Jump to content

Talk:Phi Beta Kappa/Archive 1

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

Φιλοσοφία Βίου Κυβερνήτης

Just for the record, this was taken from Book VI of Plato's Republic. But I'm not going to change the article to include this detail. 2601:181:4600:A8C0:F035:D1EA:197B:5FF8 (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment on rating

While it's an honor society its long history and large number of members, plus its importance to the Fraternity system, argues for a High ratingTrey (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Accented Letters

I now see what you (User:Evanmc)mean, but on my work computer it comes up as a box; likely because that HTML language support is not added. Realize that many people just see a placeholder, which may be why they revert it. -- Avi 23:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Revolutionary War

My understanding was that there is some revolutionary war history to PBK. If that is true, it ought to be mentioned here. Sandwich Eater 17:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Poorly written section

Cut from article:

  • Ignorance of Phi Beta Kappa
  • A May 26, 1996 article in the New York Times entitled "Phi Beta Kappa Being Turned Down by Many Honorees" noted that some students were turning down membership in the Society because they had never heard of it. Virtually all of the 27 chapters that reported acceptance rates under 90% were at large state universities. [1]
  • At private universities and small liberal arts colleges, however, election to Phi Beta Kappa remains one of the highest honors a student can receive, and the few membership offers extended are almost universally accepted. According to the Times article, the vast majority of chapters report that well over 90% of elected students join.

I have no idea what these two paragraphs are trying to say. Perhaps the NYT article was trying to make a point about PBK becoming less well known? --Uncle Ed 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The link to the article is dead anyway, so none of this is verifiable. I'd just jettison it as you've done. MARussellPESE 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Though I have no publication to cite, I can say from personal experience that most "headhunters" (employer-paid employment agencies) that I have used removed Phi Beta Kappa from my resume, because they never heard of it and thought it was a fraternity. Granted, the fact that I'm a member diminishes its credibility.Bostoner (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
If your 'headhunters' are removing Phi Beta Kappa from your resume because they are incorrectly assuming you are listing your fraternity on your resume, you really need to get new headhunters. Since so few are inducted into PBK, it's understandable so few have heard of it, especially in light of college now being nothing more than a 4-year boozefest for most students. But your headhunters should know better -- unless, of course, those headhunters were part of the boozefest.

Occidental

Why is "Occidental College (1926)" included in a paragraph that begins "By 1920, there were 89 chapters at a variety of schools. They included:"? Emoll 20:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Declaration said WHAT?

Copied from article:

When the United States Declaration of Independence was read in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, it proclaimed the right of the colonials to have government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

It said no such thing. Those words are from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.169.97.228 (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

The phrase is indeed from the Gettysburg Address delivered by Abraham Lincoln on November 19, 1863. It postdates the Declaration of Independence by four score and seven years. 164.55.254.106 (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Membership

This section reads rather like promotional literature, especially the sentences

"Because of its rich history and selectivity, Phi Beta Kappa is generally considered the most prestigious American college honor society and membership is one of the highest honors that can be conferred on undergraduate liberal arts and science students."

and

"Making Phi Beta Kappa recognizable in many campuses is a major challenge that the Society faces in this new millennium."

Suggest the first one needs some evidence and the second one needs cutting? Edjack 14:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


...and, reading on, the 'History' section is fairly light on sources and relevance too, in addition to the spectacular Gettysburg/Declaration error.Edjack 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of these. "Rich history" is subjective, "selectivity" is debatable considering the 500,000 claimed members, I'm going to cut the first clause and keep the second in the first sentence, and cut the second completely, until someone can come up with proof for or against. --Bakarocket 10:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PhiBetaKappaKey2.gif

Image:PhiBetaKappaKey2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

History Section

The first paragraph of the history section (pasted below) leaves something to be desired. 2 of the sentences make no grammatical sense ("student associations.... academic fencing"), and the part about the "Zeitgeist" either needs to be sourced or kicked. In fact, given the conclusion of the paragraph (that the development of PBK was independent -- and the "has to be" seems like a spurious conclusion), the entire paragraph seems superfluous (as basically all it says is that Europe had student groups). Thoughts? If there are no disagreements I'll probably remove/rewrite in a few days.

"Student associations of a social nature were formed hundreds of years ago in European universities. These student groups, guilds and other social, literary, and religious associations, existed in Europe over many centuries and in many forms. Student associations in Europe exist until today (see Corps, Corporation, Studentenverbindung). Most of them where founded in the 18th and 19th century but kept older traditions like academic fencing. Contemporaneous founding of most student corporations existing today in Europe and of Phi Beta Kappa is possibly due to a parallel trend or Zeitgeist of that era in Europe and America. The institution of American college Greek-letter fraternities nevertheless has to be regarded as an independent development of American students." Brainmouse (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I have removed this paragraph outright, as I didn't feel it added anything. There is a lot of info in the history section that is completely irreleveant (e.g. about William & Mary's campus), but I am not going to rewrite any of it as, honestly, I know nothing about it. If anyone has the energy and the citations, a rewrite wouldn't be a terrible idea... Brainmouse (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Hastings3" :
    • {{cite book |author = Hastings, William T. |year = 1965 |title = ''Phi Beta Kappa as a Secret Society with its Relations to Freemasonry and Antimasonry Some Supplementary Documents'' |location = [[Richmond, Virginia]] |publisher = United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa |pages = 5}}
    • {{cite book |author = Hastings, William T. |year = 1965 |title = ''Phi Beta Kappa as a Secret Society with its Relations to Freemasonry and Antimasonry Some Supplementary Documents'' |location = [[Richmond, Virginia]] |publisher = United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa |pages = 38-39}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory?

This sentence makes no sense:

Phi Beta Kappa is generally considered the least prestigious college honor society in the United States,[7] and membership is one of the highest honors that can be conferred on undergraduate liberal arts and science students.

Could someone look into this? The "least prestigious" has a reference, but I can't find the original article, and I doubt that it says it's the "least prestigious"... that seems a little off to me. Sbrools (talk . contribs) 19:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the page history. This edit, which was made 10 minutes before your inquiry, is just an anonymous IP's vandalism that I have since reverted. Anyone with half a clue about PBK knows how prestigious it is; some anonymous person just wanted to mess the page up. -Jrcla2 (talk)(contribs) 19:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

claims to prestige

I don't think it's a neutral claim to state without qualification that PBK is the considered the most prestigious honor society given its current citation. My first question is "considered by whom?" to which I am given the answer "Susan C. Thomson" of the Washington Post. I'm not disputing that PBK might be considered such, but if such a subjective claim is going to be made, the source(es) cited should be deemed as authoritative for such a judgment (is Susan Thomson an authority on these matters?), and it should be clear in the writing who is making that claim: "Such and such has claimed PBK to be the most prestigious". No one doubts that Harvard is one of the best universities in America, but it would nonetheless seem more appropriate to write "Harvard is ranked X in US News and World Reports…" and cite US News than to just make the claim that it is, without qualification, and cite a newspaper article that says in passing "Harvard, one of the nations best universities…" --Lhakthong (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding whether ΦΒΚ is the "most prestigious", I think a fair argument would be that it is the oldest such academic organization in the United States, it still exists, and it has an impressive list of members who have made many great accomplishments in their respective fields. How many sources, and, specifically, which sources, do you feel would be adequate to claim that ΦΒΚ and Harvard are prestigious, how prestigious, or not? --Ericdn (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Saying it is the oldest is certainly easily verifiable and would require one good source. But, as I think is clear in your questions, it is a much more difficult matter to say the same about "prestige". We had this problem on the Phi Kappa Phi page regarding the claim that PKP was one of the most prestigious, even though we could find multiple university websites (not PKP chapter pages) from honors programs, administrative offices, etc. We had to get a WP:3O who pointed out that there was too much WP:OR in making such a claim (at least in our specific case). I would need to know that, as an academic society, it is being judged by academics and that it is true that it is considered by the majority of academics to be the case. If, for example, the Washington Post conducted a survey of academics asking them which honor societies they thought were the most prestigious, and PBK came up on top, that would be satisfactory. Then it could be written "A survey of professors conducted by the Washington Post showed that PBK is considered the most prestigious honor society." This is not what is required for *me* to be convinced of the claim but for me to think such a claim is adequately sourced for an encyclopedia. If PBK makes the claim, we can say "PBK claims to be the most prestigious…" and then cite their website or wherever they make that claim. --Lhakthong (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I assume from the silence that we can strike the questionable term or does anyone think it should be written "Susan Thomson of the Washington Post claims…"? I'd like to strike this or have it stated as suggested in order to keep these things consistent across honor society pages and avoid NPOV problems. --Lhakthong (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I can try to find other sources, but it consistently has been considered the most prestigious honor society in the US. -- Avi (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Just a reminder to all, note the first sentence of Wikipedia's Policy on verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." --Lhakthong (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added five six more sources, none of which are PBK itself or any of its chapters. They include a sampling of university websites describing the honor societies they have, University news, College publications, and a website of the US Library of Congress. -- Avi (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Avraham, I hate to be a wet blanket, but the problem with the new sources is the same problem we had with the Phi Kappa Phi sources, as I indicated above, and we can't have some pages allowing such claims on these sources and another not. The source should be similar to US News rankings for colleges or it should be a survey (see my original comment). Finding individual campus webpages is not enough, because to prove that a majority of universities think such, you would have to cite over half of the institutions in the USA. This is why a formal published survey is much better. Also, one might ask whether a Library of Congress website designed for children is authoritative on matters of academic prestige. I would say without question that it would be an inadequate source for such a claim were this an academic essay. This is why some kind of authoritative source that makes "prestige rankings" is needed (like US News college rankings). What is needed is a source such that it can be said "PBK is ranked most prestigious in X" or "A survey by Y conducted found the majority of people find PBK to be…" The fact that I can't even find the word "prestige" on the PBK website is telling. If the organization itself is unwilling to make the claim, I wonder we can justify it being on this page. If it does make the claim, we write "Phi Beta Kappa claims to be the most prestigious…" Passing reference to it as such does in a source does not count. Again, see my comments above. --Lhakthong (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Lhakthong, you just made my point for me. PBK does not need to refer to itself as the nation's most prestigious; that is not its place. I would not accept its calling itself "most prestigious" as reliable just as I would not accept a chapter referring to the parent as reliable. Others refer to it as such. Other than Phi Kappa Phi, there is no other organization that gets referenced by universities and publications as "most prestigious", which supports the claim. -- Avi (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I restated this on the F&S project page, but I'll put it here: We need a source such that any of the following claimc can be made:
1) "A survey conducted by X found Phi Beta Kappa to be the most prestigious…" (cite survey)
2) "So-and-so of X institution claims that Phi Beta Kappa is the most prestigious…" (cite publication where so-and-so makes that claim)
3) "Phi Beta Kappa was ranked "most presitigious" in Z publication." (cite Z publication where such rank is granted)
4) "Phi Beta Kappa claims that it is the most prestigious." (cite webpage or publication where PBK makes the claim).
The claims written this way are not subjective but reporting of fact, which is what Wikipedia does. To make a subjective claim and then back it up with sources which demonstrate why you think such a claim is justifiable is original research. Statements have to be written so they are unquestionably verifiable, cited to the immediate source, regardless of anyone thinks of the truth of the claim. Otherwise, it should not be stated.--Lhakthong (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better construction would be the following (additions in italics "Founded at the College of William and Mary on December 5, 1776, it is the oldest, and widely reported as the most prestigious, liberal arts honor society in the United States." This way, Wikipedia is not making a definitive ranking claim, and the statement is supported by the sources provided. -- Avi (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

One side point, the sources brought are not supporting the claim that PBK is the most prestigious. The sources are being brought because each source calls PBK the most prestigious. That is not OR, that is proper sourcing. -- Avi (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm keeping my responses to the talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities page, because that's where all the other editors are responding. --Lhakthong (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo Options of Phi Beta Kappa Key

@BubbaJoe123456, I noticed you replaced this image: students holding key with this image: key transparent under the Key section (Phi Beta Kappa#Key). It looks like the key transparent appears as the same image twice on the page now after your revision (first in the infobox and then under the Key section). To avoid the duplication of the image, I propose adding the image of the students back with this caption from earlier this year in this revision: "Students hold the Key of Phi Beta Kappa at Duke University."? If you're good with that, I will restore the photo section from that revision. Please let me know. Editchecker123 (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the photo from the revision mentioned in my message. If you disagree with the edit, before reverting, can you comment here? Thanks Editchecker123 (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Liberal Arts vs. the Sciences

The wiki page on TBP states that PBK was originally membership limited to persons in the liberal arts. Is this the case and if so can there be a reference to this and if the sciences were excluded, when were they accomodated. I think that the word "scientist" as we know it, did not come into common use until ca. 1820. Groovamos (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 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: page moved. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa Society → Phi Beta Kappa – More common usage of the name does not include Society. No disambiguation necessary. Standard on Greek Letter Organizations is without additional words unless disambiguation needed Naraht (talk) 16:50, 21 March 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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Phi Beta Kappa Society. 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) 09:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Prestige vs. selectivity

I'm aware that whatever arbitration about "prestige" has already been settled. And while I think the result is hogwash and fails to ignore that this particular group is universally recognized as the most prestigious American academic society, even to the extent of affecting personnel decisions in the academy, yet is also cultural shorthand to identify well-educated persons (and less generously, eggheads). But I won't dispute what's already settled.

Nonetheless, this article is just plain-old incomplete without reference to the selectivity of the organization, which is a different matter entirely. The selectivity of the organization is its raison d'être and the primary reason the subject is notable at all. And unlike "prestige," selectivity is objective. The article is grossly incomplete without explanation that:

  • only a selective number of colleges are permitted to sponsor a chapter. The installation of a new chapter is often a long process (anecdotally to my ears, taking 10 years in one instance) that requires a number of different moving targets to be hit, including requirements of faculty composition (how many members are available to form the new chapter) to even library equipment and funding levels. And, of course, the institution's willingness to underwrite such an endeavor.
  • Once a school has a chapter, there are strict criteria for nomination, including a student's class year, class rank, and even nature and quality of the course of study.

Unfortunately, the latter varies slightly from school to school (although I believe there are universal requirements as to class standing, rank, and a requirement to take mathematics) while the former reflect an apparently secretive process. Hopefully an expert can help fill this glaring hole in the article. --75.69.106.246 (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to quote a different editor, Madcoverboy, here, because I think the point carries: "Simply assert the facts and allow the reader to come to his or her own conclusion about its '[selectivity]' on the grounds you provide:" how many chapters are allowed to permitted to be chartered at any given time, number of faculty at a new chapter that need to already be PBK members, etc. Just make sure what you write to that end is verifiable and cited appropriately.--Lhakthong (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the document you're looking for is the one in Footnote 5, which is already cited in the Membership section. Presumably you want more? 155.41.49.89 (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Cost to join

I noticed the rather glaring omission of the monetary cost that each person must pay to join. I'm not sure how much it is, so can someone who does know please add it? Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Real snunking fart what the hell is Phi Beta Kappa!!!!! what dose it do ????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.120.61 (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

55 dollars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.109.34 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There is, I believe, a universal requirement that new members pay an initiation fee. It is up to the chapter, however, to administer this fee, and it may choose to pay all or part of the fee for the initiates. I am not sure if there is a suggested minimum or maximum fee, but I know that when I was initiated last month I paid more than the aforementioned 55 dollars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.204.201 (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

New members are required to pay a one-time, lifetime membership fee. The amount varies among chapters. Part of the fee goes to the national organization (it's an amount that varies yearly). Any additional fees assessed by the chapter are used for administrative costs and items such as engraved member certificates. The cost for a membership "key" is separate. It's optional for a member to order a key (which comes in different sizes, styles, gold-plated or 10k gold) and is done through the authorized PBK jeweler, after the new member is registered with the national office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.148.95 (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Boosterism and bad sources

Part of the problem with this article is sourcing to its own press releases. The "oldest and most prestigious" phraseology can be traced directly back to this blurb and its ilk, for example. As I noted at User talk:DGG#Phi Beta Kappa, it does a dis-service to this article to indulge in FUTON bias. The sources on WWW pages are, in general, poor, and appear to have indulged in games of chinese whispers, each paraphrasing, re-stating, and altering what the one before has said, leading to distortions. Even the Society's own press releases are just more chinese whispers, by PR flacks. You would do far better to pick up some properly researched sources, or at least some primary sources that are closer to the original facts. Madcoverboy hasn't made it very clear in the above, but there are honest-to-goodness books that cover this subject, as well as primary historical sources that haven't been subject to decades of alteration via the chinese whispers effect. It would be well to make use of them.

  • Clyde S. Atchison (March 1924). "The Mission of Phi Beta Kappa". In Oscar McMurtie Voorhees (ed.). Phi Beta Kappa Key. Vol. V. pp. 445–448.
  • Phi Beta Kappa (1940). "History and Significance of Phi Beta Kappa". Phi beta kappa: a handbook for new members. United chapters of Phi beta kappa.
  • Phi Beta Kappa (1919). "A History of Phi Beta Kappa". In G. D. Hadzsits (ed.). Hand Book of the University of Pennsylvania Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa Delta of Pennsylvania. Phi Beta Kappa. Pennsylvania Delta. University of Pennsylvania.
  • Arthur Copeland (1907). "Phi Beta Kappa Beginnings". Men and Days in Phi Beta Kappa. The Du Bois press.
  • Richard Nelson Current (1990). Phi Beta Kappa in American life: the first two hundred years. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195063112. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
  • William Thomson Hastings (1965). Phi Beta Kappa as a Secret Society: With Its Relations to Freemasonry and Antimasonry : Some Supplementary Documents. United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa.
  • Oscar M. Voorhees (1945). The History of Phi Beta Kappa. New York: Crown Publishers.
  • Irvin G. Wyllie. "Review of Voorhees's The History of Phi Beta Kappa". American Literature: A Journal of Literary History, Criticism and Bibliography. XVIII. Modern Language Association of America American Literature Group: 258–259.
  • Edward Everett Hale (July 1879). "A fossil from the Tertiary". The Atlantic Monthly. XLIV: 100–102.
  • Edward Fitch (1909-03-06). "Phi Beta Kappa". The Classical Weekly. ii: 143.
  • Herbert Cushing Tolman (March 1906). "A brief history of the Phi Beta Kappa Society". The Yale Monthly Magazine. Vol. i. pp. 88–96.

Quite frankly, when 4/9 of the source citations in an article are quotations trying to support a couple of superlatives in the introduction, it's clear that there's something wrong with the editorial focus of the article. The use of sources such as (to pick just one) Reinhold not in support of the 1970s events that they actually document, which are nowhere to be found even mentioned in the article, but merely in support of some press-release superlatives, is a quite ridiculous error in focus.

Try leaving the boosterism aside and working on the rest of the article. Readers aren't informed by opinion superlatives. They don't come here to learn what some writer in the NYT thinks of the society. They come here to learn about the society. They are informed by actual content documenting the history of this subject in detail. Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Major missing sources

A cursory Google search reveals that there are two major scholarly works on PBK that have not been included in the article. Get them in there! Madcoverboy (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  • "Phi Beta Kappa in American Life. The First Two Hundred Years." (2001) [2]
  • "The History of Phi Beta Kappa" (1945) OMM Voorhees

Famous members

The list of famous members is exceptionally long. Wouldn't it make sense to convert it to a separate article? --orlady 21:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

New ΦBK userbox

This probably isn't the right place for this, but just wanted people to know a {{User Phi Beta Kappa}} userbox has been created (surprised there wasn't one before). --Lukobe 10:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Better place for it is Category:Wikipedians in Phi Beta Kappa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avraham (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Reestablishment at W&M

It is my understanding that PBK as we know it today is a product mostly of the Harvard chapter, which established chapters at other schools; the original W&M group disbanded during the Revolution when the school closed and was not reestablished until after the war, perhaps not even until the late 1880s, after the school closed and was refounded as a state teacher's college. The page currently reflects the fact that PBK did not operate continuously at W&M from 1776 to the present -- does anyone know when it returned?

Also, the Flat Hat reference is implausible without some support.--Editing 22:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Flat Hat reference is utterly spurious. It is a myth that Phi Beta Kappa likes to tell about itself to try to link Jefferson to Phi Beta Kappa. Jefferson's own comments makes it clear that the Flat hat Club was a purely social college student joke, and there is nothing that would suggest that the character of either society is similar to the other. Nor is there the slightest shred of evidence that FHC survived to the late 1770's. That PBK's cannot resist repeating such myths here is regrettable, and does not reflect well on their organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Phi Beta Kappa members?

A suggestion. (Hope I've done this right.) One example is Ellis Loew, the District_Attorney in James_Ellroy's L.A._Quartet. I seem to remember him twiddling his Phi Beta Kappa Ring in a number of scenes thuout the Quartet. -- Shirt58 03:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Claim of "considered most prestigious"

A central distinguishing characteristic of Phi Beta Kappa is that it is considered "widely, by many, generally, etc." to be the most prestigious academic honor society in the United States. I believe it is also the most selective national honor society for the Liberal Arts and Sciences (i.e., on the PBK homepage it states that approximately 1 college senior in a hundred is inducted each year, as around 10% of colleges have PBK chapters and around 10% of students at those colleges are invited to become members). To omit this aspect of PBK is to ignore something essential to an understanding the meaning PBK membership carries. Many (perhaps most?) people join PBK because of its reputation as the most prestigious academic honor society. The Wikipedia article is incomplete if it does not address this aspect of PBK. There are multiple sources (other than PBK sites) attesting to this with a simple Google search:

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/choosingacollege/a/phi-beta-kappa.htm

http://news.fiu.edu/2012/04/select-group-of-liberal-arts-students-join-elite-honor-society-phi-beta-kappa/39332

The question is "is there sufficient sourcing to support the claim of Phi Beta Kappa's being considered the most prestigious honor society in the liberal arts and sciences?"

I believe that it is sufficiently reliably and verifiably sourced that it is widely considered that PBK is the most prestigious honor society for the liberal arts and sciences. There are others who feel that the claim is inherently unsupportable without some kind of exogenous poll to which it can be attributed. Please read the sources and note your opinions below. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with including sourced and referenced claims to this effect. I honestly don't understand what Lhakthong is talking about by saying that one can only include such claims if they are the result of a poll or survey. "Widely considered" is a priori valid if multiply sourced to appropriate venues (and in the case of an inter-university honor society, the publications of universities are certainly appropriate)--it's a qualitative, not a quantitative, claim. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Review WP:WEASEL, WP:AVOID, and WP:MORALIZE re: "widely considered" and "prestigious". Simply assert the facts and allow the reader to come to his or her own conclusion about its "prestige" on the grounds you provide: it is the oldest, most widely spread, held by X presidents/CEOs/Nobel Laureates, etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Madcover, that would be true if noone outside Wikipedia made those claims, and an editor was trying to synthesize that result, even if it were true. This is different; we have brought around 10 sources (and I can bring maybe 100 more) each of which overtly state that PBK is the most prestigious honor society. That is neither weasling nor moralizing. Actually, to take that sentence out of the article would be an WP:UNDUE NPOV violation, by ignoring the vast majority of the external reliable and verifiable sources. -- Avi (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I expect to have been criticized on the grounds of WP:V that Wikipedia is after verifiability, not truth. Echoing Lhakthong, I find the citations to journalists and colleges unconvincing as they are not arbiters of what is and is not prestigious - they are not reliable sources of assessing prestige. Paraphrasing WP:ASF, I could surely find hundreds of journalistic sources asserting that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time, Ronald Regan was the most popular American politician, etc. as well as hundreds of other sources that say Dylan was the greatest artists of all time and Obama is the most popular American politican. How do we resolve these competing claims? Hyperbolic claims of indistinct quality are inherently problematic because one can almost always find a source backing up the assertion even if it conflicts with verifiable assertions made by other sources. I'm not disputing that PBK isn't the most prestigious, only that Wikipedia should not be in the business of making such qualitiative assessments to avoid the aforementioned conflict. Moreover, relying on purposefully loaded and indistinct concepts of "prestige" is a whole nasty can of worms because it connotes very different things. Simply substantiate the basis on which the claim prestige is grounded by asserting indisputable facts. If you want to assert that 3 journalists over a period of 39 years and 7 schools have labeled the society as such, that is likewise your prerogative. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I disagree, for this reason: Phi Beta Kappa is a voluntary society with no particular aim beyond giving prestige to its members. Because it's a completely closed system--university Phi Beta Kappa chapters select members for Phi Beta Kappa, which is an honor conferring no goods but prestige and no responsibilities beyond the responsibility to elect the next intake of Phi Beta Kappa members--the testimony of the larger university community is totally relevant to the degree of prestige accorded to the society by the larger university community. And beyond the university community, Phi Beta Kappa isn't particularly relevant, so the prestige accorded to it by the university community is its most important defining quality. It's kind of like professional sports organizations' Most Valuable Player awards--we don't have to establish independently that those players were, indeed, the most valuable, because it's a closed system of qualitative evaluation, not a falsifiable quantitative claim. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Right, but there is no "closed system of qualitative evaluation" asserting that PBK is the most/more prestigious than any other honor society. To adapt your example to the issue at hand in this RFC, is the MVP for baseball the "most prestigious" award in professional sports or "more prestigious" than the MVP for football or basketball or hockey or curling? That major league baseball/national hockey league/Phi Beta Kappa make assessesments and assign prestige to members is not the issue at hand, it is whether or not this article should be asserting comparative superlatives about the organizations themselves. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me this issue remains unresolved and no movement towards consensus has been made. Unless anyone has any suggestions for moving us towards some kind of middle ground (which I'm not sure exists in this case), I suggest informal mediation by WP:MEDCAB. Although Wikipedia isn't about amassing a majority, for the record the debate seems to stand at 4-2 (see also here) against this the disputed claim being included in the article. Any other suggestions? --Lhakthong (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

When you file, please drop a note on this page so that anyone following can comment. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How to address the claim?

Before we do that, perhaps we should clarify what the issue with the claim is at this point. The sources brought fill WP:RS and WP:V and are not guilty of a WP:COI. The way I understand those who have an issue with the claim is that the claim itself is too subjective. I thought this could be addressed by qualifying the statement as "and is widely reported as being the most prestigious". In this case, the article is not making any claim as to the prestige of PBK, but as to the ubiquity of the claim elsewhere, which I believe is substantiated. -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Avi, I thought the same thing at one point, but I think it nonetheless violates WP:WEASEL, i.e. what is "widely" and how is it different than "some" or "many" or "most"? --Lhakthong (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but if I start polling the 276 universities with Phi Beta Kappa chapters, I'm pretty sure 99% of them refer to PBK as such, so I could likely add another couple of hundred sources (paper literature or websites) to the 10 already there. I think that is pretty wide, but let's continue to talk. Perhaps we can come up with something that is acceptable to everyone. -- Avi (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty biased sample! One might expect a different outcome were we to poll every college with a Tau Beta Pi or Eta Kappu Nu chapter... I think that you have reliable factual grounds to assert that it is the oldest and largest academic honor society. I think this sufficiently connotes what is often understood as prestige (respect, standing, regard, distinction, importance). However, it is unclear how "prestige" is quantified such that one organization can have more of it than another. These are factual grounds that need to be substantiated and even then it doesn't definitively resolve the issue since one can just as easily invent other metrics on which prestige can be assessed (one need only look at the proliferation of college rankings!). Is it more selective in whom it admits? Does it confer increased probability over other honor societies to get into graduate programs holding GPA and test scores constant? And so on... As I mentioned earlier, one would no more assert that the Superbowl MVP is more prestigious than the World Series MVP, or to use another academic award, that the National Merit Scholarship is more prestigious than the Intel Scholarship. We're effectively comparing apples to oranges. Does PBK have prestige? Certainly, but what is it? In my mind, this is what needs to be neutrally and verifiably established . Madcoverboy (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair points, Madcoverboy, which is why I included two New York Times articles, a Washington Post article, a university which did not have a PBK chapter (and was attempting to get one), the about.com article, and the (admittedly youth-oriented) entry from the Library of Congress. Disparate sources that make the same claim. -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting side point. Roanoke College tried for over 50 years to get a chapter. See http://web.roanoke.edu/x26630.xml. Wow. -- Avi (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I would be leery of using PBK's own site without corroborating evidence, but this is interesting, but not that helpful http://www.pbk.org/home/FocusNews.aspx?id=190. -- Avi (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the non-PBK sources, we are then left to the question of authority again. The sources used are not in any way similar to making the claim "X Institution is ranked 'Top Tier' by US News and World report". That is a verifiable claim. The passing reference to an institution as "most prestigious" in a any source just isn't the same to me. US News has a specific system by which ranking occurs and that can be scrutinized. I'm sure I can find newspaper articles that make plenty of subjective comments in passing about other leaders, countries, etc., but that does not make them such. A journalist's authority lies in reporting events, not passing judgment regarding prestige. The Library of Congress's authority is as a library, not in passing judgment regarding prestige. There is no factual evidence that PBK is considered "most prestigious" except for the sheer momentum of the claim reverberating through the discourse. In fact, the irony of the newspaper articles is that what they are saying is evidence that PBK is *not* considered prestigious by the majority of students; the article indicates that most students don't even know what PBK is. Hardly a case that it is so prestigious. A shame, for sure (if there's any honor society a student should know of, I would think it PBK), but nonetheless still indicative of the opposite of the disputed claim. --Lhakthong (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
As to your last point, may I point out what I believe is the fallacy in your argument? The conflation of recognition with prestige. Prestige is how the entity is perceived in relation to other entities by those who know of both the entity under discussion and complementary entities. Recognition is the extent to which the entity is known. In the case of Phi Beta Kappa, I believe it is fair to say that those who know of PBK hold it in the highest prestige. The fact that there are people who don't know about it does not detract from that prestige. -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll just reiterate for the sake of redundancy that I believe the article could assert that PBK is (1) the oldest, (2) the largest by membership and chapters, (3) has chapters at every college ranked in the Top X of US News, Forbes, etc. (this is borderline WP:OR however), and (4) has been awarded to X% of Nobel Laureates, MacArthur Fellows, etc. (likewise potential issues of WP:OR). If it did this without the "most prestigious", I believe substantially the same point would be conveyed without the subjective problems surrounding "most prestigious" we've been debating. While the implication of this reasoning (If some X are Y, then all X are Z) is fallacious, it has far superior factual basis to substantiate the claim than appeals to non-authorities. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the word prestigious itself denote a perception of something? Things get prestigious by word of mouth, with no real "proof". If the top colleges in this country are calling PBK the most prestigious, then it must be. I don't understand the drive to remove that description. A quick browse around the net, and an abundance of colleges come up, calling PBK the most prestigious honor it can bestow upon its students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEssayer (talk • contribs) 11:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed the reference to prestige in the lede of the article per the previous MEDCAB agreement, and because saying anything is "widely considered" (weasel words) "the most prestigious" (peacock term) seems to clearly violate the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines regarding words to watch.--Lhakthong (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phi_Beta_Kappa/Archive_1&oldid=1184013595"