Talk:Order of the Bull's Blood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Rutgers, a WikiProject to constructively prepare and present information associated with Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (also known as Rutgers University). If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to Secret Societies.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low-importance within Secret Societies articles.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

this organization seems to be unknown among rutgers circles.... is it at all related to the cap and skull society at rutgers?

• We don't talk about Fight Club. --OBB member

Contents 1 As an alum of RU 2 Probable Fabrications 3 Let's Examine The Evidence 3.1 Evidence for: "Yes, there is a secret society" 3.2 Evidence for: "No, it's all a hoax" 3.3 Conclusion

[edit] As an alum of RU

Anyone know anything about the tunnels between the fraternity houses?

[edit] Probable Fabrications

Is there any evidence of all these famous people actually being Bull's Blood members? It looks like someone just ran down a list of notable Rutgers alums and copy and pasted them onto this list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scharferimage (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

This organization does not exist. It is completely fabricated by the user who posted the article. There has never been a group called the "order of the Bull's Blood".

No - if it was fabricated, it wasn't by the author. Do a Google search on the name - you get dozens of hits relating to this group it would be a major effort to fabricate evidence on this scale in places as widespread as the New York Times. SteveBaker 22:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that there is no such thing as "the order of the bulls blood", except in the mind of one delusional man. This person is the poster (explorercdt). Check his user page, and you will see he is a pathological liar and makes delusional claims (such as being a descendant of Charlemagne). I know who this person is. It is true he is a Rutgers alum. He has also made ridiculous claims about working for the CIA, being the heir to the Ballantine beer fortune and having first attended Princeton University before being expelled. He is a former columnist for the Rutgers student paper. He went around inviting other students to be in this "secret group" which he made up. He was not taken seriously. Recently after an act of vandalism an anonymous source claimed responsibilty for the group. A Princeton reporter described this anonymous source just as this man (the original poster). explorercdt was also recently convicted of aggravated assault in Middlesex county. He beat a young woman with a pool stick. He took the stand and claimed that the woman attacked him with a knife after learning that he was engaged. In the Home News Tribune the prosecutor was quoted as saying no evidence existed of any fiance. I know this sounds ridiculous but this guy is for real.

In response to your comment about Google. I suggest you search with the name of the organization in quotes first. 7 articles appear. Further, there are no legitimate sources that mention this group. This article should be deleted.

I did search on "Order of the Bull's Blood" and got over 200 hits - but an awful lot of those were Wikipedia articles mirroring either this one or one of the other pages that link to this one. However, there were quite a few legitimate-looking pieces written outside of the Wikipedia universe. For example, this article: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2006/10/16/news/16211.shtml covers the controversy quite well - but doesn't seem to come down on one side or the other on the hoax/non-hoax debate. As with anything else on Wikipedia, we are supposed to decide these matters by requiring both sides of the debate to produce references. It may also be necessary to write a "Contrary claims" section where the theory that this is all an elaborate hoax could be set out. However, we can't do this without references. SteveBaker 03:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Just to clarify, I am arguing that one person (or maybe a handful) did those acts, and then claimed it to be the act of a larger historic group. To analogize, tommorrow I alone could spray graffitti on some monument and then call my local paper to say that it was the act of "the order of the cows milk", and credit that group with a long history. The person called "Joseph" in the article you cite is the same person called "Uncle Toby" in another article linked on the main page. This is explorercdt. While I could easily explain this hoax, it would be impossible to find references that deny the existence of a group that does not exist. Just for your information here is a link to the incident I mentioned before: http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070209/NEWS0102/702090381/1001

• What about the sources the article lists? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's Examine The Evidence

OK - so what evidence do we have? We need references. As far as I can tell, there is:

[edit] Evidence for: "Yes, there is a secret society"

• The Daily Princetonian article [1] which looks at both sides of the debate (both that this is a real group and that it is a fake and that it is a recent phenomenon and not some ancient affair) and explains the story of the cannon - which has to be at least partially true because you can see the darned thing right there - buried and encased in concrete.

This constitutes further evidence that The Order of the Bull's Blood is a attempt by Christopher Thieme to be something more than he is. It is not evidence for.Huckfinne (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is the NewYork press article - which says that the author was tapped for the club and that it's 100% true[2].

Uncle Toby in Spencer's article is in fact Christopher Thieme. The description of both appearance and behavior matches my memory of this strange character. Therefor, the NY Press article merely confirms the Mr. Thieme invented the whole thing. It does not constitute evidence for. Huckfinne (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• The October 2005 issue of 'The Centurion' - a Rutgers publication - which briefly mentions this society as "strange, possibly wiccan" - and says no more.

This tells us nothing other than that the concept of the society in question exists. That the concept of exists is not in question. This offers no evidence that the society actually exists.Huckfinne (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is strong evidence - it's possible that any one of these could have looked up the article here and hence we might be creating a self-sutstaining myth. However, all three articles contain details that are not in this Wikipedia article - so probably not.

[edit] Evidence for: "No, it's all a hoax"

• On the opposite side, we have a person who never signs his posts and stays anonymous without a Wiki account who tells us that it's a fake. The only reference we get [3] doesn't say anything at all about the organisation - all it says is that some person made an idiot of himself somewhere in the world - that could be nothing to do with this.

The contrary evidence is very weak indeed - it doesn't say whether this person is related to the story of the society. That's not a reference at all. What's more, we are told that this is a secret society and that it's members are required to take steps to keep it secret - so it would not be at all surprising to find that one of it's members was trying to spread FUD in the form of a general smoke-screen of confusion.

[edit] Conclusion

1. Is there enough evidence to show that this society definitely exists? -- Probably not...But then it's a secret society - so, Duh!
2. Is there enough evidence to justify the existance of an article? -- Well, maybe - it's a bit lightweight - but maybe.
3. Is there enough evidence to say that it definitely doesn't exist? -- Absolutely not - we have zero evidence in that direction...not one single scrap...But then it's hard to prove a negative/

So where does that leave us? Well, arguably we should delete the article for lack of solid references...but we can't delete it for the sole reason that some anonymous person tells us the society is a fake and then presents us with no evidence.

The article has also been around for a very long time - it was created in September 2004 and has been edited by dozens of people - none of whom seemed to think it was a fake. It's a part of WikiProject Rutgers and if it was widely known to be a fake, you'd have thought more people (and more credible people) would be here saying that...and they aren't.

I think someone should write a short, NPOV piece that explains the contrary viewpoint - that the society is believed by some to be a fake - and present what little evidence there is for that point of view. That way, the article is relevent and truthful and explains what is known. No matter whether it documents a true secret society or a myth, the article still has value for people coming here to read about it.

SteveBaker 17:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Those are valid reasons for keeping the article up. I would just say that there is no direct evidence that the group exists. There is circumstantial evidence on both sides but I would argue that the circumstantial evidence against is much stronger. If you notice there is no mention of the Order of the Bull's Blood before 2004. And the only independent sources discuss one instance last fall of vandalism at Princeton University, and a reporters story mocking being "tapped". His account is similar to my argument that this group is really one crazy man who has perpetuated a myth and actually created an elaborate history behind it. He managed convince a handful of gullible, dorky college guys to buy into this group for a night a few years ago, and has carried out an act of vandalism on his own. Then by calling a local paper managed to fabricate legitimacy. In fact no one at Rutgers, apart from the people who he told his absurd story, has ever heard of it. Even real secret societies have a "buzz" around campus. Real secret socieities deny their own existence. They certainly would not claim responsibilty for vandalism under the banner of the organization, both because if they were real, they would already have a "buzz" and not need the acclaim and because recognizing the existence would go against the purpose of being secret. To me, that article is proof that someone wants us to believe that such a society exists. And in response to it being part of a Wiki project, check out who the founder of that project is.

That said, I competely understand your reluctance to delete the entry based on what I am saying. I would only add that I am not some member wishing to regain secrecy. After reading about the idiotic act of vandalism last fall, reading the article about Thieme, and seeing this wikipedia entry, I put 2 and 2 together. I remember the AIM screenname explorercdt, I remember his bi-weekly columnist for the Targum, and I remember hearing his ridiculous claims. I remember him talking about this stupid group. I can further assure you that NO one took him seriously. My "beef" is that framing his act as the hijinks of some secret organization (spraypainting "play us f*******) reflects poorly on my university. I would much prefer it to be portrayed accurately as the moronic act of one individual, and not be attributed to some tradition at Rutgers.

But, you make very good points in favor of keeping it up. I have no references so I cant argue with you on that, but I do feel that something should be added to reflect the more probable conclusion that this is a hoax.

Yes - I completely understand what you are saying - which is why I strongly recommend that you add a new section to the article where you present the contrary viewpoint. Don't state it as "The Truth" - simply add a new section heading and say something along the lines of: "== Hoax Theory ==Some people believe that the society is a hoax perpetrated by XXXX in 2004, yadda, yadda, yadda" - add whatever evidence you have about that. Don't commit libel by saying "XXX did this" unless you have evidence to back that up. It's also worth saying that if some people fabricated the history - but are now playing pranks in the name of this society - then in a real sense, the society exists and is real - but merely has a faked 'back story'. I can't write that section for you because I don't know enough about it. But if you did that then we'd be in the great position of having an article that presents both sides of the debate - and in the absence of any strong evidence either way, it will allow our readers to make up their own minds - or at least to be made aware that not everyone believes in the existance of this society - or of it's history. That is a MUCH better thing for all concerned than simply deleting the article. If we deleted it then people searching for information about this mysterious group would perhaps come to the conclusion that it was so amazingly secret that even the mighty Wikipedia doesn't know about it...far better that we have an article that takes the neutral point of view and presents all sides of the argument with whatever evidence is available. That is the Wikipedia 'way' - and I think you'll agree that it serves your wishes to deny the existance of the society. But it's important that if you do this, you refrain from stating your position as "The Truth" either. We need a balanced article with all of the evidence and no "Original Research". SteveBaker 06:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the new information that's been added to the page, I think it's highly likely that the posted "history" of this society is entirely farcical. I think we should revise this article to highlight the recent actions of the group, like the vandalism issues at Princeton, stuff we have substantiation for, but delete the stuff about the "founders" and all that, given the fact that the information is uncited, and frankly improbable and unbelievable as well. Scharferimage (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I meet Christopher Thieme while a student at Rutgers. He found himself drawn to those of us involved in Rutgers 1000 in the Spring of 2001. Within a few weeks we came to realize that he was mentally unstable and exhibiting signs of megalomania. We quickly distanced him from us. He mentioned the Order of the Bull's Blood on at least one occasion. At this point I had spend at least five years as a Rutgers student having never heard of the Order of the Bull's Blood. In sum I spent six years at Rutgers being involved in as wide a range of activities as is humanly possible. I have never heard of the Bull's Blood. I'm not sure how to mine old IP addresses, but I would bet money that 66.171.124.70 on 03:36, 17 September 2004 would be linked to ExplorerCDT. He started this page in an attempt to further convince himself the Bull's Blood is more than a figment of his imagination.Huckfinne (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)