Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Phi Beta Kappa Society
Status	Closed
Request date	19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Avraham IceCreamEmpress Justinm1978 Leujohn Lhakthong Madcoverboy Treyt021
Mediator(s)	Jd027 ( talk)
Comment	Parties reached consensus.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Phi Beta Kappa Society]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Phi Beta Kappa Society]]

The dispute is split between two pages: the talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities page and the Talk:Phi Beta Kappa Society#Claim of "considered most prestigious" page. -- Lhakthong ( talk) 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I would request that the dispute be redirected to Phi Beta Kappa rather than the Wikiproject for the sake of clarity. I don't want to break the system however. Madcoverboy ( talk) 19:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I concur. -- Avi ( talk) 19:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm OK with it so long as it is clear to mediators that the dispute has taken place on two different pages. The reason I placed it on wikiproject is because the decision regarding claims to prestige affects more than just PBK, it is a larger guideline for all honor societies (and perhaps other fraternal organizations) -- Lhakthong ( talk) 06:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I've changed the title and am clear that the dispute has taken place on two different pages. Jd027 ( talk) 15:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Two editors argue that the claim that Phi Beta Kappa is "considered the most prestigious honor society" is an appropriate claim in that can be cited from sources that refer to it as such. These editors claim that the claim is acceptable given the number of sources they have cited and that those sources are authoritative. The other editors (4) that dispute this state that the claim is problematic on a number of grounds including, WP:V, WP:WEASEL, WP:AVOID, WP:ASF, and WP:MORALIZE, and that it is not the number of references or what the sources are used but the very nature of the claim itself that is the problem. -- Lhakthong ( talk) 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I would add WP:PEACOCK as well. Madcoverboy ( talk) 18:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

From the other perspective. Phi Beta Kappa is the oldest honor society for the liberal arts and sciences in the United States. It is also almost universally referred to as the "most prestigious". This approbation is applied not on PBK's own websites, but in tens, if not hundreds of independent references that include college and university websites and literature, newspapers, magazines, college student newspapers, etc. I have not had the opportunity to go to the library and pull the printed books that reference it, but I am relatively certain I can find that particular moniker in printed books as well. In this case, the use of the phrase "most prestigious" is not WP:PEACOCKing but a the properly representation per the available reliable and verifiable sources (as per WP:UNDUE) of which I have brought a small sample of 10 in the article. -- Avi ( talk) 19:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I think we are meddling with policy here. I would take it to WP:ARBCOM. Leujohn ^{( talk)} 04:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

ArbCom's purview is solely user behavior; this is a content dispute. -- Avi ( talk) 04:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I concur with Avi and would recommend WP:RFM only after the present line of dispute resolution is exhausted. In fact, this is perhaps a model example of how content disputes should proceed: civilly, with good faith, and respect for process. Maybe we're all a just bunch of eggheads :) Madcoverboy ( talk) 04:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed. See WP:DR. All other possible avenues must be tried before formal meditation. We have done everything but informal mediation through MEDCAB. Arbitration is indeed for behavior. I was involved with a similar content dispute as this and the other party mistakenly filed for arb. That lasted all of a nanosecond; admins unanimously declined the case because we were having a content dispute, not a behavior problem. -- Lhakthong ( talk) 06:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, Lhakthong, there remains formal mediation through WP:MEDCOM as the last, content-related resort. -- Avi ( talk) 16:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

More importantly, as Madcoverboy has stated, the parties engaged in this dispute have been handling themselves in a respectful and collegial (pun intended) manner. While we each may believe strongly that our interpretations of the policies is correct, so far, we are both open to compromise and to hearing arguments put forward by others. Personally, I am always open to having my opinion swayed by well-presented and forceful arguments. At this point, I still think my understanding of the matter is correct, but that is why I am glad to seek outside help and guidance. -- Avi ( talk) 14:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, it seems we have quite a crowd here. First, I'd like to commend everyone for keeping it civil. I'd like to quote Madcoverboy above: "In fact, this is perhaps a model example of how content disputes should proceed: civilly, with good faith, and respect for process. Maybe we're all a just bunch of eggheads :)" In any case, this is a model case of how content disputes should proceed. Next, I expect that we will all be very familiar with WP:NPOV, particularly and especially WP:ASF, and also WP:DPOV by the time this mediation has concluded. I would like to base our premise of discussion around these points, because, really, that's the problem, and it's our best chance of a solution. I have examined the conversations and feel equipped to tackle this dispute head-on. I've opened a discussion section below and would like to keep our main discussion there and off of the talk pages. It's too de-centralized already, and it's best to contain it as much as we can now. Jd027 ( talk) 17:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Let me start off by saying that we have to address, in one way or another, the claim that Phi Beta Kappa Society is the most prestigious/considered the most prestigious. Since that is their raison d'être, or the only reason why they exist, the issue cannot be ignored. I'm going to cite WP:ASF: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." That seems to be the basis of everything here. I'm now going to let the parties start off by discussing their opinions, preferably by making a brief statement on how they interpret this in this situation, and I will comment to keep the discussion moving forward. Jd027 ( talk) 17:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• At the risk of being repetitious, here is the nutshell version of my opinion. Phi Beta Kappa is verfiably the oldest honor society for the liberal arts and sciences in the United States. It is also almost universally referred to as the "most prestigious". This approbation is applied not by PBK itself, but in the tens, if not hundreds of independent references that include college and university websites and literature, newspapers, magazines, college student newspapers, etc. I have not had the opportunity to go to the library and pull the printed books that reference it, but I am relatively certain I can find that particular moniker in printed books as well. In this case, the use of the phrase "most prestigious" is not WP:PEACOCKing but a the properly representation per the available reliable and verifiable sources (as per WP:UNDUE) of which I have brought a small sample of 10 in the article. -- Avi ( talk) 17:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• • Employing a number of resources, regardless of what they are, that mention in passing that PBK is the "most prestigious" does not make for a verifiable claim that they are, in fact, just that. To do so is not to state a fact about an opinion, but an opinion that attempts to marshal in others who agree as the proof that it is fact. It begs the question in that it uses others who already agree with the opinion to support the opinion in question. Furthermore, I don't consider popular opinion itself as reflective of fact. Stating that something is popular opinion, however, is factual, so long as there is a verifiable source that adequately supports such a claim. To me, a verifiable statement of fact about opinion would be "so and so has said that PBK is the most prestigious" or "a survey in the Chronicle of Higher Education has found that a majority of professors finds PBK to carry the most prestige of all honor societies". In the case of "PBK is the most prestigious", it is impossible for us to let the facts speak for themselves if there are no facts to begin with other than the passing opinions of various writers and websites. That is, we cannot just say that it is the most prestigious, we have to say who says that and, if possible, why they say that. To say PBK is "the most prestigious" and then cite it with the passing comments of others is to state an opinion and then do original research to back it up (e.g., the research that says effectively "ten journalists and academic websites state that PBK is the most prestigious"). But then, what gives the editor the authority to do that research, which is not published anywhere but on the Wikipedia page, and claim that it is authoritative or verifiable in any way other than one that is self-referential? Should we write "a Wikipedia editor found that ten journalists and academic websites mention PBK as the most prestigious?" -- Lhakthong ( talk) 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

All of this reminds me of a quote from WP:MORALIZE from Karada about the Saddam Hussein article: "You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources." I've taken a look through the alumni list, and in it contained U.S. Presidents, Secretaries of State, Vice Presidents, media personalities, business leaders, political leaders, actors/actresses, etc. Perhaps, whatever you choose in terms of prestige, it would be best to preface your remarks by throwing a few of these names/categories around and let your reader know where you're coming from, since the only thing an honor society does is give prestige. Jd027 ( talk) 23:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

That PBK or any other honor society awards prestige is not the issue here. As I mentioned earlier, winning an MVP or Nobel Prize are also processes of awarding prestige. The claim in question is asserting that this form of prestige is itself more prestigious than any other form of prestige. Is the NFL MVP more prestigious than the MLB MVP? Is the Nobel Prize in Medicine more prestigious than the Nobel Prize in Physics? It's an apples to orange comparison. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I think this would be a good idea to communicate the prestige of PBK without stating the disputed claim. The PBK lede might mention some of its most notable members. Or perhaps the lede would just state pretty much what Jd027 said, that "PBK has had in its ranks US Presidents, Vice Presidents, (etc)." In this way, the reader can come to her own opinion on the matter, with facts that would confer prestige placed readily in front of the her. -- Lhakthong ( talk) 03:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Question. Is the claim itself disputed, or is the issue its applicability under wiki policies? I think that the fact that the claim is made that PBK is the most prestigious honor society is rather well supported. -- Avi ( talk) 14:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

So are the claims that Hitler was evil, the Beatles are the greatest band ever, and Bush was the worst modern President. It doesn't mean that Wikipedia does or should parrot these claims as well. NPOV has a variety of grounds ( Assert facts, not opinions, substantiate claims, don't tell the reader what to think) that directly refute Avi's argument that simply because it can be verified it should be included. Along a variety of objective metrics such as age, size, membership, and influence, one can substantiate the grounds that PBK has more of something that we often connote with prestige. Given that "prestige" is a word to avoid and ambiguously quantified as something which one entity can have more of than another, why not simply substantiate the basis for the prestige and allow the reader to come to his or her own conclusion? Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm with Madcoverboy on this one. He says it much more succinctly than I, so I won't add anything argumentatively. I will say that we had a similar issue at the Phi Kappa Phi page. I argued that there were plenty of authoritative websites (university honors programs, academic administrative offices, newspaper articles) that said in passing Phi Kappa Phi was one of the most prestigious honor societies ("Phi Kappa Phi, one of the most prestigious…" or sometimes "… the most selective"), but it was ultimately agreed (I being the last on board) that such comments are not appropriate unless they take the form "so and so claims that PBK is the most prestigious". -- Lhakthong ( talk) 22:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I've had a bit of light sensitivity today, and wasn't able to comment as soon as I'd liked. As to answer Avi's question, the fact that many mainstream media outlets, books, etc. claim that Phi Beta Kappa is the most prestigious honor society is not disputed. In fact, Phi Beta Kappa may be the most prestigious honor society. However, something's prestige is abstract, and if anyone says something is "prestigious," it is an opinion, not a fact. In the lead, a sentence reads: "Founded at the College of William and Mary on December 5, 1776, it is the oldest, and considered the most prestigious, liberal arts and sciences honor society in the United States." A sentence in the membership section reads: "Phi Beta Kappa is generally considered the most prestigious college honor society in the United States." The membership sentence is passing off as a fact what is really some other people's opinions, since only one source is used. Generally can mean 50.00001% or 99.99%. Prestigious means different things to different people. Thus, by using these terms without providing a definition, we could be construed as endorsing the claim. I could go on, but these wordings are not of benefit to the reader. WP:MORALIZE, part of the Neutral Point of View policy, sums it up succintly: "Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide." However, there are two things that need to be addressed here. 1) We are not comparing apples and oranges, we are comparing honor societies, which should not be like comparing apples and oranges. 2) Prestige is still not quantifiable. Prestige is determined by a consensus of society at-large. Since Phi Beta Kappa's only purpose is to confer prestige, this still needs to be addressed in the article, while adhering to a neutral point of view. We cannot ignore the claim, nor make the claim. The claim's existence must be acknowledged, while providing a basis for why people think this is so (Presidents, Vice Presidents, etc.) and leaving the reader to make their own determination. Perhaps a sampling of other societies' claims to being the "most prestigious" and why this is so would be beneficial. Jd027 ( talk) 01:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I think that Jd027 lays out the issue very clearly here. This is not a falsifiable claim, and there is not a quantitative answer to it. Saying, with appropriate sourcing, that "Many universities describe Phi Beta Kappa as 'the most prestigious' of national honor societies" is not weasel-wording in this context--because there is no quantifiable way of evaluating "prestige" whatsoever. Similarly, if other honor societies were described as 'the most prestigious' in other universities' public documents, it would be appropriate to include that information on those groups' pages. The idea that, if there doesn't exist some kind of survey of all honor societies a la US News and World Report, the claim can't be presented at all is simply a red herring. IceCreamEmpress ( talk) 17:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry I've been absent of late, but between the RfB and the upcoming holidays, I've got a bit more than usual on my plate. I think Jd027 lays it out well as well. We cannot just ignore the claim, but we do need to couch it in such a way that 1) Wikipedia is not making any claim and 2) it can be supported by concrete facts. Perhaps we can combine the claim with a source that describes the number and quality of members vis-a-vis other honor societies. Unfortunately, we cannot ourselves just count up the number of Presidents, Vice Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, Nobel Laureates, etc. as that would be original research. Anyone have other ideas? -- Avi ( talk) 04:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I actually think that the claim can be ignored (not to say that it should), if it cannot be stated in ways I suggested for reasons I gave. I disagree with Jd027 that because an honor society's raison d'etre is to confer prestige (if I were to accept it as the raison d'etre), such a topic cannot be ignored. Perhaps not ignored outright everywhere, but it should be ignored on Wikipedia unless the claim can be made in an appropriate way. First, an honor society's raison d'etre is usually not stated as "to confer prestige", but is stated in general in its mission statement or motto, e.g. "fostering and recognizing excellence", and factual statements can be made that demonstrate how the society meets that end. Second, an honor society's prestige comes from more than the empty clamor of the masses. It earns that prestige in some way, and if it is our task to do anything, it is to state fact pertaining to those things that earn it prestige. That is, newspaper articles and university webpages do not confer PBK with prestige. What does that can be referenced appropriately? -- Lhakthong ( talk) 03:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Lhakthong writes, "That is, newspaper articles and university webpages do not confer PBK with prestige." "Prestige" is a matter of opinion, so the only things that can confer prestige on something are the opinions of others. "Prestige" is not an objective entity--it is a subjective entity. Newspaper articles and university documents certainly are among the things that both confer prestige and document prestige, because prestige is, per Merriam-Webster, "standing or estimation in the eyes of people : weight or credit in general opinion." IceCreamEmpress ( talk) 04:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Two questions: 1) Are we at a deadlock, and 2) I wanted to add the "weasel" or "peacock" tags -- see WP:TM/D -- to the article until we sort this out, because it seems the majority agrees at least that the current phrasing is problematic, but I wanted to run it by everyone to prevent my tagging of it as such from being seen as inflammatory. -- Lhakthong ( talk) 02:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC) reply

(outdent) Very simply: 1) No. 2) Don't: those tags are meant to bring attention to the problem. We are all aware of the problem. Thus, the tags are not necessary. Jd027 ( talk) 01:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Perhaps it would just be best to state, simply, something like, with references: People such as Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z are alumni of PBK. PBK has been considered the most prestigious honor society by the New York Times, X publication, whoever, etc. That way, the reader is left to make their own judgment, but we have laid the foundation for such, without weasel words, other bad forms, etc. Jd027 ( talk) 01:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply

That's what I've been saying. Madcoverboy ( talk) 03:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree except that it is misleading to say that the NYT as an organization considers PBK to be the most prestigious when one of its journalists made a passing comment "Phi Beta Kappa, the most prestigious honor society, [then on to the actual content and point of the article]" In fact, the actual point and content of the recent NYT and Washington Post articles is not about how Phi Beta Kappa is consider the most prestigious. In fact, the content of the article indicates the opposite, even with said passing phrase. To be true, one would say "according to an article in the NYT, many students are turning down Phi Beta Kappa membership." That's the point. Just read the lede of those articles. -- Lhakthong ( talk) 05:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Judging by the article, there are more than enough sources to validate the claim, even if the NYT article isn't considered sufficient. The NYT article stills calls PBK the most prestigious honor society. If you feel it is necessary to mention that students are turning down PBK membership in the lead or in the membership section, then just do it. Jd027 ( talk) 14:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply

My point is that the current referencing is not an appropriate on two counts. The first is that the point of the article is not so show that PBK is the most prestigious but in fact indicates the opposite case. Second, it is an inappropriate to reference a newspaper article for an uncited subjective claim. If the point of a NYT (or other) article is to show how PBK is the most prestigious, or to report on some other finding that it has been found to be such, then it makes sense to cite it as a reference for the disputed claim. I would not argue with such an article that was used and referenced in the claim "according to a NYT article…" Perhaps if the NYT with the passing phrase cited that passing phrase or said according to whom they are considered most prestigious, then it would be more acceptable. However, one cannot verify a subjective claim made in passing by a journalist. Yet one can verify facts presented by that journalist in a newspaper article, whether those facts are presented in order to show something larger or to merely report them. The only way I could see the current article being referenced is "Phi Beta Kappa was mentioned as the most prestigious honor society in a 199X New York Times Article". Being mentioned as such in an article is a lot different than saying that something is such according to the news agency. -- Lhakthong ( talk) 15:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply

To be clear, the reason I make the final distinction above is because the NYT is not an arbiter of academic prestige, and it does not have the same authority and notoriety with saying what honor society is most prestigious in nearly the same way as US News with their college rankings (which are done quantifiably and whose calculative methods can be checked and verified). Even in such case, it would still be inappropriate to say "According to US News and World Report, X College is the best". It would have to be said "According to the 2009 US News and World Report College Rankings, X College was ranked #1 in Y Category..." -- Lhakthong ( talk) 16:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll be out of town for the next couple weeks and might not be online that often. I think my concerns are clear. Hopefully you all can work them in to the solution(s) some how, if things get resolved before I return. -- Lhakthong ( talk) 21:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Simply, what we are faced with is that the prestige issue cannot be ignored and that we cannot tell the reader what to think. To achieve this, perhaps the best solution would be to lay our premise by finding reliable, secondary sources about the Presidents, Vice Presidents, and whoever that are alumni of PBK, and then to add a sentence after that about how some articles of mainstream publications have considered PBK to be the most prestigious. No one is an arbiter of prestige, but we have to touch on the prestige issue, and potentially the best way to do that is to cite articles of mainstream publications referencing PBK as such. If there are any conflicting accounts, list that too. Again, if you feel that it is necessary to mention that some students are turning down PBK membership, feel free to do that in the membership section. Jd027 ( talk) 20:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

But we do not have to touch upon the prestige issue. When I looked through the most recent addition of the Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (from what I can tell the only highly regarded encyclopedia regarding honor societies) nowhere in it did it mention prestige when talking about honor societies. So I remain unconvinced that it must be addressed. If the most authoritative encyclopedia of honor societies stayed away from prestige, on what grounds do we find it necessary? The only argument presented was regarding the raison d'etre, one I argued against and afterwards no one defended it. Furthermore, to repeat Madcoverboy's assertion, prestige is a word to WP:AVOID on the grounds that it is "ambiguous, uninformative, or non-specific." and that it is "unnecessarily flattering or positive". However, if it is still nonetheless deemed acceptable content, then verifiable, authoritative sources must be used, not passing references in newspaper articles. -- Lhakthong ( talk) 17:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• • At this point I'll throw in my thoughts. I think there is little else to say this issue has been approached from all angles. I still maintain that the claim is not quantifiable and is a judgment call so should not be added for POV issues and because it could open a whole host of challenges on other pages Greek and others with similar claims. Theta Chi is the best social fraternity because congress has awarded it more recognition than any other group. Or New York is the most prestigious city in the nation because more news articles speak glowingly of it than other. Or the army is the best branch of service because it has the most unit citations of merit. I know this sounds outlandish and it is but this case sets some precedent for cases like these. That said, however this case is decided, this discussion has dragged on for months. The page is still in need of work. Improvements have been made but more is needed. The string of references after any claim relating to the prestige looks ridiculous and unprofessional and frankly i think there are more important tasks to be completed. So at great personal risk and realizing that this is not exactly how things are usually done around here. i propose we resolve this issue either by a vote or by setting a final date and allowing the moderator to decide. like by next week, and move on whatever the decision is. I just believe there are more important issues to work on this page. The discussions we have had could fill a small book and are several times longer than the article itself. If we put as much effort and research into improving the article as we have into trying to prove or disprove this claim we could probably be on the verge of having a featured article here and i think PBK is prestigious enough to at least get that recognition (or at least GA). These are just my thoughts. This has went on in my mind too long and resolution needs to happen. Thanks Trey ( talk) 01:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
    • At this point, I would motion to drop any mention to prestige entirely. I know what I've said, but this is frankly unimportant and not worth any more of anyone's time or kilobytes. A dispassionate end to be sure, but it seems appropriate. Jd027 ( talk) 03:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Agreed (naturally). -- Lhakthong ( talk) 20:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
        • I second the motion and agree with the conclusion. Now lets all go have a beer or suitable alcoholic (or non-alcoholic) beverage as per your tastes and or convictions. Trey ( talk) 21:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply