Talk:United States Junior Chamber

Untitled

Some one plz see the latest edit by an annon. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

John Wayne Gacy

I inserted John Wayne Gacy before realizing he had been taken out before but I'm glad now after reading the commentary that I did. It's silly to keep taking him out. There's no need to whitewash history. The category is "Famous Jaycees" not "Great and Honorable Jaycees." The reputation of the Jaycees isn't harmed by his inclusion on the list any more than the reputation of the University of Cairo is harmed by inclusion of Mohamad Atta as an alumnus. It's interesting. The purpose of Wikipedia is historical accuracy not PR. 68.48.196.45

Removed John WayGacy from the article summary, but left him in the Notable Jaycees category, as his inclusion in the Notable Jaycees has been discussed in great detail. 76.103.247.173 (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not only was he in the JayCees, they had voted him "Man of the Year" (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7_En0NmKo4 ). For that he belongs here. Anyone who removes him is a bigot. 24.7.26.52 (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Infamous versus Famous

While this is a fine distinction, I would characterize Mr. Gacy as infamous rather than famous. The definition of infamous is: having an exceedingly bad reputation; notorious; causing or deserving infamy; heinous: an infamous deed; legally punishable by severe measures, such as death, long imprisonment, or loss of civil rights or convicted of a crime, such as treason or felony, that carries such a punishment. This is opposed to Famous defined as: well or widely known. I think making that distinction is important and including him in a list of famous Jaycees is insulting to the achievements and the memory of the others on that list. (Lucido68 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

I think the section should be labeled "Notable" rather then "Famous". As to whether or not to include Gacy, perhaps you should review other similar and dissimilar organization's article in wikipedia and see if any former members that they would be less than proud of are listed. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a PR tool for the Jaycees. This article needs to list the positive and negative aspects of the organization. --rogerd 02:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC) (JCI Senator 45468)

I understand the need for fair and accurate reporting on the organization and I do think all aspects of the organization should be reflected in the article. That said, including this individual in a list of famous leaders who have accomplished great things in their leadership capacities is an insult to their accomplishments. Further, I am uncomfortable with immortalizing an evil doer in an article like this one. It would seem to me that doing so rewards Gacy for his evil deeds which arguably have absolutely nothing to do with the Jaycees. If this were an article about serial killers than fine but it isn't so I beleive the reference is inappropriate. At the very least, the lists should be seperate so that the distinctions are obvious to those reading the article.(Lucido68 04:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, the section's entitled "Notable" now, and Gacy is certainly notable. His membership in the Jaycees is also notable - it's mentioned in the first paragraph of the Crime Library article about Gacy. Beyond that, Wikipedia is not intended to be a repository of good people and nice things. The association between Jaycees and Gacy is not a pleasant one, but it is factual, it is notable, and it is worthy of inclusion. As to the issues you've raised about Gacy's celebrity, serial killers have been celebrities since the days of Jack the Ripper. Rest assured, though, Gacy's far too dead to reap any reward from his notoriety now. TheRuss 04:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Usjaycee1, if you have a problem with Gacy's inclusion on the list of notable Jaycees, please raise it here rather than simply reverting the entry. TheRuss 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been numerous discussions on this topic in the past. I believe that the posting should be omitted until there is a consensus on inclusion. This is a jointly composed article that everyone should have the ability to weigh in on before including a reference like this one. I think it is inappropriate to include Gacy in this discussion for a number of reasons. There is no reported or established relationship between Gacy’s status as a Jaycee and the crimes he committed. There is no indication that he committed these crimes while he was a member of this organization and unless someone can establish that fact I don’t believe it appropriate to include him in this article. In fact, he was likely out of the organization by the time the crimes occurred as he was at the upper end of age eligibility at the time the first murder reportedly occurred. Gacy is certainly “notable” under Wiki standards but as a serial killer not a Jaycee. The correlation is coincidental and not relevant to an article on this organization. Further, I would like to reiterate my philosophical opposition to immortalizing this individual more than he already is for actions that have no relevance to the Junior Chamber organization. I think that is fundamentally wrong. His actions were despicable not notable (laymans definition) and have no place in here. I think an article dedicated to him on wiki is more than enough for this awful individual. Lucido68 19:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"no reported or established relationship"

1) How many of the listed notable members have a verifiable relationship between their accomplishments and their membership in the Jaycees?

2) For that matter, I've done spot checks on two of the "Notable Jaycees", and there's no mention that I can find of either Larry Bird or Bill Clinton being a Jaycee in their own Wikipedia articles at the moment - nor are there references given (at least, not directly) to back these claims up. As such, their inclusion in this list is more questionable than Gacy's, as Gacy's membership is verifiable.

3) Speaking of Larry Bird, if he was a Jaycee, Bird is an accomplished athlete, not a businessman. How are Bird's athletic accomplishments related to his time spent with the Jaycees?

4) It can be argued (although I'd never put this in the Wikipedia article without a citation) that the skill set of a successful politician - having a good reputation in the community, earning people's trust, convincing them to do what you want - is not dissimilar from the skills that Gacy employed as a serial killer. Again, look at the Crime Library introduction. If nothing else, Gacy's involvement in the Jaycees added to his image as a pillar of the community, which is an established relationship: "the Jaycees where Gacy devoted most of his time to and eventually became first vice-president and "Man of the Year."" (Crime Library, page 3)

"no indication that he committed these crimes while he was a member of this organization"

1) That depends on which crimes you're referring to. Gacy was convicted of sodomy with Mark Miller during his time with the Jaycees in Springfield - he actually alleged that it was a setup by some of the Jaycees to prevent him from becoming president of the local chapter (see p. 5). He may not have murdered anyone at that point, but the pattern of sexual predation had been established. Beyond that...

2) JFK was the youngest American president in history, and he would have been aged out before his term started if he was a Jaycee. As such, none of the presidents listed were Jaycees when they were elected to President (although to be fair, Clinton may have simultaneously been the governor of Arkansas and a Jaycee). Should they be removed from this section as well?

"he was at the upper end of age eligibility at the time the first murder reportedly occurred"

Gacy was born in 1942 and arrested for the last time in 1978. That puts him at about 36 or so by the time his crime spree ended - well before his 41st birthday.

"actions that have no relevance to the Junior Chamber organization"

It's not my or your standards that matter in this situation, it's Wikipedia's. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think concealing unpleasant facts about organizations is part of Wikipedia's policy - and Gacy's involvement in the Jaycees is a fact, both verifiable and notable. Omitting Gacy from the list of notable Jaycees will not erase the fact that Gacy was, in fact, a Jaycee and has already tarnished their reputation. Gacy's life and his crimes cannot be undone, and any attempt to conceal the Gacy-Jaycees connection would reflect poorly on the Jaycees. TheRuss 22:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's easy enough to verify Bill Clinton and Larry Bird, as they are mentioned in practically every marketing piece the US Junior Chamber produces. Here's a link on their Web site - About the Jaycees - and on JCI's Web site (though it does not mention Larry Bird) - Famous JCI Members

Setting aside what relevance his once having been a Jaycee has for the organization, the statement "he was at the upper end of age eligibility at the time the first murder reportedly occurred" is true. The age range was 18-35 until 1987, when it was changed to 21-39 and then 18-40 a few years ago. His first murder was in 1972 when he was almost 30 and out of the organization for around four years.

Since your argument is that since he is famous (or infamous) and was a Jaycee, would you agree he should be listed under "Notable Democrats" or "Notable Catholics" (if there were such lists here)? How about Ted Bundy, Serial Killer, under "Notable Republicans" or "Notable Boy Scouts"?

Since the heading is now "Notable Jaycees", perhaps you ought to look at the dictionary definition of "notable". Gacy hardly fits the description. For one, you are misusing the Wikipedia guideline for articles and applying it to a topic header. There, in my opinion, the various dictionary definitions of "notable" are more appropriate.

He should not be listed, especially since there is certainly no consensus on this. He is mentioned as having been a member of the Jaycees in his Wikipedia article, which is appropriate and relevant. It doesn't also need to be here in a list of "Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished" Jaycees. Bkavanaugh 02:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The main issue I have with the omission of Gacy from the list of Notable Jaycees is what the motivation behind his omission implies about Wikipedia, and that hinges on the litmus test used to determine inclusion/exclusion. Here are some tests that would be fair (although I'm not advocating for or against them), assuming they're consistently applied across the entire list:

1) The person is/was verifiably a member of the organization. (For this test, Jaycees marketing material would be adequate confirmation)

2) The person reached or exceeded a given degree of importance in the organization. (This level should be consistent across persons. Again, Jaycees marketing material is satisfactory evidence of standing in their own organization)

3) The organization played a given degree of importance in the person's life. (Importance here is obviously relative, but should be fairly consistent across persons. In this case, marketing material is of questionable use - see the section of Verifiability about "unduly self-serving" and "claims about third parties". Obviously this doesn't apply if, say, the Jaycees ran an article by Larry Bird entitled "Jaycee For Life")

4) The organization contributed to a given degree to the person's achievements. (See above comments)

5) The person's involvement with the organization (beyond #2) is/was notable. (Since this is Wikipedia, we can probably look to the Wikipedia guidelines on notability, with clarification as needed. Note that Wikipedia's notability criteria for article topics is generally *stricter* than for elements of those articles - there are many things that are worth mention in an article but not their own article)

These litmus tests address the "why not include so-and-so in group such-and-such" points you've quite reasonably raised. Not coincidentally, Gacy is able to pass all five of these tests for certain values of "given degree". #1 and #3 should be beyond debate by this point, #4 and #5 are perhaps a bit more debatable, but the Crime Library article on the subject is quite persuasive. #2 obviously depends on the chosen threshold for importance within the organization... but I suppose I should point out that I don't think that #2 is sufficient without #5. As noted in several other places on this talk page, Wikipedia is not a directory, and I'd suggest that attaining a given office in the Jaycees without any significance to the non-Jaycees world does not imply the encyclopedic nature of that achievement. That's tangential, though. Next, here's a list of litmus tests that are probably incompatible with Wikipedia:

6) The person and/or organization has a good reputation. (Misdeeds are more likely to be grounds for inclusion than exclusion under #5 above. Besides, Bill Clinton received oral sex from an employee while married to someone else - it's not murder, but it's despicable all the same. Should he be omitted?)

7) The person's affiliation with the organization is flattering to the person and/or organization. (Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and any litmus test along these lines would be a violation of neutral point of view)

8) The person and/or organization is not morally deserving of mention. (It's not in the official "What Wikipedia is not" page, but I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia is not a memory hole. We cannot erase unpleasant events/affiliations from history by omitting them from Wikipedia, as much as some parties would like to.)

Ultimately, it's possible that Gacy may not belong on the list of Notable Jaycees, but this determination should be made based on criteria that are compatible with Wikipedia's principles (I've cited a few above), rather than emotions or desires. I'll hold off on reinserting Gacy to give everyone time to propose thoughtful tests for inclusion. TheRuss 07:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (Minor edits: TheRuss 07:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

On the issue of memory hole, since you brought it up, if I had been removing mention of the Jaycees on Gacy's page and on this page, you would have a valid point. It is obvious (from the Crime Library article, anyway) that the Jaycees, or more generally, community service, were important to him. I have no problem with it being listed there as it is an important part of his story. His importance or even relevance to the Jaycees as a whole (beyond a couple of local chapters where he got no further than local vice president - not necessarily tough to do in many chapters) is far less clear. What is it about the organization that contributed to his future crimes committed long after he left the organization? Including him on that list certainly implies that the Jaycees had some role in what he became, and that's what I have a problem with. Of the millions of people who have been Jaycees across the world since 1915, how many of them can you document as serial killers? Just Gacy? Contrast that with Jaycees who became significant political leaders (heads of state, governors, etc.), business leaders and sports figures. Tell me again why Gacy is significant and relevant as a notable figure in an article about the Jaycees? When you list him in a section of about 20 notable Jaycees, you elevate his importance and relevance in the organization far above its actual level. His involvement in the organization is where it belongs: in an article about him.

The Jaycees' mission is basically personal and leadership development through community service. Given that he "was a born salesman who could talk his way in and out of almost anything", and that he was involved in every organization he could, I'd say he already had that long before he ever joined the Springfield Jaycees. So, what is it about his involvement in the Jaycees until 1968 that is relevant to him being a serial killer in 1972 and later? For Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, Tom Monaghan and other political and business leaders, their involvement in the Jaycees is relevant to what they became.

I think a far better debate than arguing whether Gacy belongs on this list is whether this list belongs here at all. I think everyone would be better served if we linked to the external JCI list instead. I took a quick look at other comparable fraternal and service organizations and didn't see any list like this on those pages. Bkavanaugh 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC) (reworking of some of the response: Bkavanaugh 01:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Now we're getting somewhere.

On one level, what this article implies about the Jaycees is important only insofar as it must abide by verifiability, neutral point of view, etcetera. In that domain, what matters the most is consistency - if criteria for inclusion are neutral and consistent, the article will follow.

But on another level, we are judged by the company we keep. The Jaycees rightly want to be associated with great men (although I can't help but chuckle at the inclusion of Clinton and Nixon), and conversely do not want to be associated with evil men, and that extends to this article. Wikipedia is still not a soapbox either for or against the Jaycees, so the concern is not precisely with the reputation of the Jaycees. Rather, more generally, the concern is over the encyclopedic nature of the article - whether it accurately conveys an understanding of the topic - not just in what it makes explicit, but in what it conveys implicitly. That's where synthesis becomes a problem, and where this list becomes problematic (I hadn't thought about it in exactly those terms when this started or I'd have taken a different approach).

"Larry Bird was a famous basketball player. He was also a Jaycee."

"John Wayne Gacy was an infamous serial killer. He was also a Jaycee."

Claim A is about the person's notability. Claim B is about the person's membership in the organization. Both are verifiable, and no further inference is drawn - not explicitly. Implicitly, however, the claim is clear - that the property noted in the person is commutative over the organization. And barring a reliable source that demonstrates this commutation, that's original research that shouldn't be in the article. I mean, the Jaycees have published information about their most famous members, and you've challenged me to provide information about how many serial killers have been involved in the organization. I'll be candid and say that I don't know. The only infamous Jaycees I know of are one serial killer and two former Presidents who faced impeachment. I also don't know how many child molesters, tax evaders, drunk drivers, and other scoundrels have counted themselves Jaycees (although I'd bet there's more than 0% and less than 100%). I don't know this because, to the best of my knowledge, the Jaycees haven't published those sorts of statistics or had anyone else do it for them. That sort of longitudinal study is quite rare - the only two I can think of offhand are two reviews: one of NFL players' criminal records, and one of Congress's. In those cases, making inferences about the average member of an organization can be justified. But again, to the best of my knowledge, that kind of data isn't available.

Ultimately, I don't think that this article should make inferences - explicit or implicit, positive or negative - about Jaycees as a whole. That's not the encyclopedia's job. Even verifiable causality between someone's membership in the Jaycees and their actions needs to be approached with care to avoid undue implications - positive or negative - about the other members of the organization.

In short, removing the section altogether seems appropriate. TheRuss 10:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What is wanted for Jaycees

At present it is a bunch of links - some to states, others chapters. Do we want Jaycee history - all I have as reference is some papers I received from the Jaycees when I joined? There used to be a site about the St. Louis Jaycees that had an extensive early history which I can't find anymore or has changed. actually the reference fixed links to Jaycees would reference much of the paper info I have.

Also the references links are off, I found some problems myself with adding links to different reference types I have not figured out why sometimes a reference will usually receive a number and in this case at present the numbers are wrong in the reference section Kidsheaven 20:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I figured it out as I did get the links and reference fixed for this page, placement of the correct tags and descriptions in the correct places for links to work and show up in the reference section. Kidsheaven 20:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I am soon to be a Jaycee Graduate (formerly referred to as an Exhausted Rooster), highlights of Jaycee activity through history, how things that are now Jaycee-esque came into existence, are in order. (Now that I just entered this, I should go and place "Exhausted Rooster" in there somehow, and anyone can feel free to move that section around if they wish). Elements could contain how the first Jaycee meeting in St. Louis was at the Mission Inn, and how that name came to be the former name of what is now the JC Family AIDS Network (JCFAN), plus JAYS, and more. 20:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Okay, I put in a tidbit about that, and added a section on the honors. Feel free, anyone, to modify, add, rearrange, as you'd like BE BOLD. Add your state's honor program if you have one or know of one in another state until all states' organizations are listed. Fwgoebel 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this entire article needs a thorough overhaul! For an encyclopedic reference, the vision and mission of the organization is needed, as well as some history for what the organization is known for. While the scope of the organization is interesting (age range, admitting women to an all men's org), there is way too much trivia, everything from the "It's All Greek To Me" glossary to the list of JCI USA Presidents. Is there even a reference to John Clark's Legacy Of Leadership book? Wikipedia links to the term "Jaycees" need to link to the wikipedia term JCI, not the USJCs/USJCCs/JCs. The United States Junior Chamber (JCI USA) is a national organization, while Junior Chamber International is the international organization and now the parent organization (even though JCI USA is one of its founders and the original birthplace of the organization). Perhaps, restructuring the article to a format similar to Rotary International, the Masons, the Elks, the Optimists, or Knights of Columbus is better. - JCI Senator #65512 Dagordon01 (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikification of Presidents

Every president listed has had their name wikified, but that means that the link either doesn't exist (even for Hy Giessenbier), or, for a few, are namessakes for other persons (and instead go to that article--in one case, a disambiguation page that doesn't include our past president). However, Wendell Ford (38th, 1956-1957) is very much an article (a US Senator). That article barely touched on his Jaycee involvement, so I added a little to that. In addition, at the bottom of that page, is a succession table (for every office or nomination held). With that, I added his USJC presidency. Perhaps at one time we can create stub articles about the past presidents; at the very least, they should contain such a succession table. Also, can the unknown presidents be made known? Fwgoebel 04:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the wikification of the Presidents as well - not sure how to fix that issue. for instance Eric Seidel's name leads to the poker player. I will try to track down the names of the MIA Presidents on the list. I got the list from The Crew website - may try to call national for the info. Lucido68 01:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I created an Eric Seidel (Jaycee) article. As it turns out, Eric Seidel was a redirect to Erik Seidel. What I did was change that redirect to a disambiguation page. If articles are linked to Eric Seidel and they want instead to go to Erik Seidel, they'll go throught that disambiguation page, and they can update their links as necessary. The Eric Seidel (Jaycee) article allows someone else with the same name to have his own article, such as Eric Seidel (Whatever). On Eric's page, I did a succession table as well, the same as I added to the lengthy table on Wendell Ford (Senator, KY). It should be easy enough to create stub articles like this for the remainder. Fwgoebel 19:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already a disambiguation page for Mike Marshall; I added Mike Marshall (Jaycee) as a link. Note that links in a disambiguation page are not to be piped. Fwgoebel 19:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for primer. There are pages for all the National Presidents now. (Lucido68 05:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)).

You probably went a bit overboard there - I hope you don't mind my saying that. What you did was disambiguate every past president (by appending "(Jaycee)" after each name. Doing a disambiguate (dab) is only necessary when there's more than one person with the same (or very similar) name.
What I'd suggest would be to create a stub article about each past president (like I did for Eric Seidel), but only disambiguate if there's a duplicate name (and that would involve doing a dab for the other article, as well as creating a dab redirect page if necessary. I'd do that one president at a time, perhaps working backward through time (using what I did for Eric Seidel as a guide). Also, there would be no need to do any article at all about Wendell Ford, as the article about him already includes him being Senator, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and more from Kentucky.
I know you put a lot into this but there's no need to revert.
What I did tonight was to remove the dab for the presidents from 1999 to present, and I created a stub article about each president. I know it's a lot of stub articles, but anyone with further information about any of these leaders, including other positions held in addition to the individual's career, can add these things.
One other thing: Look at the "pipe trick" I did with Eric Seidel: The code reads [[Eric Seidel (Jaycee)|]]. Fwgoebel 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC) (Senator 67012)

No offense taken. Constructive criticism is always appreciated. I tracked down the MIA Past Presidents so the list is now complete through 2007. (Lucido68 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

This article needs a lot of re-work

This article does not conform to usual standards and guidelines of wikipedia:

• Wikipedia is not a directory, there are too many external links. Instead there should be a link to USJC chapter locater, which has links to all of the state organizations and many local ones. Also, the external links should be at the end of the article.
  • Did the same for the JCI Senate links so we avoid the laundry list of external links. (Lucido68 19:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
• This article is basically a fluff piece for the Jaycees, listing none of the controversies, including but not limited to:
  • The fight over admitting women in the 80s
  • The rapidly declining membership and number of chapters
• There is too much material that is lifted directly from the USJC website, much of it is probably a copyvio
• This is an encyclopedia article, not an ad for the Jaycees.

--rogerd 00:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC) (Senator 45468)

Rogerd, stop deleting everything at will....when you become a national Jaycee historian, then go for it, but stop removing links and making decisions by yourself. There are many contributors to this piece and you have taken it over. This may be an encyclopedia, but why do you want to promote the negative aspects of the Jaycees, such as serial killers? There is no reason why that needs to be in there and stop deleting links from the bottom of this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christerosterling (talk • contribs) 09:13, February 16, 2007 (UTC)

This article has to conform to norms of wikipedia. If "a national Jaycee historian", whatever that is, where editing here, he/she would have to conform to established standards of wikipedia. I have hardly "taken over" the article. I removed major amounts of copyrighted material on Jan 16 and have done only minor edits since. If you will check the edit history of this article, you will see that I had nothing to do with the insertion of Gacy into this article, some other editor did. His past membership in the Jaycees is a very trivial matter and I would probably agree with you that his name doesn't belong on the list of former members. Since the article is about the US Jaycees, I would think that Kofi Annan does not belong in a list of notable Jaycees since, according to his article in wikipedia, he either belonged to the Junior Chamber in another country, or if he was a member in the US, he probably was a member a short period of time since he only spent a small number of his young adult years in the US. Other people on the list

Wikipedia is not about "promoting" positive or negative aspects of anything. It is about reporting notable facts. Most of my edits were to remove copyrighted information that was lifted without permission from the USJC copyrighted website. If you want to see information "promoting" any organization, go to the web site published by that organization. If you want to read information, come here. Please read wikipedia policy on external links.

You would no more expect an article about the Jaycees to be all positive than you would expect an article about Microsoft to be all positive and not discuss some of their failures, controversies and criticism of them by others. Wikipedia would not allow the "national Microsoft historian" to completely control what goes into and what is omitted from the MS article, because it would turn into nothing but an ad for Microsoft. The same is true of the article about the United States Junior Chamber. We don't need to totally dwell on the negative issues and controversies, but to ignore them would be dishonest in wikipedia. I see you are the President of the Connecticut Jaycees, and you have your own web site, which is an excellent place to promote your organization. As a exhausted member and a Senator, I very much want the Jaycees to succeed, but I won't stand for a whitewash. --rogerd 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting my state....and you aren't even a member anymore? You have no right to tell me what I can and cannot put on this page and I am listing my state whether you like it or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christerosterling (talk • contribs) 12:56, February 26, 2007 (UTC)

Sir, please do not falsely put my signature on your posts. The reason I removed the link to the CT Jaycees is that it is not needed since there is already a link to the USJC page that links to all of the state organizations and many local ones. At one point before you came along, there were many links to state and local organizations, the consensus of the editors was that it was inappropriate. Instead, we added one link to the aforementioned USJC link page. Remember wikipedia is not a directory or a link farm. It is also not advertising. And, yes, I have the right to edit any article in wikipedia. So do you. But those edits are subject to community review, and established guidelines and policy. Whether or not I am or ever was a member of the Jaycees has nothing to do with the issue. Please read the wikipedia guidelines for external links. Respectfully - --rogerd 18:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations

If you look at the bottom of each page on www.usjaycees.org, you will see this: "©2006 The United States Junior Chamber". It means that you can't just cut and paste to wikipedia. --rogerd 03:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC) (JCI Senator 45468)

Appears this is still an issue, the majority of this article (everything that I just tucked under the History subheading) is a direct copy/paste from www.usjayceefoundation.org/history/1940/ BrandonSaad (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a Jaycee WikiProject

Given that there has been what seems like intense interest in the presence of the Jaycees on Wikipedia, I'm suggesting that we might consider creating a WikiProject for this purpose. What that would entail would be to have a project page as well as its own discussion page, and it would be on that where we would be able to determine a consenus on the content to be on the US JC article, as well as those for the Senate, and any State organization member, past national presidents, etc. A small project template would then be placed on each of these articles making note of them being a part of this Project, including "Stub-Jaycee". Plus, we could be able to create our own userboxes (for those wishing to have them on their user pages) that could include "This user is a Jaycee.", "This user is a Jaycee Graduate.", "This user is a JCI Senator.", etc. Having such a project would further unite us in an effort to make the organiztion's presence an encyclopedic one, invite others to participate, and show others what a positive impact we can make. I participate in a number of highway route article projects; feel free to visit my user page to see them for examples. Fwgoebel 06:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC) (JCI Senator 67012)

Sounds like a good plan to me. (Lucido68 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)).

The recent addition of JCI Atlanta - is part going back to a possible list of local or state chapters and such again. There should be some listing made as in other subjects; see department store, it and other subjects have a main site, a list site, and the individual sites. Only part I am not so sure of is the "no original research part being possible" for Jaycees State, Region, or Chapter level. Though I know the local chapter I belong to has had many local/regional newspaper coverage that could be used as a reference. kidsheaven 00:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're getting the idea behind the notion of a project to be created. With such, we would be able to develop a concurrence on how articles about various Jaycees' entities would be formatted - what would be included, what would not, and how - keeping in mind that this is an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement. Now I am one month short of aging out, and unfortunately I'm between jobs (so I don't know how much time I can devote right now) but hearing from at least two other persons, and I'm guessing fellow Jaycees or Jaycee Graduates/Roosters, that it can begin from this. Fwgoebel 05:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I included Atlanta as a link bc it now has a seperate Wikipedia article. As a Past LP, it has always bothered me that there was no ability to maintain the rich history of the org in some location. I took what I knew and developed the article in its current form. I think it is important to have this information up there are we are one of the oldest chapters in the country with a long history in ATL. I understnd the aversion to creating a laundry list of web links but this is a seperate article with a connection to this article and was intended to be so. Am I missing something? Lucido68 19:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is nothing against the Atlanta link- just what seems to be the desired way to link to the main site, time frame to add this is not as important, I just suddenly noticed it linked direct and that suggests or encourages potential of too many links that ultimately could all be listed in a one or more directories as required so the main Jaycee site does not become a list of sites again, yet gives easy access to additional interesting information linked directly to the main site. I mention Department stores as I have been working on some and it allows much more information in an organized format. kidsheaven 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Category for your user pages

I have created the category "Wikipedians in the Junior Chamber" under the parent categories "Wikipedians by Organization" and "Junior Chamber International". To add yourself to this category, add the text [[Category:Wikipedians in the Junior Chamber]] to the bottom of your user page. I may make a user box in the future, which would automatically place that category into your user page. Said userbox is yet to be created. Fwgoebel 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC) JCI Senator #67012, Exhausted Rooster as of today.

Optionally, you can pipe your category entry by placing your user name after a pipe [[Category:Wikipedians in the Junior Chamber|username]] to place your user name alphabetically on the category page. If you don't, your name will appear under "U" for User:.Fwgoebel 21:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Exhausted Rooster

I don't know, is there any reference on the term in the Jaycees stating anything such as mentioned Jaycee Graduate? I know since it has been voted in the early 1980's as no longer a "men's" organization that the term "Rooster" has not been favored by women who age out. At my local level I know we use the term Rooster and EDOC was a new name for Exhausted Rooster. (Exhausted Directors, Officers, Chairpersons). Mentioning the term Jaycee Graduate, I get no interest, a better term would be Jaycee Alumni. Just my view and feedback locally, I know most chapters nearby don't use roosters for events and such as my chapter does. Most popular local tradition not used elsewhere as far as I know - is when swearing in new members - Everyone repeats "I state you're name" at that point. See the movie "Animal House", it could be the source of the tradition, or may be older?Kidsheaven 02:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The only reference I could find (through a Google search) was at JCI Australia - History of the Senate and you can see the words "Jaycee Graduate" there. That was a 1953 remark, so that makes me think that "Exhausted Rooster" was primarily a US Jaycee thing (you can still purchase a Rooster lapel pin). As for "State your name" - Not only have I had that done when I as a local president issued the oath to a new member, I and a group of state officers (when I was RD) did the same thing when we were sworn in as a group by the newly installed state president. As for "Jaycee Graduate" - The only National Convention I ever attended was Niagara Falls 1999, and they had a ceremony for new "Jaycee Graduates" - that specific term, not "Rooster", was used - as a part of that celebration. (I wish I could get out to St. Louis, as I just became a Rooster on 3/1.) I do know some women that consider themselves Roosters just the same (I can't speak for them here otherwise). For myself, though, I wish I could do a Exhausted Rooster userbox with a JCI shield in it, but I'd be worried about fair use stuff.
What I had been told once was that "Exhausted Rooster" was a play on the title given to the leader of an Elks lodge - "Exhalted Ruler". I ran that by a friend of mine who himself held that position a year ago, and amongst themselves (unofficially) an Elk in his/her first year after having served in that capacity feels like, well, an "Exhausted Rooster". Still, I don't think this qualifies that for mention in the article itself. Fwgoebel 05:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kidsheaven,

I like the term Jaycee Alumni but note that it might refer to successful ex-Jaycees who are still under age 40 as well.

Fwgoebel,

One of the less known and less pleasant aspects of Jaycee history is that of the archaic Exausted Rooster "initiation" ceremony (similar to obsolete hazing ceremonies of college fraternities) which often was seen at public Jaycee installation or award banquets. Since I have no published reference I cannot put this in the main page but note it here for historical reference. WARNING: THIS IS DISGUSTING, READ ON AT YOUR OWN RISK OF NEEDING A BARF BAG! The ceremony, commonly called "Getting the Bird", varied dramatically from one chapter/state to another but essentially consisted of a procession of old-timers walking into the meeting, calling up the rooster-to-be (sometimes multiple inductees), reading long pompous and humorous proclaimations about the achievments of said inductee and then ceremonially shoving the face of the honoree/rooster between the legs of a chicken (sexual conotations definitely implied) which is stuffed with foul smelling concoctions like sourcream + tunafish + peanutbutter + limburger -- the fouler (fowl-er) the better! In the past they used to use a real dead chicken (feathers and all) from a butcher shop, stuff it and leave it on a roof for a few days before the ceremony to get it nice and "ripe" (maggots were a bonus). Most chapters gradually moved away from the "authentic" Bird to using a rubber chicken and plain sour cream filling. Finally, and again I don't have published sources, I have been told that this is significantly similar to an induction ceremony used 50+ years ago in the KKK which makes it even more distasteful if true. Someone who is/was KKK would be needed to verify that rumor. In any case I am glad to see the "Bird" flying off into Jaycee history. Low Sea 13:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, an Exhausted Rooster pin is still available for purchase; it's merely a white rooster bent over, pecking, with a "JC" shield in the middle. If I were ever to wear one, I would have to explain its meaning to anyone noticing and asking. Meanwhile, I really don't see myself asking old Senators that I will come to know over the next several years (the JCI Senate Mid Atlantic Institute will meet in Cooperstown, NY [near me] in2008) about this "rite" that you suggest was in the past. I'll never be able to deny that it ever happened, but I won't be looking for confirmation, either. The fact that this term was commonplace in the history of the organization (regardless of its source, whether known or purported, or its application, whether actual or in folklore) is what gives it the notability for its inclusion in the article. Fwgoebel 00:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where Low Sea got this from, but I was a Jaycee for 16 years starting in 1981, including several years at the state level (Regional Director and State VP). I am now a Senator. I have never heard of anything like what he described. Perhaps something like this was done in some obscure chapter, somewhere, but this is not a widespread practice, or maybe it is a legend that he has heard that was exaggerated over the years. In my chapter, they would at the year-end banquet, do a tribute to the exhausted member and hand out a rooster certificate and pin. I witnessed the same practice in other chapters in my state. --rogerd 03:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Rogerd,

Sorry, due to very busy schedules I've been only minimally active on WP and definitely have not visited this page for a long time so my apology for the lengthy delay in responding. I am actually glad to know from your accounts this practice was not universal but it also was not obscure. Below are the facts I can provide...

I started my Jaycee career at age 18 in 1980 and spent most of 21 years being extremely active in a very large state (if memory serves my state's membership the year I joined was approximately 13,000 members distributed through 300+ chapters). ...Sigh, sad how far membership has fallen -- but I digress... I can assure you that I personally witnessed this ceremony many times. I was present on numerous occasions conducted at different chapters in the state, with attendance including many state officers and even some national officers on occasion. I was also present at a few state board meetings when this ceremony was conducted in front of the general assembly (ranging from 500-1000 members attending depending on the year). Finally, I observed this ceremony up close when I recieved my Bird (which was so odorous that the restaurant where the banquet was held refused to ever rent to Jaycees again).

You might also note the following links to some items that refer to this ceremony. I found these on the web just now by simply googling Jaycees, Exhausted Rooster and chicken. The first of these is from a JCI Senate newsletter dated Feb 2007:

• Several of our Senators came to me after the ceremony, and made suggestions about how we can change parts of the ceremony to make it fit for the Jaycees of past and present. Changes like; the preparation of the chicken, the robes, the scroll, the words and how to explain it better to the Jaycees. [1]

These next three links are related to a 1975 movie called "Smile":

• I was in the Jaycees for 10 years and worked on two Junior Miss pageants, and let me tell you — it's every bit as silly as portrayed in "Smile." Either director Michael Ritchie or writer Jerry Belson must've been in the organization, because they freakin' nailed it, right down to the "exhausted rooster" ceremony. [2]

• ... (particularly their rituals like the "exhausted rooster" ceremony where old, meaning over thirty-five, men have to kiss the ass of a dead chicken) [3]

• ... away from the "exhausted rooster" ceremony rather than kiss a dead chicken. [4]

On a sidenote, my web search also produced this[5] website which has a bit of Jaycee historical trivia on it that I had not heard before:

... It was under national president [H. Bruce] Palmer that the "Exhausted Rooster" movement was originated to encourage continued interest in Jayceeism and public affairs by ex-members...

The ceremony of "The Bird" is definitely not a legend but as I said earlier I am quite pleased to see Jaycees being more progressive and making such a silly old ceremony part of our history. Since you never saw this in your state you might ask a few fellow senators from other states about the old ceremonies. Low Sea (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jaycees logo.gif

Image:Jaycees logo.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 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 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaycee Creed contradiction

The section on the Creed says that the "original" creed (first adopted in 1946) didn't include a reference to God and that such a reference was added in 1951. Next to this section is a picture of the "original" creed with the reference to faith and God included. This copy seems to be dated 1946, depending on how hard you squint. So, did the "original" actually include this reference, or was the creed not adopted as shown in the picture?

I just wanted to point this out so that someone who's more interested than I can research and correct this contradiction. Ansonite (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As written, the original Creed didn't include a reference to God. The reference to the image as "original" then isn't accurate. 75.120.57.151 (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Rattlesnake Roundups

There are problems with the last sentence in the article (which was recently added or possibly re-added). I'm going to temporarily ignore whether this information belongs in this article or not, as well as the inflammatory language, and merely address the more clear-cut problem. First, whether they're the organizer of a large rattlesnake hunt, or a rattlesnake hunt at all, is not sourced here. Second, whether the hunts are indeed senseless also needs to be supported; for example, in some cases hunting is important to the ecosystem. (Even if one wishes to assert that there are better ways to accomplish the goal than hunting, hunting is still important if those other ways have not been implemented.) Related to this is the third problem--even if the hunting isn't important in this case, "complete disregard" is a strong assertion that demands evidence. For example, the organizers may ensure that the animals are protected in areas where they serve an important purpose as predators, while hunting them in areas (such as farmland) where their prey is scarce and they may mostly be hazardous to humans and domesticated animals.

I'll leave it up to somebody else to determine whether this information is relevant to and belongs in this entry or not (although I personally think it would be better in a different article that this has a link to). Whether it should be here or not, it needs citations; otherwise, it should be removed on verifiability grounds alone.Vykk (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been added 3 times now, removed twice. The bias is a bit much, in my opinion. I'm going to take it out. If someone wants it in, feel free to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwzeiher (talk • contribs) 01:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible disambiguation page needed?

I found this page looking for a person named Jaycee (specifically Jaycee Lee Dugard). I think this might merit a disambiguation page, but don't know myself how to create one. --92.26.32.11 (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal re Ten Outstanding Young Persons

I propose that the content from Ten Outstanding Young Persons that relates solely to the Junior Chamber International be merged from that page into The Outstanding Young Persons of the World. This will leave the only content on Ten Outstanding Young Persons relating to those countries not affiliated with JCI, namely Taiwan. All other content is proposed to be moved and both pages disambiguated so that future updated will be appropriately recorded. It is also proposed to disambiguate at the List of The Outstanding Young Persons of the World. Comments are welcome here. Rangasyd (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes - wow - agree - this article needs a lot of rework / cleanup

I came in here looking for whether the Jaycees were ""J.C.'s"" ..as in a throwback to .. ?? .. or I guess celebrating?? the life of, Jesus Christ / whether this is a Christian or more broadly, a religious organization - John Wayne Gacy was a ""chaplain"" eventually in this nonprofit; That is what got me thinking about this Wikipedia article! The article does not really say where this org is or was headquartered! Where in the United States was this chapter of the *international* overreaching or parent organization based? Also, the first link to ""Roberts vs United States Jaycees"" is a 34-page PDF; So, on page 6 of 34, there is a footnote number 28 that actually goes apparently to the actual document - hence, this link that is a reference, is to a document that is a reference to a reference if you will... I think this Wikipedia article should credit the deeper source directly - don't you agree? Thanks. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 07:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal of "controversies" section

I'm removing the "controversies" section as WP:UNDUE because the cited source only supports that some members of the Waterloo chapter in the mid-1960s "unofficially" engaged in improper behavior. "The unofficial side of Jaycee social life, however, proved to be an even more enticing diversion for Gacy and some of his collegues. In the mid-1960s, Waterloo was a wide-open and permissive town, and some of the Jaycees flourished in this atmosphere. The group was involved in prostitution, pornography, and various other vice activities." I've been unable to find any sources that connect the national organization with criminal or "vice" activity, other than a handful of newspaper clippings about various chapters being involved in anti-pornography activities. Even the Waterloo activities are only mentioned because of the involvement of Gacy. Schazjmd (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)