Talk:Eucleian Society/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citations

This page needs to include proper citations. They're there, but not put in properly. Someone with a vested in this article should check WP:CITE. Best of luck! --Midnightdreary 02:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: References: Greetings, I have degree in library science, and I am interested in working on this article. I have begun inserting the references and citations matching with quotes to each item of information so that we can clear up the verification and source notice. I also have a vested interest in this article. 101PoliSci101 (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Update, I have inserted appropriate sources and quotations. User softlavander keeps undoing edits, despite never discussing working on article with me on talk page, while never adding any citations of user's own (and not developing article). User only deletes and does not develop article in any way. 101PoliSci101 (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Deception removed

This spoof of continuing the society up to the modern era, including a photoshopped photograph of the flag, cannot continue. New York University archives shows this society as dead in 1943, and not a continuing organization. the article has been edited to reflect thet fact. The one reference which all the recent information was pinned to, does not actually exist. One would assume that the article on the Philomathean Society is a similar fraud. Theophrastus Eresus (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Corrected the above to 1943, based on the best NYU archives reference.Theophrastus Eresus (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

References

I've fixed some broken links, but I believe the previous comment may have been overriden and the "deception" re-inserted. However, I have insufficient knowledge (or interest) in the subject to be able to judge whether it is actually deceptive or valid, so I leave that to others to decide. --Otus scops (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Theophrastus, I have a degree in library science and also higher education administration. You removed the flag without actually verifying whether or not it is real. Made a claim that it is photoshopped, and claim that NYU archives show this secret society as dead in 1943. If the NYU archives did in fact state that the secret society is no longer functioning post 1943, which it did not, that does not mean that the society was no longer functioning. Regarding the actual records of NYU themselves they have claimed that they only have a small and partial collection.

As for the existence of the society, the NYU collection guide states that, "Dr. Theodore T. Jones acquired the materials at the University Heights campus, but there is no record of when or from whom they were acquired", and that the records are "a small and partial collection", adding that, "It seems to have ceased around the 1940s."

1. There are citations in a number of publications including New York University newspapers that mention the continuance of the society. One can't simply deny what's documented about regarding the continuation of the society today. Furthermore, one cannot claim that a secret society is no longer functioning.

The small amount of known records were processed by "N.Y.U. Archives Staff, June 1979" and remain in the NYU archives.

2. We have reports of the society functioning in major publications for example in 2009 the NYUlocal reported on the existence of the society.

A reference was made regarding the activity of the Eucleian Society in 2005 by the Washington Square News, a student newspaper.

Furthermore that same student newspaper wrote an article about the activity of the Eucleian Society May 18, 2011.

Just as recently as July 2014, further information regarding the society was released in Atlantic Magazine.

Even more recent than that, in October 2014, Educationdive also discusses the existence of the society. 101PoliSci101 (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

3. Regarding your claim about the flag, which you falsely removed, in 2010 a student newspaper the NYUlocal posted that same flag that you removed. 101PoliSci101 (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Notable members

None of the 'notable members' has any references, and this section should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theophrastus Eresus (talk • contribs) 23:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Photograph

I don't believe the photograph's dating is correct. Please see the talk page at File:Eucleian.gif. Hydriotaphia (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed all the patent nonsense, but there are still a lot of uncited claims

After thorough research into all of the so-called former "citations" to this article, I removed the patent nonsense and the uncited "Notable Members" list, since it is documented that the society ceased to exist around the 1940s [1]. Beyond that, there are still a lot of uncited claims in the article that need fixing and citing. Softlavender (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender: You deleted a whole list of people. Is there something wrong with you? Do you some type of personal issue? What about members prior to 1940's. And NYU themselves state that "it appears that the society may have ceased to exist". This is not a confirmation. You definitely have a personal grudge. No right to delete an entire list. Should have at least edited it. Deleting it? Crazy, and subjective. 101PoliSci101 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender continues to remove specific relevant quotes and references, without ever developing the article. This user is clearly vandalizing the article. I have attempted to voice my concerns, and my interest in working on this article, here on the article talk page, and instead of seeking me out here for collaboration user is vandalizing article, and sent me private "warning". As I have previously mentioned, I am very interested in working on this article, and have posted direct quotes. I have no interest in edit warring, I do not understand why Softlavender has not responded to my interest regarding working on this article, constructively so that we can help develop this article, with the integrity that this article and all other articles require, and deserve. Again, I extend my request, if Softlvander is interested in working with me on developing this article, I already have an interest to do so, and user will be more than welcome. I hope that Softlavender will take the time in between undoing my edits to come to check the talk page, user has not responded here thus far. 101PoliSci101 (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Existence of Society

I've created a section here in order to discuss the current activities of the Eucleian Society.

1. There are citations in a number of publications including New York University newspapers that mention the continuance of the society. One can't simply deny what's documented about regarding the continuation of the society today. Furthermore, one cannot claim that a secret society is no longer functioning.

The small amount of known records were processed by "N.Y.U. Archives Staff, June 1979" and remain the NYU archives.

2. We have reports of the society functioning in major publications for example in 2009 the NYUlocal reported on the existence of the society.

A reference was made regarding the activity of the Eucleian Society in 2005 by the Washington Square News, a student newspaper.

Furthermore that same student newspaper wrote an article about the activity of the Eucleian Society May 18, 2011.

Just as recently as July 2014, further information regarding the society was released in Atlantic Magazine.

Even more recent than that, in October 2014, Educationdive also discusses the existence of the society. 101PoliSci101 (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

References

• None of those sources proves that the society has existed past 1942. A prank "signed" by "the Eucleian Society" proves nothing. Softlavender (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• 101PoliSci101 response to SoftLavender (A-C):

A.) Actually it does. The prank was reported by 2 major NYU student newspapers NYULocal, Washington Square News. If you are going to dismiss citations of university newspapers and well known national magazines then we might as well shut down Wikipedia, because according to you, you are the only person that can determine what is true or not rather than us relying on citations and quotations of publications. This begs the question about some ulterior motive or bias that is not proper to the purpose of Wikipedia.

B.) NYU had stated that they are unsure of whether or not the society is still functioning. They also have stated that their archive collections regarding the society are small and partial. Furthermore, ES is essentially a student secret society, therefore whether or not a university's administration recognize it or it's existence is entirely irrelevant. Recognition by university board does not mandate STUDENT society legitimacy or illegitimacy.

C.) Currently, students recognize its current existence and discuss its activities as being current in STUDENT newspapers. You make a straw man argument. An organization or society does not have to be recognized by the administration in order to exist. Failure of administration recognition is just that, nothing more, nothing less. 101PoliSci101 (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Student newspapers are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. Also, you placed a "citation" for the sentence "Benefiting from a trust formed by A. Ogden Butler and family, the organization had a stable source of revenue" which mentions nothing of the kind (never mind being an unreliable source in itself since it includes a lot of erroneous rumors quoted from this unreliable Wikipedia article, or at least a version of this Wikipedia article before it was cleaned up a bit). Stop inserting this bogus citation. Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

SoftLavender if you have a problem with an official newspaper of New York University (a university) again I repeat "If you are going to dismiss citations of university newspapers and well known national magazines then we might as well shut down Wikipedia, because according to you, you are the only person that can determine what is true or not rather than us relying on citations and quotations of publications. This begs the question about some ulterior motive or bias that is not proper to the purpose of Wikipedia." Your personal interpretations of newspaper articles, and magazine articles are not even original research, it is simply a personal bias that you are making very apparent. According to the Wikipedia guidelines we should stick to following what is acceptable and what is best for the integrity of the article. Please keep personal bias off of wikipedia. Kind Regards.

"Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions."

"Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Disruptive editing is not usually considered vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive. Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.)" 101PoliSci101 (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Greetings SoftLavender,

I would like to work with you on the Eucleian Society article, you keep deleting the correct quotations and citations from the article. I attempted to reach out to you on the article talk page in good faith. Eucleian Society is a student society that has repeatedly reported on in the past few years as currently existing. I understand that you do not agree with me. I am hoping we will be able to work on this article together, so that we may reach a resolution, and reinforce the integrity of Wikipedia through this article. Hopefully we can resolve this together. I look forward to speaking to you.

Best Regards

"Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions."

"Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Disruptive editing is not usually considered vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive. Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.)"

101PoliSci101 (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender I am asking you to refrain from removing sources from the article. Stop undoing my edits. If you have something better to contribute please do so. Please refrain from edit warring, I have no history of edit warring. Removing legitimate sources is not part of following Wikipedia guidelines. 101PoliSci101 (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eucleian Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://dlib.nyu.edu:8083/archead/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=/eucleian.xml&style=/saxon01a2002.xsl&part=body

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)