goofy mob mentality to Wikipedia's editors that makes them no longer think about what they are doing and end up destroying perfectly good knowledge. It is a power trip with an attitude, but I guess that is why someone would be a volunteer at Wikipedia- to give a nobody a sense of importance- while your CEO is smart and raking in the cash for his job. You are the police dog while your master lives high off the hog. Moreover, in many of these Wikipedia hoaxes, personal emails and other information is put out there, part of the hoax, and you don't even let an innocent person edit it out- that seems right to you? Wikipdeia should be sued for what they allow to happen. These hoaxers are smart, they know that what they put out there will come up in google searches and that is part of their hoax, and they often aim to destroy perfectly good articles- they are playing of of your general stupid suspicion. Moreover, what one person said above, pertaining to Einstein is true. If a person creates an article and lists a perfectly good source that someone at Wikipedia has not read, then they edit it away. What is that about. So how many times do I pick up a book that has sources listed in the back that the author has used that I am unfamiliar with- it is my job to look into those sources if I am unfamiliar with them- it doesn't mean those sources are not valid. Wikipedia is simply bogus- and there is not a single educational institute in this world that will accept Wikipedia as a valid source for any writing. Please stop pulling the wool over everyone's eyes calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia, and please stop pretending that the volunteers at Wikipedia are some authority on the articles listed here- because all of you clearly are not. Wikipedia is nothing more than a buisness. Please stop using all of your statements about "credibility' when eveything about Wikipedia is lacking in credibity including it's volunteers. Ok- at least give us that bit of honesty when everything else about Wikipedia is a sham!

This is not the place to voice generalized criticism of Wikipedia. As far as I can tell there are only three serious Wikipedia editors including myself who pay much attention to this page. From here these disgruntled IPs should do one of two things. Either take there concerns to the appropriate place like the village pump, or stop posting on this page and forget about it. If they refuse to do as I have suggested I will not respond further and recommend other editors do the same. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I will not discuss any further off-topic content here. If you want to make a verifiable, sourced article about collegiate secret societies, then we can discuss that. If your sole purpose for posting here is to attack Wikipedia in general, then I will not continue this discussion. BTW, it's worth noting that our anonymous friend is posting from Microsoft, as did the hoaxers trying to perpetuate the Barbaro nonsense. Corvus cornix 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is what everyone is tired of. I have nothing to do with hoaxes. I just used an example that pertains to this page as listed in the "Purdue" section above, but right away your tendancey is towards conspiarcy. I have nothing more to say about this. It is very obvious that Wikipedia is BS. It is all controlled according to certain peoples' taste. The editors do seem profoundly immature, and there is without any doubt a double-standard. No matter what anyone writes, you guys will always cover your back, try to redirect, or when you have no defense, try to place false accusations. Moreover, these discussions do pertain to this page becasue of what occurs with this article, and you are right, you should not respond, becuase I will no longer waste any more time writing with Wikipedia- may that be articles or discussion pages. I can not speak for the other critics though. I think a quote from Corvus cornix's own discussion page says it all, "In general I am a deletionist and I am happy to speddy lots of things." Yes, you are a deletionist and do destroy many people's hard work Corvus, there is no doubt about that!

Look again. I didn't say that. Corvus cornix 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"As far as I can tell there are only three serious Wikipedia editors including myself who pay much attention to this page.--Daniel J. Leivick 20:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)" ---What monumental vanity. "If they refuse to do as I have suggested I will not respond further and recommend other editors do the same. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)" ---Please. I hope this is exactly the course you take. This is an example of the closed clique-ishness complained of above.

"Are you really interested in creating a useful, sourced, reliable article, or are you here just to criticize Wikipedia? Why do you feel that unreferenced redlinks should be kept? Corvus cornix 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)" ---I'll take you up on that one, Corvus Cornix. **The point of leaving redlinks is to show where new articles are needeed.** That is how the system is supposed to work. You, deleting everything, are making it impossible to keep track of where research needs to be done, and where contributors can contribute. Redlinks show what's needed. That's holds true across wikipedia, (except of course, where people who don't understand what's going on have attacked certain articles. Like here. Like you.)

Sourced societies should remain on the list, regardless of redlinks

I think people have taken the redlinks rule too far. There are a few well known Yale societies that were sourced but did not have an article in Wikipedia - these were deleted. At Dartmouth, the school itself lists 8 societies on its website as part of its tradition, yet only 5 are listed. All that should be required is a link to an outside source (most appropiately a college newspaper or a college website, since these are college societies) that acknowledges the existence (or rumored existence) of the society. Someone explain why this is not adequate.Griffeyin96 13:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As an update, I have added three Dartmouth secret societies, sourcing the Dartmouth Office of Student Life (as good of a source as you can get). As I have no information on these societies, I have not written an article for each. However, they should be on this list, as they are recognized secret societies at a school with a long tradition of them, and their existence has been confirmed by the administration. If you delete them, I would like an explaination of why. Griffeyin96 13:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many places where redlinks occur in wikipedia, and they serve to prompt people to fill in the gap with more information. Nor does deleting them improve the quality of information; the bogus article on the Purdue society had a very full entry of its own. That didn't make it true information. You can't enforce rules if you do not understand how those rules are supposed to work.66.217.176.222 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with leaving sourced red links on this page. The internal instructions should probably be changed to reflect this. Something along the lines of "all unsourced entries will be deleted" instead of all red links. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that, so long as the sources are reliable sources. Corvus cornix 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So you admit you're wrong. Great.

So what would happen if Purdue's Skull and Crescent was also added to the list as a redlink with it also being sourced by the offical Purdue University site in the exactly same manner as the Dartmouth example? Would it also be allowed to remain on the list?

There is a real Skull & Crescent Society at Purdue. I've said as much before. There just isn't a Holy & Secret Order of Skull & Crescent, (or Wholly Imaginary Order... ). That was madness. Don't know why you did that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.133.124.199 (talk) 02:23, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Again, another bogus remark with false accusations. I did not write the Purdue society listing- and none of us knows for sure if that school's society listing was completely a prank or only partially a prank with elements of it possibly being true since there was also referencing within Thena Nu Epsilon records as well- which also seems to have been changed recently according to that group's current fashion for the moment- going from Purdue being listed now as Alpha Alpha from it's Previous Alpha Indiana recording. Moreover, I don't care if Purdue's societies are listed or not, the point I was interested in making is that even if Purdue's societies were listed with a credible source now, editors would still remove it because of suscpicion or personal taste- just like Theta Nu Epsilon did to Purdue's history within their own society- they removed Purdue's status from being an Alpha because they are still trying to exert themselves as the "legitimate Alpha". It all goes back to what many people have said previously. Wikipedia is just simply not credible. It is based on people's taste rather than fact, and all editing choices are just based on consensus. The rules are constantly thrown out the window or made up new each day. So if you like it or not, this so called "encyclopedia" is a sham. It is just an editing club that is making choices not grounded on fact. Period. Editing choices on Wikipedia are based on what makes the majority feel comfortable- not necessarily what is true. Moreover, you should also stop saying that Purdue's societies were imaginary- because none of us really knows that for sure- what you should being saying is that they were unconfirmed- and as such, I agree that they should not remain listed on this page- unless offcially confirmed with verifiable evidence. So, the other point I am trying to make here is that no one editing on Wikipedia should be making such arrogant statements about what is true and what is not true. What any editor can say, or should be saying, is weather something is verified by a reliable source or not. There are plenty of things that were 100% true within Wikipedia once that has since been removed by mob consensus, and there are plenty of things out there that are 100% true that will never find its way into Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.54.98.30 (talk)

• There is also further evidence of breaking the rules. For example, on Theta Nu Epsilon's talk page, there was just recently information about some of the fashions of the society that were completely removed. That information was very intersting and nice background to the group. Why was it removed, becasue Wesleyan Alpha, who controls the page, resented any information that points to Purdue's importance as an Alpha. Therefore, Wikipedia is not beig used as an encylopdia to futher knowledge, it is being used as an editing club to control certain groups agendas- specifically in this case, Wesleyan's agenda to give the impression that they are the legitimate Alpha, even though they are nothing more than a start up after being extinct on their campus. Moreover, they are welching on their word of agreeing to list Purdue as an Alpha. On top of all of that, why are entries from talk pages being removed- I thought that was against the rules, but I guess for the boys at Wesyleyan they are free to do what ever they want. Further evidence that all of Wikipedia is bogus! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.142.117.197 (talk) 03:34, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
• I completely agree that the Wes TNE group has run amuck with trying to force their agenda on articles involving TNE as a whole. I have a good deal of original TNE documentation and literature in my possession, and it supports that the Purdue group was founded independently of the TNE national as an alpha; however, they reconciled differences with the national at the time and became a legitimately recognized chapter under the Alpha-Alpha moniker. Basically, my opinion is that the Wes group is entitled to tell the story their way, but it doesn't mean they can just wipe clean the other things that were going on with the independent groups either. There has always been a lot going on with TNE that was out of their control, and they need to stop trying to cover it up so much. I wish some admins would take a look at the TNE page and see how many times they've deleted large portions of information from both the article and the talk page. They don't even entertain discussion - just resort to name calling and deleting changes usually. Apparently only they have the final say in what's accurate or notable. I've only made a couple edits to that page, and that's probably all I will because I just don't feel it's worth the hassle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueGold73 (talk • contribs) 03:53, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I also think that there should have been more care in how Purdue's societies and the Barbaro family page was delt with. There was nothing more than mob mentality erasing eveything. I don't know anything about Purdue's Order of Skull and Crescent, but I do know that much of what was on that Barbaro family page was 100% accurate. Also, that Vitus Barbaro guy got totally shafted because he is listed in Fenwick High School's 1991 yearbook as being the the senior class vice-president, chairman of the school's newpaper, and a varsity track captain.I know this for a fact becuase I attended St. Ignatius College Prep., and we are Fenwick's biggest rival. Vitus back then was just called V., and he was always super popular. Even in high school he already had a college girlfriend attending U of I, and I use to often see him down there at university parties when some of us senior guys would drive down for the weekend. The poor guy got completely removed from his high school's alumni list because of mass panic. So, I guess that is what happens when someone yells "fire", it ends up with, in Wikipedia's case, with mass deleation. The smart thing to do in the future when there might be a possible hoax in the works is just to flag the suspected pages as possibly having hoax material in it- and then systematically take things step by step to look into matters calmly, not to just start deleating everything. You would think that Wikipedia would be more protective of the articles it already has, but that is not the case, instead Wikipedia enjoys to remove and destroy information quickly without thinking first -that isn't a good way to behave. Moreover, the whole hoax rumors started just becuase someone on the talk pages started saying that one of the Purdue'society's artifacts was sold in auction. I don't even know why that is such a big deal even if it was. In short, as long as someone yells hoax than everything gets deleated, and like running cattle, Wikipedia's articles are trampled over mindlessly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.142.117.197 (talk)

Snort. You don't give up, do you? Corvus cornix 17:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• No Corvus, I think you are very wrong on that point. I think the discussions by many people above clearly states how much a great number of people have clearly given up on Wikipedia!

A small question

I've helped in editing the NoZe Brotherhood page, and I was wondering what the classification "honorary" or "active" was on this page. I've scrolled through some of the talk page, but there is a ton to read. A ton.

Currently, the NoZe is listed as honorary, but they still make appearances (albeit in disguise), print a monthly publication, pull pranks, etc. Also, they are listed as "Senior" with eligibility, but the society is open to all students that display the right aptitude for humor.

Please advise. 66.7.32.10 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)BaylorFan