This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 10:03, 23 August 2010 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Talk:Phi Kappa Phi/Archives/2009/March.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:03, 23 August 2010 by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Talk:Phi Kappa Phi/Archives/2009/March.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Fraternities and Sororities B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Phi Kappa Phi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Notable Campuses
US News and World reports now places the top 75% of if ranked institutions as Tier 1 (see here, making the terms practically meaningless. Considering this, I deleted the section as it really doesn't say much anymore.--Lhakthong (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Saying "PBK is the most prestigious" is still misleading
Lhakthong:The fact that single journalists in the NYT or Washington Post mentions PBK as "the most prestigious" is not the same as either organization carrying out a survey or study that finds that most faculty or most universities or most of the American public find PBK to be such. It is misleading to attribute the claim of one person at an organization to the organization as a whole, or to make one person’s claim a universal truth. Remember, Misplaced Pages policy is about verifiability, not truth, and placing "herin quoted" and citing sources that do not confirm or make verifiable the claim does not save one from making a misleading and unverifiable claim. On that note, citing PBK chapter webpages, regardless of whether they sit on university servers, as citations for this claim is like me claiming I'm the greatest in the world and citing my own diary, even if its published on Oxford University Press. That is too misleading. To maintain citation consistency, if there can be a claim that PBK is "the most prestigious" without qualification then it should not be necessary to qualify a claim about PKP as “one of the most prestigious". We need to keep the citations consistent. Which way are we going to go? Lhakthong (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Should be enough to just review Reliable Sources Lhakthong (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The lead that you noted is fair the way it is written right now. No need to delete or add anything else. Not worth wasting anyone's time on anything there.Angtitimo (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- My problem with the lead is that the sources for the claims are not reliable sources. Citing Phi Beta Kappa chapter cite for a claim about being prestigious is like me citing my own diary on a claim of how great I am. Misplaced Pages requires third-party sources. WP policy, at least the spirit of it also states that newspapers are not very reliable for claims regarding academic content. Academic prestige, I think, counts for that. --Lhakthong (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let me know if there's anything with the new lead that you think can be improved. We need to find a consensus instead of one editor vetoing without saying how we could meet in the middle somewhere. See this WP consensus procedure diagram for the spirit of how to make improvements. --Lhakthong (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The lead is fine now. No need to further edit it. I read the references and those on Phi Beta Kappa were from chapter websites (in addition to 3 papers and books). It is like Phi Kappa Phi references listed there, so I do not see the difference at all. This point may not be material anymore since POV words have been deleted. But the Phi Beta Kappa Society, to my knowledge, is still the undisputed leader among honor societies. People still write that they graduated from the University of X Phi Beta Kappa. They would not say that about Phi Kappa Phi or any other honor society because they would not ring a bell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angtitimo (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Irrelevant conjecture. --Lhakthong (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Well,that is your opinion or POV, and perhaps not as irrelevant as Phi Kappa Phi in several colleges. I brought up the discussion because you had expressed discomfort with Phi Beta Kappa above and in the previous debate. What I was trying to say there (I did not have time to elaborate) is that many people understand what Phi Beta Kappa means, and maybe that is where the "most prestigious" comes from, and which is why they affix Phi Beta Kappa to their paragraph-style bios, resumes, etc. Similarly, we understand what Cold War means or agree that the U.S. is a superpower, even if we disagree with its definition, explanation, quantification, etc. I recall my adviser telling me years ago, after receiving an invitation to PBK, PKP and two other societies, that Phi Kappa Phi was "Phi Beta Kappa's mentally challenged little brother." I would not put that in the lead or any part of the article no matter how referenced it may be (others might disagree). But there is nothing wrong in mentioning that out in a discussion like this to illustrate or clarify a point, offer an analogy, drive home a point, etc. There is no malice in saying so, at least for me. That is all I am saying.Angtitimo (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- First, the news articles earlier referenced for PBK, if we were to accept them as authoritative, clearly demonstrate that in fact people no longer do understand what PBK means. Second, the fact that your claims are conjecture is not my POV. Positing an unproven statement, appealed to your own authority, without reasoned argument, is conjecture and is not helpful because it does not help ascertain what is neutral or verifiable. Stories about your adviser are likewise not meaningful for Misplaced Pages. Maybe your adviser had a personal vendetta against PKP. Your point is interesting for shooting the breeze over a beer, but not for editing this page. That is all I'm saying. --Lhakthong (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not interested in editing the page when I said what my adviser told me and I do not pretend that I know either why he said that Phi Kappa Phi is "Phi Beta Kappa's mentally challenged little brother." It was just to illustrate a point. I would not say the news article on Phi Beta Kappa were authoritative. All I said was that I saw many authoritative university website saying the same thing that were referenced. Finally, it would be Conjecture to say that "in fact people no longer do understand what PBK means" based on the newspapers, because the article you mentioned also clearly says that Phi Beta Kappa still has the highest acceptance rates of all honor societies among college students (i.e., if we were to rely on that article which you are giving an interpretation of).Angtitimo (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was to illustrate a point that was conjecture. Sounds like we agree on all the rest. --Lhakthong (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Should this article be rated B-class?
See here for criteria and example pages. --Lhakthong (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Came across this article with a current C-rating. I vote to keep the rating as is (C-class), because the article sounds like it is more of a marketing -- rather than information or educational -- tool for readers, punctuated as it is with much verbosity and several "claims" here and there. In addition, there is this long debate in this Talk Page about the questionable reputation of Phi Kappa Phi.Sheldon Lowe (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sheldon Lowe, how does it compare to other Honor society pages in terms of amount of information and neutrality? I've done most of the recent work on this page, and I used as many third party sources as possible. Is it just that certain parts are too long and contain superfluous material? Is it too verbose in a section? Which parts? You are more the welcome to try and edit the language for brevity so long as information isn't deleted (unless discussed first). Are there any specific suggestions you have for making the article better? Also, the debate on the talk page was not about the reputability of Phi Kappa Phi, it was about the appropriateness of making any claim to prestige on Misplaced Pages. It doesn't take long to find that Phi Kappa Phi is reputable: College Confidential --Lhakthong (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- also, "Among the prestigious national honor societies with campus chapters at Illinois are Tau Beta Pi (Engineering), Beta Gamma Sigma (Business), Kappa Delta Pi (Education), Phi Beta Kappa (LAS), Phi Kappa Phi (campus-wide), and the freshman honor societies Alpha Lambda Delta, Gamma Sigma Delta (ACES), and Phi Eta Sigma." See Illinois Honors —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhakthong (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would not rely on that College Confidential --Lhakthong (talk)because they are simply a mix of blogs and emails of unknown sources. I would only go for reliable third-party sources.
- I really do not have the time to edit or discuss, and would not wish to add more to the lengthy discussions here about Phi Kappa Phi's repuation. But here are my suggestions to improve the article.
- 1st Paragraph: Delete quotes on "democracy and education" (whatever that means), the motto (the mission will suffice), and the phrase "established to recognize and encourage superior scholarship without restriction as to area of study" (you already said it is an all-discipline society plus all honor societies obviously promote "superior scholarship" plus you repeated it again under Membership). Those three sound like pure and simple advertising.
- Membership: Delete claims. I would be more concerned if a society with only 300 chapters elects 30,000 annually. It sounds like anyone could just join or be invited.
- Initiation Fees: Why would anyone discuss in Misplaced Pages how much it will cost to go to dinner with one or more guests? Besides, fees change. Delete this paragraph entirely as it is totally irrelevant to an encyclopedia.
- History: This is too long and detailed. Cut out the details. Also, the opening sentence about only two honor societies in existence in 1800s is totally incorrect (see ACHS website -- the accrediting agency for honor societies). Phi Beta Kappa predated all honor societies. Although it started as a social/literary organization, it was purely an honor society by the 1830s when it gave up its secrecy (due to the anti-Masonic movement) and chose to elect members based purely on grades and character. What it did not do until 1898 was to choose a field (arts and sciences). All other honor societies, including Tau Beta Pi (see its history book) were modeled after Phi Beta Kappa. I think this point has been repeatedly made in this page also.
- Mission: Too detailed. Delete the quotes. Summarize the point/s in one or two sentences.
- Publications: Again, the list of notable contributors like Reagan, etc. sounds like pure self-promotion and marketing. We all know that Reagan, etc. will never write a piece -- the ghostwriter he hired did it. So it just makes the reputation of Phi Kappa Phi all the more suspicious.
- Chapter on Notable Campuses: This sounds like another cheap marketing ploy. I have never seen any honor society page list chapters on "notable campuses." Besides, branding terms like "public ivy" or "little ivy" are immature and unnecessary. It just makes it look like Phi Kappa Phi cannot go for the real ivies. I would just delete this whole paragraph and say that the society has 300 chapters. That's it.
- In conclusion, make the article objective, reliable, concise, coherent and interesting. Details, quotes, branding labels, etc. not only are inappropriate but cast suspicion on the motive of the entire article. That makes it a C or D-class article.
- Good luck. Sheldon Lowe (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts. First, my pointing you to the University of Illinois Honors Program website that lists Phi Kappa Phi as one of the 7 out of 50 honor societies on campus that it considers "prestigious" and pointing to the College Confidential site of everyday people who think that Phi Kappa Phi is reputable was to give you a quick showing that Phi Kappa Phi there is really no question regarding Phi Kappa Phi's is reputability. As for the rest, I'm not entirely sure I agree with your reasoning regarding why it should stay C-class (there is no D-class, although there are "lower" classes). Regarding your specific points, there are a couple I agree with and will change them when I get a chance. The rest is up to you, if you want to see it. Basically, if you think a passage is incoherent, make it more coherent. If you think it is one-sided, add sources and statements that balance it, or at least say what specifically would make it more objective. If you think it is unreliable, say specifically what would make it more reliable (I'm not even sure what that would mean and how it differs from "objective"). If you think something is not interesting, that is irrelevant. There are a lot of things on Misplaced Pages I find uninteresting, but that doesn't mean I should delete them. The same goes to what you personally would rather want to know. You either have something to add to the page regarding content, or you want to delete it on the grounds Misplaced Pages editing guidelines. There's not much else. Furthermore, the very things you say cast suspicion on the article are entirely appropriate. Details and quotes are entirely appropriate to Misplaced Pages guidelines, however you might not think they are employed effectively, which is a different matter. I don't know what you mean by "branding labels", but the images on the site are to help the reader understand the explanation of the society symbols, which appropriate to Misplaced Pages guidelines. This page is currently under length limit for Misplaced Pages guidelines. If you do want to make changes to the article for brevity or greater coherence or general making-better, and do it without deleting content, you don't need approval, just make it better. No one else will do it for you. If you want to actually delete content, state on the talk page specifically what you want to delete and why, offer alternatives if appropriate, wait for objections from editors, and, if none, then delete it. If there are objections, the task is to reach some sort of consensus. If you want me to respond to all of your points specifically, I can. --Lhakthong (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please see here for B-class criteria. It would be helpful if you would couch your criticisms in these terms. This is given as an example of a B-class article, and this is given as an example of a C-class article. For more, see link at top of this section. --Lhakthong (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- As noted above, what I enumerated were my suggested changes. I will leave it up to you or to others to accept or reject what I consider to be the most important points that make the present article definitely a C-class (or below C) article. As the criteria for C-class articles specifically point out, the current Phi Kappa Phi article "contains a lot of irrelevant material" (some of which I have listed in my suggested changes) and "the article should have some references to reliable sources" (also noted by me above, which means that the article should avoid referring only to Phi Kappa Phi sources which would be difficult to validate in terms of objectivity). I am sorry I do not have the time or the energy to edit and engage in prolonged discussion.Sheldon Lowe (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sheldon, thanks for clarifying. I understand the first point, although it would require more discussion (what is considered relevant or irrelevant). Your second point I completely agree with. However, as with many honor society pages, there are not a lot of third party sources to draw from. I used all I could find. Where information came directly from PKP, I wrote "PKP claims that", which I know you don't like stylistically, but it was intended to point out to the reader that the information is not coming from a third party source in order to best abide by objectivity given the circumstances. Thanks again for your suggestions and for taking the time to offer them. --Lhakthong (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Editing of Lead
Per results of mediation, and the agreement of all parties concerned to retain the Lead paragraph as it was on 03/19/09 (after so many changes had been made and finally agreed upon), I therefore request Lhakthong to refrain from editing the lead (again) and to abide by what he wrote in the mediation page. Failure to conform to that mediation agreement will result in a report to the admin concerned and in my editing other sections of the article that I disagree with for any reason. Thanks.Angtitimo (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Why, aside from the first clause of the sentence, is it necessary to state "It was founded in 1897, fourth after other similar academic societies: Phi Beta Kappa for the Liberal Arts and Sciences, Tau Beta Pi for Engineering, and Sigma Xi for Scientific Research, chronologically (See also "History", below)." in the lede? This seems to me to be a detailed point better suited for the history section. On another note, threatening to report and to edit other sections of the article in retaliation is not a constructive means to collaborative editing. I edited the lede for brevity. Content was not deleted but moved to the appropriate section in the article. Such edits are unquestionably within Misplaced Pages editing guidelines. I think we either need to keep it as brief as possible while hitting major facts, like the "GA" class page of Beta Upsilon Chi or we need to lengthen the lead to reflect the "FL/FA" class (featured class) pages of Alpha Kappa Alpha or Alpha Phi Alpha. Obviously from my previous edit of the lede, I prefer the former. You tell me which format you like better, and them maybe we can go from there. --Lhakthong (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Description of Seal
There was an edit made attempting to correct/clarify some language in the description of the Seal. I agree with the anonymous edit claiming that Troy is not considered part of Ancient Greece. However, the language in that section, as vague as it might be on the distinction, is taken directly from Phi Kappa Phi chapter sites. The purpose of the section is to explain the symbolism of the society's seal. I'm not sure who has more authority to talk about the symbolism of a society's seal than the society itself; and regardless of whether the Society is correct in its understanding (if it is even making the claimed assertion), it is cited and verifiable as the symbolism stated by the Society. If anyone has any suggestions as to how to resolve this without WP:OR, please let us know.Lhakthong (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Categories: