Jump to content

Talk:List of general fraternities/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

VfD 2004

This article was on votes for deletion, the consensus was to keep it. See the archived discussion for further details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conti (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 September 2004 (UTC)

Removing This Page

I had originally removed this page in favor of changing it to a category as opposed to a list, you can find the category under the category under the same name. I don't see a need for this page any longer as it has all been reclassified, many of the links have no articles and some of the stuff doesn't even belong here (Ku Klux Klan)?

So, I think this article should be deleted again as it has been transferred elsewhere. Wgfinley 20:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've just merged the content from Fraternal organization into this article, since they were almost completely redundant. I disagree about making it into a category, since it has the potential to grow beyond a mere list of organizations. There is now a lead paragraph taken from Fraternal organization. Yes, the Ku Klux Klan really is a fraternal organization in every sense of the word --- see the article.--Bcrowell 21:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, titles of articles aren't supposed to be in titlecase, so I'm going to do a rename.--Bcrowell 21:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this link acceptable for this article (link-owner):

Philosophy and fraternities: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrhum.htm Pvosta 08:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This entry makes no sense

The writeup deals mostly with Fraternal Organizations, and there's a separate writeup for Service Organizations which has a different structure and content. It makes no sense for this one's title to be "Fraternal AND service organizations" as long as the other one exists. So I think either both should be merged or separated.

I have no opinion about the matter but considering that deciding upon no opinion is, in fact, a form of an opinion I find myself pushing all the little buttons on my board of keys and I am not really sure exactly what or why is going on here except for the inner compulsion to push some buttons.Obbop 00:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm an Australian Freemason. The current Australian section is not a list but editorial. The information is interesting, but not in keeping with a list. Further, the OTO included elsewhere is not a *fraternity* as it admits women. The easy wayto sort this list out is make sure it is a list - splutting it by country does not make sense and is tricky. IOOF, IOF, LOL, Craft Freemasonry, HRA etc should all have one line in a list which typically will become English Language, and probably Nth American centric, not using counties to organise this list will make it easier to administer. People can follow hyperlinks to articles to find out where these fraternities are active 124.176.181.253 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

International scope

Right now, Fraternities and sororities deals almost exclusively with North American college groups. THIS is the page that probably should deal with all groups that could be defined as "Fraternities." It should not be an indiscriminant list. I removed lots of redlinks; some could eventually be added back in, but a separate page can be made in the future. Let's pump this page full of info first. —ScouterSig 15:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

An additional reference for the article

Article editors might consider adding this PDF article as a reference. It contains a long list of mergers and name changes of Fraternal Benefit Societies in the US. 24.178.228.14 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood

They are not a fraternal organization, despite the name. In Arabic, the male term for brothers إخوان includes males and females. In addition to that, there are many female members in this organization. Abo 3adel (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

BPOElks in the Phillipines

Yes, it's true. The Elks have a lodge in the Phillipines. Here's why:

The Phillipines used to be a territory of the United States of America. While they were a territory, the local lodge was founded.

After the USA granted independence, the conundrum was whether to allow the Phillipne lodge to continue to exist. It was decided to allow it to continue, but to enforce the requirement that members be citizens of the USA.

Look here: [1] - namely, "To be eligible for membership in the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (of the United States of America), you must be a citizen of the United States over the age of 21 who believes in God." Of course, this does not include the BPOE Canada or the IBPOE, which are both open to citizens of any country - but are not affiliated with the BPOE of the USA.

This to me states that the Elks is not a worldwide organization. You don't see Elks lodges in France, or Germany, or Japan. The Phillipines is a very special case, inasmuch that the country was once a USA territory.

Discussion? --Manway (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Response. Thank you for putting this on the talk page and working together on this. After calling the Elks, their response was "National". So my prefered options in order would be 1) putting them in National with a note label/ref label pair, 2) National and 3)International.
Oddly enough, I think the Moose probably have a better argument for being International. According to their page, they've got chapters in 4 Canadian provinces, the UK and Bermuda.Naraht (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I appreciate any honest and open discussion. Thank you for being willing to listen and work with it. I'll go with your option 1. Maybe simply a footnote showing my above regarding the Phillipine lodge? Oh, and we musn't forget the Canal Zone lodge No. 1414. Same criteria there. Are you familiar with the Elks? The number of the lodge gives you an idea of the year they were founded. I was a member of 1497 (Burbank, CA) and they were founded in the 1920s. So we can assume Canal Zone 1414 was close to there, and Phillipines Lodge was probably in the latre 1800s - early 1900s. Somewhere I have a spreadsheet of all lodges and their institution date. I can find exact dates if that would help in the footnotes. By the way, I'm a Past Exalted Ruler... :)--Manway (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm doubly impressed that someone who might feel that they had ownership of the fact would be willing to discuss it. I think a footnote would be great. Something like "Includes Philippine and Canal Zone lodges founded while areas under US control". (Not sure if 'Lodge' should be capitalized or not) This phrase might also be appropriate in the first paragraph of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks#Structure and organization section.Naraht (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The BPOE official name presentation is: Burbank, CA No. 1497. As far as whether "Lodge" should be capitalized, I've seen it both ways, so I tend to think there is no consensus on that. My thoughts on it: I believe if you are referring to a particular Lodge, such as "Burbank Lodge" it should be, and if you're referring to general lodges, (Elks lodges in California) that it should not. --Manway (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
So are you OK with the change that I proposed? If so, I'll get to it tomorrow if you don't get there first. Naraht (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Perfect. I'll try to get to it tonight - but it's Elks Lodge night 8^) - if not, go ahead! Thanks for the discussion and a pleasure to make your acquaintance. --Manway (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Meatspace activities? How bizarre, but I guess occasionally useful. :)

One other thing: I noticed the the Fraternal Order of Eagles is listed in United States, Canada, AND International. They are an international organization [2]: "The Fraternal Order of Eagles, an international non-profit organization, unites fraternally in the spirit of liberty, truth, justice, and equality, to make human life more desirable by lessening its ills, and by promoting peace, prosperity, gladness and hope." --Manway (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, groups should only be listed in one place, I think.Naraht (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

'

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of general fraternities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I just removed the link for the KKK. I realize Wikipedia is uncensored, and I further realize there's no direct policy or rule being broken by having that link here. I would suggest that link be dis-allowed more or less on an IAR basis. It's a racist group and it's inclusion is of no benefit to Wikipedia. I realize this is a weak argument, but neither would I support any links to the IRA, ISIS or any other group that's sole reason for being is to advocate racist ideologies. Thank for you understanding. Kosh Vorlon   16:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 23 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to any particular title at this time, although it still seems like some change might be warranted. Any editor is free to create Lists of fraternities as a list of lists. Dekimasuよ! 18:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


List of general fraternities → List of fraternities – No such article as "general fraternity". Since unsurmountably unclear specification of the term and scope, better drop the disambiguation altogether. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment The current title does indeed seem to be a poor attempt to distinguish it from social fraternities. Perhaps some type of parenthetical disambiguation would work better? Rreagan007 (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_general_fraternities/Archive_1&oldid=1232497298"