Talk:Cornell literary societies/Archive 1

Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)

Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia

Neutral point of view

Third Party Review, WikiProject New York Posting

Transferred from User Page: Hi Cmagha! I never saw the original AfD discussion, but I think the article looks like the start of something fantastic! My only concern would be that the majority of your references seem to come from "Cornell specific" sources (i.e. Cornell Daily Sun, Cornell Era, Cornell Register, etc...). College/ university published sources are a bit of a grey area within WP:N when dealing with a campus organization, as some may not consider these to be "independent of the subject." That being said, we aren't dealing with a fly by night college band that played at Moonshadows and had a writeup in the Ithacan, this is a literary society almost as old as Cornell University itself and has had significance well beyond East Hill. Despite the large number of CU oriented sources (which I personally believe are independent), you have enough that would be unambiguously independent to survive another AfD if need be. I'd post what you have now and keep looking for more! 2 says you, says two 13:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, great work. Sorry I've been out of the loop. Double smiley face from the Syracuse Orangemen brought in to ensure neutrality. Think the critics need to read the article from a distance -- this is hardly promotional, when you think about it. It is basically saying that Cornell University had a chance to excell in an intellectual activity, and tanked. We obviously would not have done that at SU. I do think there is a Sumner cite out there to, that Cmagha missed. Will look for it. --Coldplay3332 (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WIP

Transferred from User Page Oversaw your preparations at User:Cmagha/The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) and I hope you will consider submitting it to WP:DYK after you move it to main space. (By the way, this is your discussion page. Since others may communicate here now and again, you may want to move your editorial notes to a user subpage, like User:Cmagha/Sandbox.) Cheers! —Eustress ^talk 03:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip ! Very hard to learn lots of the intricacies of the Wikiworld. I stll have some prep to do before asking the administrator to move that article over; there are two editors, in particular, who are still a little raw on the article and the administrator -- while fair and neutral -- has been tough. --Cmagha (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Guidance from Administtrator, October 1, 2010

Just reviewed the Irving article, again. Notability addressed in the first seven footnotes. Will move it back into the mainspace unless you have additional concerns.--173.59.205.137 (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I think it's ready to go; also see on Cmagha's user page that others have reviewed it positively. What are the remaining objections, and how do we appeal if there are still objections?--Coldplay3332 (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Here is the page, Spartaz, if you need a refresher:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cmagha/The_Irving_Literary_Society_(Cornell_University) --Cmagha (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Take it to DRV please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Guidance to Editor, July 11 2010

Copied from Spartaz User page: The Irving article has been noticed on the WikiProject New York page; some helpful comments sent back. Did not receive notice on your G4 decision; we will be asking to move the article back to mainspace shortly. Thanks for the aid. --Cmagha (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• No. Unless you have addressed the significant issues concerning allegations of misrepresenting sources and the contention that all of the sources are tangential or trivial then this isn't going back into mainspace. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Material for Spartaz to Review Prior to Deciding Whether to Move Article to Mainspace, July 11, 2010

Comparators: In order of less, to more, evidence: Sphinx (senior society) (Notability based incredibly on primary, Dartmouth sources), Philolexian Society (like the Sphinx at Dartmouth, all are Dartmouth sources), Episkopon (nice, notability determined by three primary sources, one of which is somebody's resume), American Whig-Cliosophic Society (notability accepted from one secondary source which is a simple, unlabeled list), Elizabethan Club (notability determined by one secondary source dating from 1921, and not linked; everything else is a Yale publication), Franklin Society (Notability based merely on two secondary, Non-Brown University sources), - - Irving's evidence quality/quantity falls here. - - Philodemic Society (notability established from two secondary sources), Jefferson Literary and Debating Society (notability apparent from two secondary sources, which are exactly the same as the Washington's at UVA), Washington Literary Society and Debating Union (notability apparent from two secondary sources), Philomathean Society (notability well deserved from four secondary and one primary source),.

Total of nineteen (19) citations supporting notability, more than any comparator linked, supra.

Best Evidence, eight (8) Secondary Sources specifically citing the Irving.

• United States Bureau of Education, Contributions to American Educational History No. 28: History of Higher Education in New York, Circular of Information No. 3, (H.B. Adams, ed. 1900) at 393.</ref> (Non-Cornell secondary source describing the Irving specifically as “a purely literary society,” cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.); see also p. 74;

• John H. Selkreg, Landmarks of Tompkins County (1894) at X.;

• Thomas Spencer Harding, College literary societies: their contribution to higher education in the United States, 1815–1876 (171) at 265; (Non-Cornell secondary source, albeit relatively minor, which nonetheless adds support for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

• Catalogue of the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity (Aldrice C. Warren, ed. 1910) at 1001 (Non-Cornell secondary source noting the importance of membership in the Irving);

• The Shield (16:1)(Theta Delta Chi March 1900) at 210;

• Fayette E. Moyer, "Literary Societies," Cornell Magazine (January 1895) at 187–194. (Although a Cornell source, this citation notes that the Irving also admitted women to membership, but the Philaletheian, believing that there ought to be one society which devoted itself purely to debate, remained an organization for men only, thereby meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations.). See also Carol Kammen, Cornell: glorious to view (2003) at 39. (non-Cornell source supporting the same);

• Sari Knopp Biklen & Marylin B. Brannigan, Women and Educational Leadership (1980) at 128 (non-Cornell secondary source noting that by 1884 and 1886, the Irving was feeling pressed by Cornell Athletics. Cite meets need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. Tracking down hardcopy, as we are experiencing difficulties in linking to page in text.);

• Charlotte Williams Conable, Women at Cornell: The Myth of Equal Education (1977)(Although written by a Cornellian, this source notes that the Irving Literary Society, along with the Christian Association, was one of the few campus venues in which Cornell member could participate as equals with Cornell men. The early membership criteria are an example of the cyclical, rather than evolutionary, nature of gender inclusion noted by feminist theorists. As such, it supports reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations. Tracking down hardcopy, as we are experiencing difficulties in linking to page in text.).

Strong Evidence, seven (7) Primary Sources directly identifying the Irving:

• University Chronicle, “Educational” (Univ. Mich.)(Jan. 16, 1869) at 2. (identifying the Irving as one of Cornell’s two literary societies. Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

• "Irving Literary Society," The Ithacan (Apr. 4, 1869) at 2; (Non-Cornell source editorial stating that the Irving was "first in the field");

• The Daily Journal (Ithaca, New York)(Nov. 8, 1870) at 2 (Non-Cornell primary source noting transaction of the Irving Literary Society’s business.);

• “Exchanges,” The Virginia University Magazine (12:2)(Nov. 1873) at 266 (non-Cornell primary source noting that the Irving was entertaining an agenda which strayed from traditional literary activities. Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

• Daily Democrat 2 (Ithaca, New York)(Sept. 27, 1884)(Non-Cornell primary source stating “The Irving literary society met last evening, but was poorly attended. This institution should be one of the most prosperous student societies in the college, but strange to say, it has deteriorated in point of numbers, and its management has fallen into the hands of technical instead of literary students.” Cite meets the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.);

• The Daily Democrat (Ithaca, N.Y.)(Oct. 31, 1884) at 2.

• James Gardner Sanderson, "The Personal Equation," Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine (67:397)(January 1901) at 86. (referring to that the Irving and Philaletheaian as “the two literary societies [that] were everything . . .” during the early years, cite meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing but not complete independence of the subject. Accordingly, we balanced it with other citations; the article is a memoir by a Cornellian);

Good Evidence, four (4) Secondary or Primary Sources which may not directly identify the Irving, but refer to literary societies at Cornell in a manner, which when combined with another source, prove notability of the subject:

• Blake Gumprecht, The American Collegetown (2008) at 77 (Non-Cornell general secondary source citation on student culture at Cornell, noting that the Irving and its peers established an environment conducive to free intellectual thought in the early years, cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. Combined with Cornell University, The Register (3d.)(1874-75) at 77 (showing Irving as one of two senior literary societies) to complete citation inclusive of the Irving.);

• “Cornell University,” The People’s Cyclopedia of Universal Knowledge (W.H. DePuy ed. 1897) at 687 (Non-Cornell, secondary sources, referencing literary societies in general. Combined with Cornell University, The Register (1879-1880) at 5 to complete citation inclusive of the Irving.);

• Gerald Graff, Professing Literature: An Institutional History (Univ. Chicago 1987), at 45–51 (Non-Cornell, albeit general, secondary source referencing Cornell on the role literary societies, cite meeting the need for significant coverage, reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject.) combined with David Fellows More, The Historical Journal of the More Family (John More Association 1913) and Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society 65 (1869) to confirm the general Gerald Graff cite refers, in part, to the Irving);

• Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society 65 (1869)(Non-Cornell primary source identifying Cornell’s literary societies as electing men of talent and work, cite meeting the need for reliability, good sourcing and independence of the subject. But it is a primary source, not secondary. Though cited to round out the Graff citation, it also stands on its own as proof of notability).
  • You stated at one point that all the new sources were all on-linbe sources. Please provide URLs for each source so they can be independantly verified and assessed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Am in the process of copying links from the article over to the User page. Read your concerns about my tardiness in this matter on your User page. Can't do this activity while at work; violation of our workplace ethics rules. --Cmagha (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the links provided for the first section (under the heading "Best Evidence") - None of them are more than short mentions, the best of which IMO is John H. Selkreg, Landmarks of Tompkins County (1894) which is not significant, some of the links don't seem to link to what you describe.

I am still unsure as to if you understand what is meant by Significant Coverage as outlined in the WP:GNG - if you are then all you need is to ask. Codf1977 (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the clause in the standard WP:GNG that is confusing you: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The "so no original research clause" completes the "directly in detail" element of the standard. The cites in the last category above - "Good Evidence" - might, MIGHT, run afoul of this standard. But the primary and second standards in the two categories above "Good Evidence" require no original research to extract the content. The important substantive standard is "more than trivial but need not be the main topic". The U.S. Bureau of Education citation, for instance, meets this well because it uses the Irving as an example of an important trend - the failure of a specific academic culture to take root at a major American university which defined itself as a reform of the norm (usually represented by Harvard). Selkreg is a excellent citation, but I do not think it is as important globally as the U.S. Bureau of Education. Selkreg speaks to a provincial standard (important regionally, not necessarily nationally or globally); the U.S. Bureau of Education speaks to a nationally-important theme. Walk through the rest of the citations using the same form of analysis, and you can see why this is notable. The University of Virginia cite - which I have not been able to find online but am still trying (it is out there) -- speaks to the same theme as the U.S. Bureau of Education, namely, the failure of an academic (maybe 'intellectual' is a better term) standard to thrive at Cornell. -Cmagha (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No it is the "sources address the subject directly in detail" that interests me - it is the detail bit that I can't see in the first group of sources. Codf1977 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• And as a Deletionist, you would want to read it that way. "Detail" is defined in that standard as not requiring "original research." If a subject is notable, it will have generated sufficient detail in SECONDARY sources because the authors of those treatise evaluated the subject as worthy of note for the purposes of their writing. They need not be writing about the subject requiring the cites for Wiki inclusion. Your standard, adopted writ-large, would vitiate Wiki. Take a stroll; very few articles would meet your standard. What you need to work with is your understanding of the level of detail; the impulse to delete is healthy in the editors' community, because there is a lot of junk out there. But your understanding of detail in this context, generally, is extreme. It is the clausal nature of the standard which is throwing you off. Just my thoughts. --71.176.164.16 (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I read it that way as that is the intent, as evidenced by WP:ORG#Primary criteria the section head "Depth of coverage" reinforces that, I think you will find that is the accepted WP Consensus. As for me being a "Deletionist" or anything else - I happen to belive that the reputation of WP as a quality Encyclopaedia is damaged by having articals on non-notiable subjects, especially if thoes articals are self-promoting or overplay the significance of the subject. Codf1977 (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

When this standard WP:ORG#Primary criteria was reviewed last spring, the text was edited with an eye toward : “multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability” (the combination of the cites produces depth itself); “extends well beyond routine announcements” (what detractors have been labeling trivial has, in fact, been well beyond the routine); “merely trivial coverage” (take a look at this list; this is a very good guide to what is trivial). This standard supports returning the article to mainspace. --Cmagha (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree no number of trivial mentions equates to significant coverage. Sorry IMO nothing so far shows that this is little more than a University club, which are normally not notable and any return without demonstrating notability is likely to be swiftly followed by deletion. Codf1977 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Short list before reposting

1. Make sure that you have clearly identified on this talk page the references that you think demonstrate the notability of the Society.
2. Make sure that you ask Spartaz (the deleting admin) to move it back so that the full edit history goes with the article so that it complies with the CC-BY-SA licence. Do Not try and create a new article by pasting the text.

Previous deletion of this article

• NOTE: This article is a recreation of The Irving Literary Society deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society. Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• --Cmagha (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)From below: Will start linking articles; have to learn that skill, good time to start. --Cmagha (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Figure out how to link; will do a few more tomorrow. --Cmagha (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability?

Exactly how has the sourcing of this article improved over the version that was deleted? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Spartaz, thanks for the chance to response to the Codf1977 G4 Petition, requesting permanent deletion of the Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) article. G4 permits deletion of, “sufficiently identical and unimproved copy . . . [excluding] pages that are not substantially identical . . . to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies . . .” It is against that standard that we address these comments.

The contributors met in Ithaca, New York last month to review research conducted since the AfD. I took the lead in rewriting the original text, which was a mess. All agree. In posting the Article Recreation, we have written a whole new article not sufficiently identical and unimproved. We consulted Voceditenore, who provide wonderful advice. The Article Recreation was also posted for independent editorial comment, to seek further insights. We are trying to work within the Wiki community in a responsible manner.

The reason for deletion no longer applies because:

(1) Notability. All the new notability evidence in is the first two sections. I did this research. We lead the article with the U.S. Bureau of Education citation because the Bureau is a neutral, third party (Federal government) author and published relatively contemporaneous to the Irving’s most public phase (1868-1887). Those Bureau educational reports were widely circulated. This is comparable to Sphinx Head’s New York Times citation. But we have gone further by referencing the Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine article, which is another non-Irving and non-Cornell source. Gerald Graff’s book and the New York State Agricultural Society proceedings are new strong sources, as well. So too is Blake Gumprecht’s recent book (which I was a source/citation for, in the interest of full disclosure, about six years ago). In the “The Irving, vehicle of integration” section, we cite to Conable on the issue of the Irving and gender. Though she is a Cornellian and writing a history of gender discrimination at the institution, the role of the Irving in countering the exclusion of women does argue for notability. In going through the other societies we’ve linked to, I don’t see this level of notability documented. We have resolved this issue. There are many new sources here proving notability.

We retained the Ithaca Daily Democrat citation in the article, even though it was derided the first time around. Wikipedia needs to be careful about a bias against regional culture and notability. Citing to Cornell publications we understand to be weak secondary evidence; but the Ithaca community was, and is, distinct from the University.

(2) Style. We review other like organizations which have also been the subject of a Wikipedia entry, and mirrored their style as much as possible. The Irving article is pretty close to being Wikified; G4 Deletion is not a means of furnishing improvement.

(3) Content. We stripped out the heavy frat presence of the last text (which was, indeed, taken from an alumni publication). The distinct literary element has been emphasized, with an eye to the content the Article Recreation lends to Wikipedia’s recitation of Cornell history. Where we keep fraternity references or discussion of current trends (Prominent Members, Recent Literature, etcetera), we retained such material after recalling the concern from previous commentators that they thought the article was a hoax.

(4) Conflict of interest. There are Cornellians on the writing team, and some members of the Irving. But we imported, as balance, several Syracuse graduates who were not members of literary societies, fraternities, or favorably disposed toward Cornell. The conflict of interest question is best reduced to whether the article is promotional, or not. The reliance on the historical material and the inclusion of critical and negative material was designed to mitigate this concern.

(5) Citations. We have exhausted all the low hanging cyberfruit resources, primary and secondary; we did find in the Cornell archives some resources we can draw on if we need more. But that will take time, at least through October. Comparing our draft to others on Wikipedia, we are well cited – comparable to, if not higher, than the citation rates for Sphinx Head and Quill & Dagger.

(6) Theme. We kept the ‘macro’ material, noting the place of the Irving in Cornell and American educational history because these themes are important. As the commentators in favor of literary society entries noted last spring, the story here is an important one for people – especially young students – to read. With the ‘macro’ material are cites to other literary societies which are featured on Wikipedia. I know existing articles are poor argumentation, but look at Sphinx Head; it survived AfD with that one New York Times article. The Activity section was in response to read requests; the literary society gang though that contribution to be especially useful. The summary of Cornell Literary Societies’ history was added at the request of a commentator, last spring. It is new, and unique information.

So, based on the argument, above, the contributors to the Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) article think that the article overcomes the G4 Petition which states. Thanks for the fair hearing on this one. --Cmagha (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

At first I doubted that the organization met the notability guideline, but since I was already at the library I decided to do a little research. After researching the organization for just a few minutes at the library it became clear to me that the organization had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore meets the notability guidelines. Wehatweet (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, feel free to list them here with full bibliographic information and the relevant quotes in context. It would be very helpful. Voceditenore (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz Request for Clarity

• Please list the additional sources because that wasn't clear - exactly what they are and what they say. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Cmagha, list the extra sources and explain what they are please otherwise I will delete this under G4. I have asked the same question 4 times now I think its only right you actually answer it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • • See above; will address comments below, next. --Cmagha (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Voceditenore Request for Linkage and Editing

• You say that you got most of this material online. I know for a fact that a lot of the Cornell publications are online as are all the old newspaper articles, the Cornell history books etc. are too. Why do you not link to it so other editors can verify that the sources say what you claim them to say? Your quotes are quite "cherry picked" and their context is obscured to say the least. The U.S. Bureau of Education is public domain, so if you cannot provide a link to it, please quote here the entire section that mentions the Irving, so we can see the actual context of the quote.

  You also make unreferenced assertions in your "references". One of them [24] states that the current Irving Literary Society is open to women. Yet it's also clear that currently membership in the fraternity (not open to women) is a requirement for membership in the Society. Either provide a reference to show that regular membership in the society is open to undergraduate women at Cornell, or remove it. It is quite (deliberately?) misleading as it is. Voceditenore (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Have removed membership statement re: women until such time as we can get and scan the source, this fall. Will start linking articles; have to learn that skill, good time to start. --Cmagha (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresented sources

This is just a sampling of the added "reliable independent sources" mentioned by Cmagha above:

Re: Sari Knopp Biklen & Marylin B. Brannigan, Women and Educational Leadership (1980) - no evidence of the Irving being mentioned, let alone discussed

Re: Gerald Graff, Professing Literature: An Institutional History (Univ. Chicago 1987) – no mention whatsoever of the Irving Literary Society

Re: College literary societies: their contribution to higher education in the United States – merely a list of college literary societies and their date of founding

Re: Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society 65 (1869) – no mention whatsoever of the Irving

Re Charlotte Williams Conable, Women at Cornell: The Myth of Equal Education (1977) – no mention whatsoever

Re: Contributions to American Educational History No. 28: History of Higher Education in New York – This one does mention the Society in one line. To wit:

"The purely literary society, however, which follows the traditions of the old literary societies of the Eastern universities has never flourished at Cornell. The Philolathean, the Irving, and the Curtis have all disappeared after a few years of struggles and doubtful success."

This is hardly the construction put on this quote in the article, is it? I suspect the article has a lot of this kind of stuff, and that's why I referred to "cherry-picked quotes".

You need to read WP:Synthesis of published material that advances a position. The article is full of it, as evidenced by the above. I also see no evidence of any published source which supports the claim that

"The Irving’s early history, accordingly, reflected an American elite transition from oration to print"

nor any evidence that it has been mentioned by Thorsten Veblen in his writings. Nor do I see any support for this statement:

"It was in the arena of educational tolerance, however, that the Irving excelled."

This is what I and many other editors have repeatedly tried to point out to you, so far to no avail. A conflict of interest, which is plainly evident to any neutral reader (and by your own admission), has subordinated writing an accurate, truthful, well-referenced article to the goal of raising the profile the current ILS, and with it your fraternity, to which you actually have a highly inappropriate external link to in the body of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• These can be addressed relatively easily. Thanks.--Cmagha (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How are you going address the issue of providing additional independent reliable sources which attest to significant coverage when the new sources you've added (and which I have described above) clearly do not? Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Per this analysis of the sources I have deleted the article under G4 as it clearly still does not overcome the notability/sourcing issues identified in the AFD. Please do not restore this until this has been resolved. I will leave this talk page for a day or two to allow discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I mentioned on Spartaz's talk page - Given the work that still needs to be done may I suggest that the page is re-Userfied (with the history merged) to say User:Cmagha/Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) so that Cmagha can work on the this at his own pace ? Though he should be aware that unless he can show Notability there is a very good chance his labours might be in vain. Codf1977 (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing Cmagha's sources, I've come to the conclusion that they follow wikipedia guidelines. Codf1977 as to the question of notability I can not yet comment, but will do research and see what I find on the organization Wehatweet (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion, early July 4th, following Codf1977's Motion to Delete (G4)

Copied from Spartaz User page:

Spartaz, am getting ready to move forward on Irving

We used Userfy to make substantial edits in response to the AfD. Are now ready to move back to center court. All of us are new, and therefore a little intimidated. I was thinking about moving it on to Wiki, and also posting a note on the page that asks for editor comment for new articles -- maybe that would make the conversation more pleasant. Alot of the new Wikipedians were shocked by the tone of debate last time, and we want to be more accomodating to the institutional norms. Advice? --Cmagha (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• The question really is whether the sources for this article are any better then they were when it was deleted or just more of the same? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the second heads up; have to catch the train. Will answer at home. --Cmagha (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society

Hi, This has come up on my watch list, as the closing admin for the AfD thourght I best let you know to see if it is CSD G4 Codf1977 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

One other point, if it does not meet CSD G4 then it will need to have the history from User:Cmagha merged in for licensing reasons. Codf1977 (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. I'm leaning towards a G4 if the details of the extra sources are not made available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the work that still needs to be done may I suggest that the page is re-Userfied (with the history merged) to say User:Cmagha/Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) so that Cmagha can work on the links there at his own pace ? Codf1977 (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Cmagha has now copied Talk:Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) in its entirety to his talk page without any indication that the messages were actually posted somewhere else. Sigh! Also, following this, I'm finding something quite "quacky" about this. By the way, I added yet another spurious reference here. My AGF well is rapidly running dry. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that something is a little "quacky" going on - I do think that something needs to be done with the history of this article and talk page - would it be worth doing that history merge and moving it off his user page to User:Cmagha/Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) so that it is a little clearer what is going on . Codf1977 (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• The draft article seems more than satisfactory for mainspace. I shall be taking the matter to DRV if you continue to obstruct this good faith effort. Note that G4 is only for unimproved articles and this article has been improved. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Did you read the talk page for the article I deleted? I left it up for further discussion. Have you read the sources yourself to be sure they say what they are claimed to say? Do you think that at the bare minimum before restoring an article to mainspace that you might check pager histories and talk pages for relevant information before undertaking the action and maybe consult other concerned editors? Your interpretation of G4 is incorrect. The deleted article was based on the one AFDed and that was deleted over sourcing and the sourcing is still disputed. G4 most certainly applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I read enough to satisfy myself that the article belonged back in mainspace and was working upon a DYK entry when you deleted it. This would read DYK ... that orator John Bright, President Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy, Jr. were all members of The Irving at Cornell? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• So in other words you didn't check the sources despite the concerns raised over them and are not interested in doing any due diligence on account of detailed good faith concerns raised by other editors. Hmmm. Interesting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• He also pre-empted the editor who (re)created the article. What Cmagha wrote on Colonel Warden's talk page was " I have rewritten the article AfD'd last spring, and am working with the administrator to repost. Could you review and offer suggestions?" Even just out of courtesy he should have asked Cmagha before moving it to article space. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am one of the editors who raised significant issues with the referencing. Many of the references, do not not mention the society at all, and the creator uses WP:SYN to assert that they're talking about The Irving. The article is also highly misleading. The Irving as an independent literary society open to all undergraduates at Cornell became defunct in 1887. It was then "absorbed" into Cornell's chapter of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. After that point, membership (apart from honorary membership for famous people) was not only confined to members of that chapter of that fraternity, it was "automatic" for all members. Joining the The Irving in its later reincarnation is not a matter of personal interest or choice. Of the three people in the DYK hook, I'd be curious to see the referencing for that. Neither President Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy, Jr. attended Cornell. The claim (unreferenced) in the JFK article is that because he allegedly belonged to the Phi Kappa Phi fraternity at Brown, he was therefore a a member of the Irving. I have no idea how Wilson allegedly became a member since the CMagha's draft got completely deleted along with his talk page. John Bright as far as I know never set foot at Cornell. His article merely claims (unreferenced) that The Irving regarded him as an exemplar. Voceditenore (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• One further relevant point on the sourcing in case anyone wanted to review this further. Cmagha asserted they used exclusively on-line sources to address the sourcing concerns raised in the AFD, yet when he finally listed the new sources (after being asked 4 times to do this) there were no links to these on-line sources. This made checking them impossible which I found concerning given that their accuracy and use had already been challenged and this si clearly counter to our policy of clearly citing and linking sources to allow proper fact checkin. If Cmagha wants this back the very first thing theys hould do is provide the direct links to this material to allow external review of their sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note to Spartaz: Would it be possible to restore the old version and history of User talk:Cmagha which got deleted after the move. All past communications with him from other editors, including detailed advice from me for how to bring the article up to standard which would insure it was kept, are now gone. It also had notices about previous copyright violations, etc. What a mess. Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Just doing that now. Its at User:Cmagha/The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). I'm really not sure what happened to the talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Colonel Warden moved Cmagha's talk page (see here) to Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). That page was in turn deleted by yourself. I don't know what Colonel Warden was thinking...4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The talk page was brought along with the userfied article by the move function. As the content all seemed to be about the article, this seemed fine and so I created a fresh talk page for Cmagha containing a message to him. I'm not sure what has happened since. Too many cooks ... Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
        • *shakes head* Too many cooks exactly. You should have waited. The talk page didn't need to be moved with the page. Most haste less speed Colonel. I suppose I should have put the userfied article on a subpage but it was complicated by Cmagha doinga copy paste to his user page. As already said, what a mess. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Just to clarify, I went out and found the links to the sources, which how I was able show that they did not say what they were purported to say. This was all documented on the original talk page of the reincarnated article by Cmagha Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). This now seems to be completely lost in the shuffle, although a copy of most of it appears here, which used to be Cmagha's normal talk page but is now at User talk:Cmagha/The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). I feel sorry for Cmagha. It wasn't his idea to recreate it a third time, and now his talk page is nonexistant, and can only be found on a subpage. Voceditenore (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Spartaz, see the connected citations in Section 5.2. I have a research back in Ithaca who can scan some of the others for me, but these should allow you to make your determination. --Cmagha (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Old Material

Moved above to list; --Cmagha (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

|}

To avoid misleading people, I have collapsed these and am making it clear that none of them were posted to your talk page. Nor do they reflect the latest version of the page you copied them from – Talk:Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). Voceditenore (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Punch List

Wikipedia:Notability WP:N

In general, I will sort the list of cites next time to note those that explicitly name the Irving, and those which, when combined with other sources, clearly refer to the Irving; otherwise, here are some other musings:

Re: Sari Knopp Biklen & Marylin B. Brannigan, Women and Educational Leadership (1980) - no evidence of the Irving being mentioned, let alone discussed

• Deleted reference; not essential to article. --Cmagha (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gerald Graff, Professing Literature: An Institutional History (Univ. Chicago 1987) – no mention whatsoever of the Irving Literary Society

• Clarified parenthetical; added cite to David Fellows More, The Historical Journal of the More Family (John More Association 1913) to provide Irving nexus. --Cmagha (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: College literary societies: their contribution to higher education in the United States – merely a list of college literary societies and their date of founding

• Commentor confuses goal to avoid "flash in the pan", "promotional activity" and "indiscriminate publicity" with the incidence of citation. Though this is 'merely' a list, it is an important list enumerating societies active enough to be notable for this second source's research. WP:NRVE--Cmagha (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society 65 (1869) – no mention whatsoever of the Irving

• Source is dated 1869 and the citation is in the plural, "literary societies", at which time there were only two, one of which was the Irving. Thanks for locating the citation again; was having trouble finding it a second time around.--Cmagha (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Charlotte Williams Conable, Women at Cornell: The Myth of Equal Education (1977) – no mention whatsoever

• Citation in article is correct for the prosition stated. --Cmagha (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: James Gardner Sanderson, "The Personal Equation," Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine (67:397)(January 1901) at 86 – First of all, this appears to be a work of fiction. But in any case, there is no mention of the Irving on the page given (it simply mentions "the two literary societies were everything" without giving the names, and no other mention of the word "Irving" in the page range for the story.

• Now I am understanding your difficulty with citation. Have combined another cite with this one; the Irving was one of only two literary societies at Cornell during this time period. Second cite clarifies.--Cmagha (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC) This is a non-fiction piece, but would fictional writing not have led to general notability? Could you not, for instance, have an article on Dean Moriarty? My sense is that there is an over application of the notability criteria here, and would be willing to discussion the underlying reason.--Cmagha (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Contributions to American Educational History No. 28: History of Higher Education in New York – This one does mention the Society in one line. To wit:

"The purely literary society, however, which follows the traditions of the old literary societies of the Eastern universities has never flourished at Cornell. The Philolathean, the Irving, and the Curtis have all disappeared after a few years of struggles and doubtful success."

This is hardly the construction put on this quote in the article, is it? I suspect the article has a lot of this kind of stuff, and that's why I referred to "cherry-picked quotes". You need to read WP:Synthesis of published material that advances a position. The article is full of it, as evidenced by the above.

• Am using tense to address this. We did insert "diminished" earlier to better reflect the federal report citation.--Cmagha (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: no evidence of any published source which supports the claim that

"The Irving’s early history, accordingly, reflected an American elite transition from oration to print"

• I don't know that this needs to go; the general trend for all literary societies was to see a diminished importance of oration in American education, at least through to the revival of the late 1890s, when the modern forensics movement started. But I can generalize the statement. --Cmagha (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: nor any evidence that it has been mentioned by Thorsten Veblen in his writings. Nor do I see any support for this statement:

"It was in the arena of educational tolerance, however, that the Irving excelled."

• Need to review the biography of Veblen; aside from Cornell (where he was teaching as he was writing Leisure Class) other schools may have provided him insights.

This is what I and many other editors have repeatedly tried to point out to you, so far to no avail. A conflict of interest, which is plainly evident to any neutral reader (and by your own admission), has subordinated writing an accurate, truthful, well-referenced article to the goal of raising the profile the current ILS, and with it your fraternity, to which you actually have a highly inappropriate external link to in the body of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• The external link can go; it was added at the request of Cornell1890 last spring, when he said the ILS was a fiction or hoax. Remember, this article has had more than few editors. How does an article that underscores the failed literary culture of an instition of higher learning get labeled "promotional"? Odd. --Cmagha (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• First of all, look at the edit history of this article. Apart from you, the other editors have been User:Brb72 (the self-admitted "Dean" of the current ILS), some single purpose IPs all resolving to Maryland, User:Coldplay3332 and User:Lebowski 666 (two single purpose accounts, which were registered within 10 minutes of each other, during the period in which you were blocked, and stopped editing once your block was lifted) and some outside, editors who tried to make improvements to the article, some of which were reverted immediately with no edit summary, and the remainder of which were effectively reverted by you at this point. After that point you have been the sole editor.

  Secondly, it is promotional because the article is still being used as a coatrack to publicize the Cornell chapter of Phi Kappa Psi. [1] The relationship between the real Irving Literary Society which became defunct in 1887 and the current one is deliberately obscured, as is the relationship between the ILS and your fraternity, of which the reincarnated ILS is a "wholly owned subsidiary". Virtually all of the "achievements" and "activities" attributed to the current ILS are actually those of the fraternity (aka "the Group Sponsor"), including the nonsense about its major role in Cornell's housing plan and the patently untrue and repeatedly added assertion that ordinary membership in the current ILS is open to undergraduate women at Cornell. Membership in the ILS is automatic for all members of your fraternity, and is restricted solely to members of your fraternity, apart from famous people who have been made honorary members. You have also gone around Wikipedia adding unreferenced assertions to multiple articles that various famous people were members of the ILS, including this astounding bit of synthesis. The article also states:

  "The Irving” portfolio was returned to its founders, the men of the Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity at Cornell, a college social fraternity significantly involved in Cornell literary activities."

  It is deliberately worded in such a way as to imply that your fraternity founded the ILS, when the truth is that the ILS was founded by three men who later founded the fraternity. This is why outside editors have characterized this article as promotional, and why I have pointed out to you above how a conflict of interest can, and in this case does, subordinate writing an accurate, truthful, well-referenced article, without original research or synthesis to the goal of raising the profile the current ILS, and with it your fraternity.

  Both I and DGG gave you advice on how to make this into a decent article which stands a good chance of being kept.[2], [3]. So far, you have pretty comprehensively ignored it. So be it. If this article ever makes it back into the mainspace with this kind of stuff still in it, I will simply note the inaccuracies, misleading statements, and synthesis on its talk page, and you and your organization can take the responsibility for refusing to correct it. Voceditenore (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • We can change this; the attribution of intent, however, is bad faith. I have resisted this word over the past four months, but reading the nasty comments on Spartaz page leads me to believe there is some anger in these discussions of which I do not have enought information to determine the cause. --Cmagha (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Kennedy's tapping date coincides with the annual charity event in Ithaca, the year before the Brown chapter was readmitted to the fraternity (they had discipline issues); Woodrow Wilson's tapping date coincides with a documented visit to Ithaca in pursuit of employment. My challenge has been to help you understand the documentation that this is not an undergraduate institution -- neither Kennedy nor Wilson had to "go" to Cornell; you are the one making it coincident with your projected understanding of a college fraternity. It isn't. Many of your suggestions have been exceedingly helpful; but like many editors, you seem to want to be the writer. There is a critical difference, and many professional edits have deep issues on the job when they confuse the two. Will review other suggestions for ideas. --Cmagha (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• I fully understand that this is no longer a literary society open to all undergraduates at Cornell. That has been my point from the very beginning. It is now simply an aspect of your fraternity, and resembles the original literary society in name only. Nor does it change the fact that you have added membership in the ILS and your fraternity to multiple biographies on Wikipedia with no references whatsoever to support the assertion. I don't care when or how JFK Jr. was "tapped". I care that you have provided no reliable sources whatsoever to verify this. And no, I do not want to be the writer. I want you to stop writing a deliberately misleading and inaccurate article, full of original reasearch and synthesis simply to raise the profile of your fraternity. However, since you are determined to continue on that path, so be it. It reflects poorly on your organization's image rather than enhancing it, but that's your choice. I am taking this page and anything related to this article off my watch list. Voceditenore (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading

Transferred from User Page

When trying to show notability of a subject, it is best not to use as examples other WP articles - Have a read of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists which can explain this better than me. Codf1977 (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Not using that for notability; just helps me track what is going on. This defense of an article is approaching the complexity of litigation, in terms of argument detail. What the contributors can not figure out is why the comparators are still on Wikipedia, and have not been the subject of AfDs. The sources are the defense, though; you are right there. --Cmagha (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to list them for AfD yourself. Codf1977 (talk)

• • For professional reasons, I wouldn't -- even before I knew what an "Inclusionist" was, I was apparently an "Inclusionist". I don't see the need to game theory the resource, as capacity is almost limitless. And quality, for the most part, is evident to a discerning reader. For the most part; there are some exceptions. Part of the new technology paradigm is the loss of the elite's ability to protect the reader/viewer/user from the need to be a saavy consumer. It is the world we live in, post 1993. Get used to it. --Cmagha (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)