Talk:University Philosophical Society

message: ===January to August 2005===
Something needs to be said about the different incarnations of the society, and why it has two foundation dates in the College Calendar. I might add a NPOV tag if no one with authorative information does that. User:Henry Williams 11 Jan, 2005, 11:15 (UTC)
I just made a small change, correcting the name of the 1731 society. I have noticed that some more significant changes have been made in the last few days, but I think that the current version is fair and accurate, and I don't think that any further changes should be made without some form of justification being given in the discussion section.
Certainly the inflated age should not be reentered until some evidence can be given of a connection between the Dublin Philosophical Society and the DSIHMOUA/DS/RDS, and also between these societies and the University Philosophical Society of 1843 to the present. -Toropets 17:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Starting Date

message: Something needs to be said about the different incarnations of the society, and why it has two foundation dates in the College Calendar. I might add a NPOV tag if no one with authorative information does that. User:Henry Williams 11 Jan, 2005, 11:15 (UTC)
I just made a small change, correcting the name of the 1731 society. I have noticed that some more significant changes have been made in the last few days, but I think that the current version is fair and accurate, and I don't think that any further changes should be made without some form of justification being given in the discussion section.
Certainly the inflated age should not be reentered until some evidence can be given of a connection between the Dublin Philosophical Society and the DSIHMOUA/DS/RDS, and also between these societies and the University Philosophical Society of 1843 to the present. -Toropets 17:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: January to August 2005

message: 1:  Delete the Oscar Wilde references. As any Trinity historians worth their salt know, Wilde didn't care one iota about the traditional societies. The most that could be said about a Wilde-Phil link is his relationship with Mahaffy, which should be on the Mahaffy or Wilde page, if it deserves mention at all.
2:  Controversial one here:  The society's claim to be dated from 1684 should be at the heading of the page. Otherwise the claim that it is the oldest society of its kind loses context. It is a salient issue, so it should be there, as it has been in all the edits previously - even the most biased ones mention that it claims to be dated from way back. I think evidence for or against should be put in the History section.
Oh, and obviously signing my comments would be a Good Thing. Article6 19:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: ===January 2006===
The second paragraph is now about the Dublin Philosophical Society (1863~1708). There is a reasonable and factual comment that it was quite different from the society that currently exists, but this was altered. If anyone believes that it is inaccurate to state that "that society was very different, not being an undergraduate society or connected in any substantial way with Trinity College" he or she should make their case, but with evidence. It's all very well to pretend within College that a society is older than it is, but Wikipedia is meant to be factual and unbiased. William Quill 11:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Dublin Philosophical Society 

message: The second paragraph is now about the Dublin Philosophical Society (1863~1708). There is a reasonable and factual comment that it was quite different from the society that currently exists, but this was altered. If anyone believes that it is inaccurate to state that "that society was very different, not being an undergraduate society or connected in any substantial way with Trinity College" he or she should make their case, but with evidence. It's all very well to pretend within College that a society is older than it is, but Wikipedia is meant to be factual and unbiased. William Quill 11:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: January 2006

message: Justification or explanation should be given for the fact that the article has been rewritten considerably and the warnings removed.
That was James apparently. 1) Signed comments are helpful on a confusing page like this. 2) If there's a clearly silly edit, revert it. I just did. Article6 20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -Bogger (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: anyone wanna pimp this
The Society can award an Honourary Patronage to Public figures on the basis of excellence or fame
...
This award dates back to ?? and has been awarded to David Hasselhoff in 2006 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2007, amongst others
Bogger (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Honourary Patrons

message: The following was removed by 86.41.44.192
:In October 2007 the President was on the Gerry Ryan Show, to explain a seemingly anti-semitic joke in the society's annual publication.
Is the above, unnoteworty, irrelevent, or untrue? Bogger (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand it to be true. Ktlynch (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Such claims should be sourced - the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verification - see WP:VERIFY.Autarch (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant that half ironically, I meant to put a comment on its note-wothiness, I think it went in the edit summary instead. I believe it was sourced in the article two years ago when it appeared. Ktlynch (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007 Controversy

message: The following appears in the section about 1900s history: Recent years saw the presidency of Niall Lenihan, son of then-Tánaiste Brian Lenihan, remembered as a defender of the Phil's rights of association and free speech[who?] during the visit of discredited historian David Irving. This is clearly POV and would be better written as a description of events, probably in the relevant paragraph in the Controversies section. A description of events involving Niall Lenihan would be ideal, as per WP:MORALIZE. Autarch (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: POV sentence about Niall Lenihan

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Elbaradei.png Nominated for Deletion

message: Thom's directory of Ireland states that the society was formed in 1842. Unless there's a reference to dispute that, that's the date we should use. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what the reference says. The previous date is the founding date of a different society. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

text: 1683 is not what the reference says.46.7.236.155 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The reference states that the organisation was founded in 1842. If you have a reference to a reliable source that says otherwise, feel free to add it. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

text: If you have a reference to a reliable source that says that the University Philosophical Society was founded in 1683, please feel free to add it. The only reliable source I have been able to find gives a foundation date of 1842, and so that is what I am working with in the article. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Do you have a reliable source for any of this?46.7.236.155 (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Founding date

message: An issue has arisen concerning the foundation date and reformation date of this society. Please carefully read both University Philosophical Society as well as Dublin Philosophical Society page, and all comments above. Thank you for contributing. KountKurly (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Foundation Date and Reformation Date

message: There has recently been a string of vandalism and section blanking, please by all means if you witness this, revert the changes. Do NOT start Edit Wars, which I have witnessed over the last hour, If you want to revert vandalism, do it by all means, but remember to warn the vandal, If vandalism is persistent, request Administrator Intervention. Thanks The Grand Cenobite (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The "section blanking" was the removal of original research which had been inserted in place of cited material. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism, Blanking, and Edit War 

message: Request that current page be reverted back to 21:13, 14 May 2013‎ Adamseline (22,279 bytes) (+860)‎, as it is the truer representation of the society. Evidence to this can be found on the Dublin Philosophical Society and it's references, aswell as on this page, where it has been discussed at length.
Further evidence can be found: 
*http://www.trinitysocieties.ie/society/80/philosophical-society-tcd-phil (the offical Society Commitee website)
*http://www.tcd.ie/orientation/jargon-buster/ (Trinity Jargon Buster, just look for "The Philosophical Society. One of Trinity’s two ancient debating societies, along with the Hist, and reputedly the oldest student society in the world. Has its home in the GMB (ground floor), and has nothing to do with philosophy."
*http://www.tcd.ie/provost/addresses/2012-05-18-Admissionsconference.php (Provost of Trinity College's speech, 18th May 2013. search for "Philosophical Society")
*http://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/2012/03/pelosi-accepts-award-from-university-philosophical-society-of-trinity-college-dublin-on-official-vis.shtml (speech from Nancy Pelosi in March 2013, referencing how old the society is "The Phil, the world’s oldest debating society, bestowed the award on Leader Pelosi at the inaugural meeting of their 327th session"
*http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2005/0103/harr/harrop_dublin.html
*http://www.nme.com/news/the-white-stripes/47903 (search for "oldest")
*http://www.rte.ie/ten/2006/1122/pacinoa.html (Irish News Broadcaster, search for "oldest")
*http://www.rafabenitez.com/web/index.php?act=mostrarContenidos&idioma=in&co=1438 (see bottom of page, or search "oldest")
Hopefully after considering these you will see which is the truer representation.
Thanks,
KountKurly (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources from TCD itself are not third party sources. Do any of those references say that the University Philosophical Society was founded in 1683? 46.7.236.155 (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Sources from TCD itself should be admissible insofar as the Phil has an autonomous existence and clearly delineated identity separate from its statutes, as demonstrated by its existence prior to its incorporation as a College body. The choice of those contributors here to cite 1842 as the founding date attests this as it was not incorporated in Trinity until years after. In any event that criticism is unmerited in light of the sources here pointed out by KountKurly, a number of which are not from TCD itself. Furthermore, the fact that they are labelling the sessions in these sources shows the age. It is a simple matter of of subtracting 320 from 2005.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamseline (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do any of the sources say that the University Philosophical Society was founded in 1683? 46.7.236.155 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting ridiculous. The sources recognise the sessional date and the age claim. Taken together they represent a very clear demonstration of the age. Sorry they did not spell it out so clearly as to fit the criteria of every passing troll. These sources are recognitions of age. They are accompanied by confirmation from the statutory bodies that oversee the affairs of the society. There is little more that can be done, save asking people who report on the society's goings-on in newspapers to explicitly comment on the founding date, instead of just stating how many years the society has existed (Adamseline (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently leaning towards the article being edit protected, though some new editors do a really good job improving the article, then we have the occasional I.P troll. I think this page should be indefinetly semi-protected instead of a permanent protection. The Grand Cenobite (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a troll. Do not call me one. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I take it then that the request to reinstate the 1683 foundation date, 1842 restoration date and 17th Century section has been refused? Are the references not good enough? (sorry, just looking for clarification) KountKurly (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

text: That is not a third party source. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Oppose. No reliable source has been given that shows a founding date of 1683. KountKurly is a  SPA attempting to use wikipedia as a  soapbox to promote the society. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Support. Several sources have been given. The Provost of the College acknowledges the date. The US government acknoweldged the age, and the reference to sessional numbers by several third-party sources recognize the age. No one is using this as a promotion. The 1683 age has stood on the page for years. KountKurly has actually given valuable clarification as to the connection between the DPS and the UPS. (Adamseline (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Support. Reason; sources given by User:KountKurly are very reliable, there has also been recent disputes by an I.P on the topic, that I.P (User talk:46.7.236.155) has been removing reverences. Also any I.P can be traced an geolocated on Wikipedia, all it takes is to be a confirmed user. I will check to see if this user has been sock puppeting, for more information regarding sockpuppets see WP:SOCK The Grand Cenobite (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not been removing references, I have been restoring the referenced foundation date that KountKurly has been insistent on removing. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The provost of the college is not a third party source. He is the senior patron of the society, and therefore is representing the society's position rather than being objective. The US goverment did not acknowledge the age, Nancy Pelosi did in a personal press release. Having been given an award by the society, she presumably bought their version of events rather than researching the age of the society herself. Just because the UPS claim to be a revival of the DPS doesn't make it so. Many organisations  claim to be restorations of the knights templar, but that doesn't make it so.  I also find it suspect that another SPA that has lain dormant for three months suddenly became active again to join the fray, and that yet another SPA was created to get involved. I smell sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry at the very least. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the Provost is the most senior staff member within Trinity College. To claim he is unreliable or that this is a case of favouritsim  is more that a bit silly. The link is clear is MORE than clear, the references are MORE than clear. Secondly, if you ask people not to call you a troll, I would prefer if you didn't call me a Sock, as I'm not. Admin. can trace IP's if they wish, actually in fact I encourage it. I have nothing to hide (although funnily enough the laptop I'm currently using has a blocked IP, as it was used repeated to refute the position I'm currently arguing with regard to this society), and really want this petty name calling cleared up.KountKurly (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What's silly about saying that the senior patron of the society would be biased towards representing the society's version of events when making a speech in front of the society? The reference is more than clear: University Philosophical Society: Founded, November 1842, connected to college February 1845. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 14 May 2013 

message: Is this section just a WP:Laundry list and should it be removed? It seems like any notable speaker becomes a patron, surely if we are to list them all then we could have a very extensive list, even more so if we did this for Cambridge Union Society and the Oxford Union. I propose we get rid of this, they have no other link than having spoken Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patrons 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on University Philosophical Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519173408/http://http/ to http://www.http/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The paragraph on Irving needs references - this might be suitable, though it gives the year as 1989. Also, the article refers to "then–Holocaust denier David Irving" - as far as I know Irving still is a denier. Certainly he was as recently as the case Irving v Penguin Books Ltd. Autarch (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section - David Irving 

message: It strikes me that this might be worth re-discussing in light of the College Historical Society's recognition as the oldest student society in the world.
Furthermore, I think it would be good to find a way to integrate the archival evidence that the Phil backdating its founding to the 1680s is a relatively recent phenomenon. The archives of Trinity News show the Phil self-describing as holding a "centenary" in 1953 and having its "116th session" in 1969. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founding date issue