Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Secret Societies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 4 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium discussions

Citizendium has some interesting discussions about their article on Secret societies. See Secret societies, and Talk:Secret society, where they are discussing what should and should not be included there. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Portal

If this WikiProject survives the deletion process, a Portal should be created to go along with the WikiProject. Cirt (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Definition

A problem with the project is that it doesn't really have that much definition. Is it just about making a collection of Secret societies or on discussing their impact (real or supposed) on the wider society?

JASpencer (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed... in addition to that, we already are having issues of what articles should be included within the scope of the project. Who difines what is or is not a "Secret society"? There are multiple and conflicting definitions given at the article. Which will this project use? category:Secret societies contains many groups that don't really fit these definitions (Knights of Columbus for example) and this project page lists articles (Freemasonry for example), that are not included in the category, contrary to the stated scope of the project. Clarification is needed for this project. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Blueboar, the reason why Freemasonry is not in the category is because you took it out on 31 May 2007. There may be a good reason for that, but I would not rely on this as disproving that Freemasonry fits in this. As for KofC I've put my argument on that talk page. At the least they are a reaction to the secrecy culture of turn of the Century America.
Personally I'm more interested in the whole meta-structure of secret societies. Why do they still attract (mainly) men? What was their role in history? What are the common elements, such as oaths, etc? Why do they attract so many conspiracy theories?
My feeling is that this is where an amateur historian such as yourself could really shine. Secret societies have played historical roles, but professional historians are scared stiff of touching them because they have to pay the bills. This is where a clever and clear sighted amateur could do more than simply filling in the footsteps of the professional historians.
I'm not sure that crime families and university fraternities are useful in this, but who knows what other members will be interested.
JASpencer (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The specific Freemasonry issue can be hammered out on that article's talk page... I just use it as an example for a larger point... we need to determine what comes under this project's scope... the Secret societies article gives multiple definitions... some of which conflict with each other ... so which definition do we use? I think we need to hammer out these details before this project starts placing what may be contentious tags on various articles. Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we need to look at the definition - and I would like to see a quite tight definition. JASpencer (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revised Scope of the Project

I have some questions regarding the revised scope... note that these are questions and concerns... not outright objections. I am seeking clarification here:

First is the requirement that to fit in the project "A secret society must first be a society, which is to say an organization of a primarily social nature." This would remove many many groups that are currently in Category:Secret societies... groups that really should be considered Secret Societies. There are secret societies that are political in nature (such as the Carbonari, The Irish Republican Brotherhood, and the Know Nothings). There are secret societies that are religious in nature (For example, Golden Dawn and Ordo Templi Orientis both claim to be Thelemic religions, and Thuggee is certainly religious); There are secret societies that are criminal in nature (Propaganda Due, Ang Soon Tong and other Secret societies in Singapore, Tongs). Are we excluding these from the project?

Then there are problems that arise because of the fact that we use the multiple definitions... what do we do about societies that seem to fit one definition, but not another... are we inclusive or exclusive? Does a group have to fit all of the definitions or only one? Does one definition take priority over another? What about groups that fit part of one definition, and part of another... but don't fully fit any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would note that the introduction of the "scope" section currently states, "For the purposes of this project, the following definition is proposed for that term." (emphasis added).? The scope section goes on to say that they must first be described within a source as a "secret society", and that they must be societal in nautre, and specifically excludes religious and governmental entities. There is an honest question here as to whether that must be taken to strictly mean those exact words "secret society" would have to be used in the source. I would think "No", but am not myself sure how to change it for greater clarity. Thereafter, it must not be a specifically religious institution, like a cult, or a specifically governmental institutition.
Regarding the three political groups, they are not governmental or religious, so, while I acknowledge the initial phrasing still needs work, they would probably still qualify, as they don't meet any of the disqualifying criteria. If you can think of clearer phrasing, though, feel free to change it. Writing dictionary definitions is definitely not my strong point.
Regarding Golden Dawn and Ordo Templi Orientis, I know from having done the assessments for the Thelema project that those groups are already covered there, and even if that project were to wither away and die, WP:RELIGION would take over management of those articles. I personally can see how those organizations might qualify for removal from this project's scope, and possibly from the category. As the primary recent reviver, I can say that my reasons for trying to restart the project included ensuring that there was a backup project in the event more focused projects did disappear. However, both those subjects already have a clear "parent/broader scope" project in place, and so we'd be redundant. Thuggee is a problem. While they have been described as a cult or sect, the article itself states that they were from diverse religious backgrounds who held Kali as a patron. Also, I don't think anyone would say that they were seen as religious as a primary identifier. Hashshashin would be different, because they were an offshoot of a religious sect. However, as they were not primarily a religious group, and were as it were a "club of assassins" of the Shiite faith, I guess they'd qualify as clearly as the Knights of Columbus or other groups with a secondarily religious component would.
Crime is part of society and neither governmental or religious (generally, anyway), so criminal organizations should be able to be reasonably included as well. I did draw that difference because I think it is clear that governments and religions don't so clearly meet the other definition criteria.
Personally, I would love to see the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities expand their scope a little to take on the purely academic societies, and I expect to ask them to do that shortly.
Anyway, if you can figure out better alternate phrasing, I'd very much welcome the assistance. And I personally have no objections to removing the Ordo and Golden Dawn categories from the category, given that they're all already covered elsewhere. Whether the individual "main" articles should themselves be included in one of the categories is a different matter, and that might not be a bad idea, but I think that would be probably about as much as this particular project should deal with. Õ
Yeah, I acknowledge the problem of multiple definitions, but haven't yet managed to figure out a way to present a "merged" definition without coming across as explicitly POV. If you can, I'd be more than appreciative. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
John... first, thanks for taking my comments seriously and not letting our differences affect our cooperation here. I don't have answers to my questions yet myself, or I would add suggested wording... at this point we need to bounce ideas and concerns off of eachother and try to see what the areas of consensus are.
I suppose one problem is that there are so many different ways of defining the term 'secret society'. Over the last hundred years or more, a lot of different criteria have been used. Groups that would qualify under one set of criteria, don't qualify under another. No matter what definition we end up choosing (or creating), there are going to be some groups that are currently in the category that will have to be removed, and some groups that are not in the category that will have to be added.
One final question... you say that have no objections to removing the Ordo and Golden Dawn categories from the category, given that they're all already covered elsewhere. How does this differ from the fact that articles dealing with Freemasonry are already covered under Category:Freemasonry and already fall under WikiProject:Freemasonry... Please note... I am not trying to re-open the debate about whether to include Freemasonry... I am trying to understand your thinking on why some things should be included and others should not. How is Freemasonry different than say OTO in this reguard? Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I gathered that, actually. There are multiple answers.
Strategically, the major difference is that there is a clear "parent" project in place for those religions already. There is none, so far as I can see, for Freemasonry. By that term, I mean a group that could take on the scope of that project, and possibly take on the group as a task force/work group, if that project becomes dormant or deleted.
Factually, there is the matter that to a degree almost all religions, particularly during eras of persecution by governments, will assume the characteristics of secret societies, despite not necessarily inherently possessing those characteristics in less "repressive" situations. So, for that matter, do all "governments in exile" posses some secret society characteristics while in exile. These "functional" as opposed to "inherent" characteristics probably should be differentiated.
However, I recently found a court ruling, dated October, here, in which one court in the US indicates there is no functional difference between Freemasonry and religion. I mention this because, if Freemasonry does qualify as a religion or similar entity, then it would not be within the scope of this project, given the existing exclusion of religious and governmental groups. I realize this is probably an old, unwelcome discussion, but it might be relevant. Would this single ruling be sufficient to consider it religious or not? I remember in Germany there was a similar ruling, indicating Scientology is not a religion, but I think that was before wikipedia existed, so I doubt if anything specifically changed as a result of the ruling. My own personal inclination would be to indicate that it does not change Freemasonry's status as a non-religious entity (can't think of a clearer phrase right off, sorry), and while I didn't find any links to later "developments" I think they would have appeared on the same site, so I doubt it. But, then, that's just the opinion of me, which isn't the exclusive "decider" here.
The question does however lead to the question of whether there exist other "quasi-religious" or "semi-religious" entities, and I personally don't know the answer to that. I doubt there are many if any, but I don't know. If there are, there might have to be some alteration of phrasing to explicitly include or exclude such organizations.
And, regarding the scope of the project and having to add or subtract articles, I would think that if a group did at any point possess what might be called "intrinsic" (as opposed to dictated by circumstances) secret society qualities, then that group, despite subsequent changes, would still qualify, at least regarding the "historical" content. However, I do acknowledge that there is a potential problem with the phrasing of the banner, as so many people react on this and all other subjects on the basis of their own ideas. Perhaps something to the effect of "this project relates to those social groups which have been described as secret societies" might be less objectionable to some. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I would think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry is the parent project for articles that relate to Freemasonry. It was created becuase Freemasonry articles didn't seem to fall under any other project. It isn't going to go dormant, or be deleted or anything... if anything we are trying to grow it with new articles. It also predates this project by several months... the Freemasonry Project was created in June of '06... this one was not created until the following Oct. (which should dispell the "derivative projects" argument).
As to the California case... it really did not have to do with Freemasonry being a religion... the case has to do with tax status. The Scotish Rite in California was reaching for a way to not have to pay taxes on certain property they own. It was a misguided idea, and one that would have upset the rest of the Masonic world had it succeeded (possibly to the point of declaring the California Scotish Right irregular). Freemasonry makes a big deal about the fact that it isn't a religion... it is a fraternal order. Its tax status reflects that (it gets certain tax breaks as a charitable institution under the what I think is called the Fraternal Orders Act... but it does not get the same tax breaks as a religious institution does). In my opinion, the guys in California were being quite hypocritical ... with one hand they say that they are not a religion... but with the other they try to claim the tax breaks of a religion. Thankfully, the judge ruled that they don't get the breaks of being a religious institution... becasue they say they aren't one. The Judge's remarks about whether Freemasonry counts as a religion was essentially a way of saying "If you change your mind and say Freemasonry is a religion, then we can discuss changing your tax status." The folks in California have learned that you can't have your cake and eat it too. No, Freemasonry isn't a religion... it is a fraternity. The ruling in California upheld that by denying the Scotish Rite their requested tax breaks. Blueboar (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph above seems to my eyes to be reacting to an argument that was never made, and possibly guided more by emotion than reason. The terms "parent" and "descendant" are not meant to indicate "priority" in any way, shape or form, but rather "broader scope inclusive of a given subject" and "narrower scope included within a broader subject". They to the best of my knowledge have never been used to imply chronoligical or any other sort of priority, but rather in the sense that they are used by some businesses, who refer to a given corporation as being the "parent" of a company that might be contained within a corporation, even if the smaller company is older and more established than the one that bought it out, and "descendant" or equivalents evidently seems to have been thought to be the logical terms to use regarding those companies contained in the corporation. As stated, there was not to me even any thought of claiming "priority". And, for what it's worth, I'm fairly sure the creators of most of the projects on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Inactive projects page would have said the same thing about their projects, too. The number of projects on that page might indicate how often people can be wrong in that regard. And I don't know what "derivative projects" argument you are referring to, so I can't respond to that. And, considering that there more or less is policy that any group which seeks to improve an article and can demonstrate that it is relevant to a given subject can reasonably both place the banner on a given page and include it in a given watch list for the use of members and others, I would have to assume that the argument above regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry contains definite hints of ownership. You might also want to look at a few pages like Issac Newton, Albrecht Durer and Thomas Jefferson (all chosen by random) which indicate that larger subject articles almost always tend to be within the scope of multiple projects. For that matter, see how many banners are included on Elvis Presley and Egypt, despite the fact of the (admittedly recent) existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elvis Presley and the somewhat older Wikipedia:WikiProject Egypt. The "descendant" articles generally aren't subject to as many redundant tags, though.
Regarding Freemasonry's own statements about itself, primary sources, which is what Freemasonry's statements are, are always considered less reliable than "generally reliable" secondary sources. History demonstrates just how many groups over time have been lying through their teeth about themselves. On that basis, it is very hard to consider the statements of any such primary source reliable. I think the WWF recently had to change the way it described itself (from "sport" to "entertainment") on the basis of misuse of the former term. I think, I'm don't pay much attention to wrestling though. Did their real status change instantly on changing the term they used, though? Probably not. Another matter is that any such primary source may use a rather different, possibly convoluted, definition of a given term which is used by no one else. Large parts of Charismatic Christianity, for example, use the term "religion" in their own "unique" way, as basically a perjorative to be raised against every other type of Christianity and virtually every other "religion". They themselves, by their definition, are neither a "religion" or "religious" people, although I think they probably welcome being described as a "religion" for tax purposes. But, as stated, I myself don't think that the definition of the government necessarily should be applied to Freemasonry. If you are aware of any other instances of conflict between self-definition and external definition on this subject, though, it might be relevant to try to find out how to deal with them. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstand your concept of "parent"... I understood your comments to mean that there was a hirearchy between projects ... that there were "Child" projects that fall within "Parent" projects. But do all projects need a "parent"? Can't they be their own "Parent"? I have no objection to an article being claimed by multiple projects (although, as you know, I am still somewhat resistant to the idea that the Freemasonry article falls under this project... but we can argue that out elsewhere) ... my question was really to find out how you see the structuring between projects. For example... If projects need "parents" who can take over if the project fails... what is the "parent" to this project? And what do you see as being the meaning of "descendant"? Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The meaning of "descendant" or whatever is more or less dependant on the meaning of "parent", which would probably have to be deined first. Those terms are not necessarily written in stone, though. "Related WikiProjects" has been used by some projects as well. Also, I think there is probably a clear need for this sort of project, given the number of extant and possible articles which are about such organizations. And, basically, if this project is the one which would most clearly deal with issues which are kind of relevant to most or all such societies, including finding and initiating new members, member recognition signals, internal structures, rituals if any, and so on, many or most of which would be relevant to Freemasonry too, it would be relevant to tag that article, even if only that article, as well. I've been bold regarding my own additions to the project page and revised it to "related projects" instead of "descendant" and added Fraternities and Sororities as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlordjohncarter (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
OK... I get where you are coming from now... thanks. My take on "Decendant" was more literal... I took it to mean "coming down from" - As in one project that grew out of another... which would not be the case between the Freemasonry project and this one. I think "Related project" fits the situation much much more accurately... I take that phrase to mean two seperate projects that overlap in areas, which I think is the case here. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to fit in Freemasonry?

I'm trying to create a seperate section so that other questions of the scope of the project can be dealt with elsewhere.

Freemasonry is a dilema for this project. On the one hand Freemasonry does have its own project (although perhaps one that doesn't welcome outsiders). However Freemasonry is pretty central to many, perhaps most, people's understanding of what a secret society is. I want to put together what I think the agreement is, so that we can discuss the areas of disagreement more closely.

1. I think that it is agreed that "internal" matters are outside the scope of the project. Things such as degrees, internal legends, disputes over whether women should be admitted. There may be areas of commanality with other secret societies, such as oaths/obligations, etc. that would not come under this "internal" tag. 2. The offshoots of Freemasonry which never had any formal tie to Freemasonry, for example the Carbonari, are not being dealt with by the FM project and so are fair game.

Now here are the areas I believe there is disagreement on:

1. The areas of commanality with other secret societies, so called "meta-structure" issues. For example oaths/obligations. This is an area on which there is currently no article for what is undoubtedly a rather important cultural phenomena. 2. The interaction with government. One of the reasons why Freemasonry interests people is a real or imagined influence over government. Despite my reputation here I actually think that most of this is exagerated, however incidents such as the Affaire des Fiches and the John Poulson affair did happen in connection with Freemasonry. 3. The Freemasonry Project does seem to have a pronounced bias towards "regular" grand lodges, which feeds into poor coverage across the English Wikipedia.

JASpencer (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

JAS... I have to take exception to the header of this thread... we should not try to "fit in" Freemasonry... nor should we try to exclude it. Doing either is POV pushing. I think we need to stop focusing on Freemasonry and instead focus on the concept of a "secret society" as a concept in and of itself. We need to come up with an agreed upon scope and definition that can be applied in judging whether and article on any group falls within this project... THEN we can see if Freemasonry "fits in". If it does, fine... if it doesn't, that's fine too. But we should not be writing definitions with the sole purpose of including (or excluding) any one particular group. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, Freemasonry is clearly described in several neutral, reliable sources as being a "secret society", and it does seem to meet the criteria of most if not all of the recognized definitions. It isn't POV pushing if we're basing the conclusions on reliable sources. POV pushing is when we take our own opinions as being more important than those reliable sources. Basically, if we place our own definitions as priority, we are, in effect, declaring that our own original research somehow takes precedence over outside sources, which is really questionable. What I think he was getting at was that certain parties might insist upon a definition of their choice as taking precedence over all other definitions. The most neutral way to proceed, so far as I can tell, is more or less the one being taken. To qualify, a group has to be described as a secret society in verifiable, reliable sources and meet the criteria of the definition of that term according to at least one of the extant, apparently reliable, or at least widely circulated, definitions, such as those currently included in the scope section. Clearly, there are always particular, unique, exceptions, so that the definitions might not be point by point applicable in each particular case. For instance, an atheistic offshoot of the KKK would probably not have any "secret teachings that improve the lives of their members" because they wouldn't believe in anything anyway. In such instances, meeting most of the criteria for inclusion would probably be considered enough. And I note we aren't yet really writing definitions at all, but just using extant definitions. In effect, I at least somewhat see the above argument as being an argument against a nonexistent straw man. And I agree we shouldn't write the definitions to include or exclude any group. I don't think we have been yet. I think the original question might be rephrased to say, as it were, given the existing definitions, and the applicability of them, how would we handle "sub-definitions" to apply to individual cases? That is probably a good question. Regarding JAS's final three points.
  • (1) It does make sense to try to create articles on, for instance, "membership oaths". Certainly, indicating how such "membership oaths" were first introduced, why they were introduced, how they may or may not have changed over time, etc. would be of value.
  • (2) Content related to unrecognized, "bastard" (?) children of Freemasonry, particularly if no other project deals with them, should probably be included in the scope of some group. Management of the existing content is pretty uniformly viewed as being one the primary functions of all WikiProjects in general now, and "tagging", and hopefully assessing, articles is one of the first steps there.
  • (3) I am not one of the most informed individuals on the planet regarding Freemasonry. It does however seem to me that perhaps that project might not be focusing as much attention on "irregular" as opposed to "regular" freemasonry. If that is true, then it might be a good idea to include such articles within the scope of this project. Were that to be done, it might be a good idea to make the Category:Irregular Masonry a subcat of Category:Secret societies, but not a subcat of Category:Freemasonry. And the differentiation of the names might help make such a changing of categorization for acceptable to the Freemasonry project as well. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
John... if I read your comment correctly... a group falls within our scope if ANY of the definitions apply? Yikes... that means a very very broad scope. For example the hypothetical offshoot of the KKK that you talk about above might not have any "secret teachings that improve the lives of their members"... but it might be an "oath-bound society devoted to brotherhood (or sisterhood), moral discipline, and mutual assistance." Thus it would meet the criteria for inclusion in our project. Do we really want to be that broad?
As for a category on irregular Masonry ... it should be a sub-category under the broader Category:Freemasonry... which is not to say that, where appropriate, they should not also fall under the category Secret societies (if they fit our criteria for inclusion, they should be included). Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you did read that right. Whether that specific definition continues to be used in the scope section is another matter entirely. And remember, they also have to be first and foremost described in at least one reliable, verifiable source as a secret society before the "qualification" process as per the scope section begins. I think the first requirement, being described as a secret society by reliable sources, is probably going to be the biggest limiter. And, remember, that including a given "main" article, but not necessarily any of its associated categories or articles if they already have extant support structures in place, probably wouldn't expand the scope that much. However, given that the article Secret society is, in a sense, our top-priority article, it would make sense to include those relevant "main" articles within the scope of the project's category or the main pages definition(s). As said before, however, if there are more "focused" or "dedicated" groups that deal with the supporting content on a given subject, that would be left to that that group. Regarding the proposed Masonry category, that was only a suggestion. Clearly, if the Freemasonry project wanted to make a "joint" category, I don't think anyone here would object to strenuously. The proposal was only made, so far as I can tell, because it seemed not as much focus was being given that content by the Freemasonry project. If this group, or, maybe, a devoted "Grand Orient" subproject of both Freemasonry and Secret societies, or of either project individually, or any other proposal which could bring more focused attention to those articles could be made that would get support, that'd work too. There already is a project for Fraternities and Sororities. On that basis, we would probably include only the Fraternities and sororities page for all such "Greek life". Also, I think it would be really useful if we could get anyone who can access either of the two base books, Axelrod and Barrett. I know Barrett can be gotten at one of my local libraries. Axelrod is around too, but a bit harder to access. If we could get together a list of the various groups which appear in those books, we'd probably have a good idea of what the scope of the project is. I can try to get the Axelrod and Barrett books early next week. A list of the various entities they describe in their books would probably be the best possible way of knowing how much we'd be dealing with. What we could do then would be to limit the scope of the project to those organizations included on either the yet to be created List of secret societies or a similar list on a subpage of the project. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if we need all sorts of sub-projects (they seem to fit well under the existing projects)... but I will think about it and keep an open mind. FYI... I seem to remember that there once was a list of secret societies article that was AfDed for being unverifiable etc... (but I may be mis-rembering). I certainly don't object to creating/recreating it (assuming you intend to have solid verification criteria for being on the list)... but we should check on that before creating (re-creating?). If I am remembering correctly, and there was such a list, it would probably help to contact those who nominated it for deletion and discuss the new list with them so they don't assume it is simply the same unverifiable material warmed over. Heck, it might bring in a few more members for this project. Of course, if I am not remembering correctly... then all systems should be a go for creation. Which leads to another question... are we talking listifying instead of having the category... or are we talking having both? If the latter... why both? What do you see as being the benefits (and negatives) of categories vs lists? Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"We need to come up with an agreed upon scope and definition that can be applied in judging whether and article on any group falls within this project... THEN we can see if Freemasonry "fits in". If it does, fine... if it doesn't, that's fine too." Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC) That sounds rational, but it will not work. Just, for eaxmple, within Freemasonry, there are sections that have been highly political, groups that have been highly religious, etc., etc. (And dismissing them as not "true" Freemasonry is to accept the point of view of some to the derogation of others.) Further, you have in this topic a serious problem with subjectivity. People are members of organizations where they think they are not being political or religious or secretive, and outsiders are convinced that they are.

The only way out of this is to have a very loose definition that accomodates this subjectivity in a broad way. "A person is a member of a secret society if they think they are."

And a point against the "graded and progressed teachings" argument. Most college fraternities and certainly college secret societies do not have this element.

And of the numbered identifying factors, "(1) it must one in which a prospective member has to make a concious effort to join, (2) it must have or have had a rite or oath of initiation," it seems that what is really needed is 'the participants must understand that they are operating as a group disctinct from the rest of society.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.252 (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Secret Societies

I can understand why we are not looking at the Thelema and Rosicrucian alphabet soup of splinter groups, but why are religious secret societies excluded? Examples such as the Donmeh‎, Alawites and Kakure Kirishitan‎ are definately secret societies with hidden teachings. They are not primarily social, it's true, but they seem to be more secretive than the Oddfellows. In non-Western societies, indeed in pre-Modern Europe, it would be very hard to find societies, secret or open, without a religious motivation.

16:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree... we should not limit ourselves to purely "social" groups. There are political secret societies, religious secret societies, criminal secret societies, and secret societies that don't fit into any sub category or into several. That said, I recently change the wording of the scope to say that the criteria was "societal" as opposed to "social". This change reflected a conversation between me and John Carter about this same issue. The intent is to say that the group must be a "society" and not a government agency like the CIA or a corporate entity like IBM (which fit many of the definitions of being "secret" in that they do things behind closed doors and can even have a culture of secrecy... but are not normally thought of as 'secret societies')Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, also agreed, for the most part. As stated above, any religion being persecuted will show characteristics of a secret society, even if only under those circumstances. They wouldn't necessarily qualify on that basis. The Donmeh, while maybe in a way a religion, strikes me as being one which, in a sense, might be counted as being predictably "secret" within their social milieu, considering that they are seemingly pretty much exclusively found in Jewish and Islamic areas. Maybe the best way to subcat them would be as Category:Covert religious movements. As they seem to be factually pretty much "secret" during their existence, common sense would qualify them. Alawism might be the same. I don't know Islam that well. Kakure Kirishitan refers specifically to a religious group whose sole period of existence was during persecution. In the case of that article, it isn't referring to the religion as a whole, but to a specific manifestation of that faith that existed only during persecution. On that basis, I don't think the "broader" exclusion should be applied there. And, for what it's worth, if there were a Church of Child Molestation in the United States, which included child sexual abuse as a sacrament, I would have no doubt that it could easily qualify as a secret society, as it's actions, while religious, extend beyond the religious sphere. In this instance, it clearly includes felonius conduct, and would qualify in the same way the Mafia does. That would be sufficient I think. What do the rest of you think of maybe creating a category like that "Covert religious movements"? John Carter (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
What about something like Opus Dei?... it is certainly popularly thought of as a "secret society", and I strongly suspect that there are reliable sources out there that call it such (although I would have to look). But it is definitely religious in nature and not societal. Assuming it does fit our definition ... how would you sub-categorize it? Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I think Opus Dei should go in the project. It is popularly thought of as a secret society although it probably has fewer attributes of such than the Knights of Columbus. As far as sub categorising it, I wouldn't really be able to answer. I would be wary of categorising it as a Covert Religious Movement as it is quite open about almost everything. The point about Opus Dei is the perception, not the fact. There are no oaths or handshakes, and although there is a "codeword" (according to John Allen) it seems to be informal. JASpencer (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It certainly could be the case that we alter the banner to include "secret societies and organizations alleged to be secret societies", as several may not actually meet any real definitions, but just be called that by popular acclaim. the {{WikiProject Terrorism}} already deals with that issue. Certainly, if there is disagreement, or worse, regarding whether a group qualifies, if they are in some way important to the history of secret societies, even if only because of the allegations, I think a reasonable case could be made for their inclusion. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Student Societies

Although some student societies (for example the Cambridge Apostles, the Skull and Bones and the The Machine) are quite important in the "secret societies" scheme of things, many of these are not. Would it be possible to farm these out to fraternities and sororities? JASpencer (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on their nature. Some are have been called "secret societies"... some have not. Some have standardized ritual initiation ceremonies (ie it is the same in all chapters) in many cases modeled after those used in Freemasonry... others don't. In other words, we need to take it on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Definitions of the term

Just to add to the confusion... here are some dictionary definitions of the term:

  • OED - An organization formed to promote some cause by secret methods; its members being sworn to observe secrecy.
  • Mirriam-Webster - any of various oath-bound societies often devoted to brotherhood, moral discipline, and mutual assistance
  • Cambridge - an organization which does not allow people who are not members to find out about its activities and customs.
  • MSN/Encarta - organization that keeps activities secret: an organization that requires its members to keep all or some of its activities secret from nonmembers.
  • Random House - an organization, as a fraternal society, the members of which take secret initiation oaths, share secret passwords and rites, and are bound to assist each other.
  • American Heritage - An organization, such as a lodge, that requires its members to conceal certain activities, such as its rites of initiation, from outsiders.

Again, we have a very wide range of definitions... and determining whether a given group qualifies as a secret society depends on which definition you pick... for example, Collegiate fraternities fit the definition given by Mirriam-Webster, Random House, and American Heritage... but not the OED, Cambridge or Encarta. (side note: could it be that the phrase means something slightly different to Americans than to Englishmen?)

So I come back to the question that I have been asking repeatedly, but not recieved an answer for... do ALL definitions have to apply? (in which case we probably have a very small group)... just one? (in which case we have a huge group)... Or some number that is more than one, but less than all? (in which case, how many) We are never going to stop having POV pushers arguing for either inclusion or exclusion of their pet society unless we decide this fundamental issue and clearly spell it out. Blueboar (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"We are never going to stop having POV pushers arguing for either inclusion or exclusion of their pet society"---that doesn't sound like an assumption of good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.247.3.210 (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really... or if it is a lack of good faith, it is at least an even handed lack of good faith directed at both extremes. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

American college fraternities DO fit the definitions of the OED, Cambridge and Encarta. I think that we are talking about subjective opinion here. Every legitimate Freemason, and every collgee fraternity member will today likely say that they are not members of a secret society, while by any objective measurement, they obviously are. Freemasonry practically is the definition of a secret society for most people, and the college fraternities used to happily describe themselves as secret societies in the 19th century. Any real definition ought to include a clause something like "in many cases, members of secret societies are convinced that they are not members of secret societies."129.133.124.231 (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How does a college fraternity fit the OED definition? How is a frat: "An organization formed to promote some cause by secret methods; its members being sworn to observe secrecy"? What cause are they promoting by secret methods? Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The initiations, meetings, signs of recognition, are all considered secret at every college fraternity. Very often, chapter rooms / meeting places are. Many times and many places, the coordinated interfraternity activity is conducted if not with specific 'secret methods' then at least the coordinated activity is not publicly or openly conducted. The 'cause' can be their own self interest, or apparently benign causes such as their mutual self-improvement, explicitly religious or non-religious morality,---it doesn't have to be a drafted plan of world conquest. Likewise, 'secret methods' doesn't have to mean some unique and hidden diabolical technology, it just means methods that are secret. Regular meetings are not some wild and arcane secret ability, but if you have secret regular meetings, then you have methods which are secret. American college fraternities are secret societies, and if you open any college yearbook before 1880, that's how they're listed in the yearbooks,---and the fraternities produced most yearbooks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.203 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"...if you open any college yearbook before 1880, that's how they're listed..." hmmm... this is a good point. Back in the 1800s, the term "secret society" was indeed commonly used in the way that our anonimous poster says. At that time, the term did not really have the sinister connotations that it does today. But this raises another question. Is the term still used the way it was in the late 1800s? Has its meaning (as opposed to it's definition) shifted? Do fraternities call themselves "secret societies" in today's world? Do other sources apply the term to fraternites in todays world? Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter what they call themselves? Legitimate Freemasonry is very adamant that it is not a secret society, yet for almost any non-Freemason they are the definition of a secret society. 159.247.3.210 (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when it comes to including people in categories in Wikipedia, self-identification matters a great deal. There are any number of arb-com decisions about this. When there is controversy over whether a person or group of people belong in a category, the deciding factor is their self-identification with that category. Granted, most of these cases dealt with individuals being placed within ethnic/national, or sexual preference categories, but the concept is the same. When in doubt, self-identification is the tie breaker. Note that this is different from what happens in articles. Because NPOV tells us that we can and should include multiple opinions and views in our articles, we can and should state that: "Tappa Tappa Keg Fraternity is considered a secret society by Scholar X (cite to where X states this)" in the article on TTK... but the same does not apply to including TTK in the category "Secret Societies"... we can not include TTK in the category unless TTK self-identifies with the category. The criteria for inclusion in Category and Project space is different than the criteria for inclusion in Article Space. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, the Soviet Union was a democracy. As is North Korea, Cuba, China and Germany in the 1930's; ---all self-identified democracies. I think a more apt solution is "X.Y.Z. can be considered a secret society since it meets the definition, but X.Y.Z. objects." But more significantly, this shows a problem in the term, 'secret society'. For some it has negative connotations, elsewhere it does not. And again, with Freemasonry, American Freemasonry sees the term as objectionable, I believe Europeans would see the term as natural and appropriate, and I suspect Britain is highly divided. For many people, the term itself does mean either 'subversive' or 'illicit' or some combination of the two. I think if there is going to be a Secret Society project, then the people gathered in that project would have to consider the term itself to be positive or at least merely neutrally descriptive,---it doesn't seem to make sense otherwise. How could one set oneself to being even-handed in writing articles about something inherantly evil and threatening? On the other hand, this project could be a gathering place for the uncovering conspiracy theorists to share their revelations about how evil and nasty secret societies control the world. But that will make it a very different kind of project. ---perhaps this project is not such a good idea if no one can agree on even what the term means, much less the scope of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.199 (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Alternative - Break It Up

I think the problem might best be solved by not trying to craft one definition for all secret societies. I suspect there is not enough in common with all of them to make it a rational category. It might best be broken down into several groups, such as:

Criminal secret societies

redirect to Mafia
not just Mafia... we have various Chinese criminal groups (Tongs) and others. And one off groups such as P2. I think there is some overlap between categories. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Political secret societies

Sons of Liberty
Know Nothing Whigs
etc.

Fraternal secret societies

redirect to Freemasonry
redirect to Fraternal orders
redirect to College secret societies

Religious secret societies

?

Secret societies in Chinese culture

redirect to Tongs

Secret societies in fiction

Illuminati
Millennium group
Bilderbergers
(the whole tinfoil hat parade)
etc.
Hmmm... all these have certainly been used in fiction, but they are not all fictional. A group called The Illuminati really existed, for example... and the historical Illuminati qualify as a secret society by almost any definition. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There never was a real society of Illuminati. There have been real groups that modelled themselves after the fictional organization. Read Yates. 159.247.3.210 (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Um... I beg to differ... see the Wikipedia article on the Illuminati... there was indeed a real group that went by that name in Bavaria in the mid 1700s. The fiction comes in saying that it survived beyond that time (and thus, all the conspiracy theory stuff that has been added onto that claim). Blueboar (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is entirely wrong, Yates was one of the most highly respected scholars at the University of London who wrote the comprehensive history of the movement. You can't trust Wikipedia for serious content & no article should contain original research. You can read for yourself, it's a fascinating history. See, for example, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment or any articles under Frances Yates through Jstor.66.217.176.184 (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

For some of these secret society categories, people could just be redirected away to places where work has already been done, for others, they could become the actual subject matter of the project.

I don't know if P2 was criminal, but it was a Masonic Lodge and political.159.247.3.210 (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, You would get some argument on whether it was a legitimate Masonic Lodge or not (it certainly started as one, but its charter was withdrawn and its leader expelled)... but it certainly did get involved in criminal activity. Blueboar (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which ones still exist today?

Hi Wikiproject. I'm not a member, but I was looking around to see if I could find some information about which secret societies still exist today? Could someone make a category for it, or at least point me in the right direction? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for peer review of ANAK Society

I've recently requested that ANAK Society, an article about Georgia Tech's secret society, be peer reviewed before I nominate it for FA status. The article was recently promoted to GA status, so it is already in pretty good shape. However, I was hoping someone from this community with knowledge of what a FA-quality secret society article should look like could offer his or her opinion. Thanks in advance. MaxVeers (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a featured article now. Still looking for feedback from this community. MaxVeers (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Given that this is a fairly new Project... and that there is still considerable debate as to what constitutes a Secret Society in the first place (including whether or not colligiate societies and fraternities should fall under the scope of this project), I am reluctant to opine on what a FS-quality secret society article should look like. Sorry. Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving a page

Secret combination, a page within the scope of this project is going to have to be moved to make room for a disambiguation page. What would an appropriate name for the new page be? The other page will be Secret Combination (song). It is a song by Kalomoira. Grk1011 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think "Secret combination (Mormonism)" or "Secret combination (Latter day Saints)" would be appropriate given the article topic. Blueboar (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAR nomination

Ku Klux Klan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas needed

I would like to ask anyone greek speaking that have contributed in this WikiProject to read the greek article el:Ελευθεροτεκτονισμός to give ideas and advices.--Iordanis777listening 10:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)