Talk:Golden Key International Honour Society

message: This was in the article:
New entry: I am the President of a chapter of Golden Key International Honour Society at a major university, and given the controversy listed wanted to clarify how a portion of the membership dues are used.  
I took it out 98.77.104.249 (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: removed personal narrative

message: That Ronald Reagan is listed as having been in this honour society considering the fact that reagan was 66 years old in 1977, the supposed founding date of this 'non-profit' organisation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.204.253 (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious...

message: I moved these from the main article because they took up 3/4 of the first page.  That's ridiculous.  Cburnett 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not you think it's ridiculous is not the point.  The tags are put in the article to facilitate discussion of how to remove them on the talk page.  They are not meant to be put in an article's talk page, therefore, I have replaced them (minus one redundant one). --Neurophyre(talk) 07:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: After reviewing the article I removed the  tag (there are cites now) and the redundant  tag. --Neurophyre(talk) 07:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From article

message: From a objective critique standpoint, I feel this article must clarify the term "honorary members" - how does GK create honorary members and how does the selected person accept honorary membership?
I also feel that a reference needs to be presented supporting the statement "most members of Golden Key's board are university professors and presidents." And besides, the word 'most' should not be used as it is vague - how bout a percentage here?
--CmdrGuard 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honorary Members are outstanding citizens/professors who are invited to join by the staff of a University's Golden Key chapter.  The Honorary member can either accept that invitation and become involved with the organization.
Bebedebroadway 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff at the top

message: I placed the cleanup and NPOV tags at the top of the article.  I think most of us can agree that this article is in horrible shape and is being sporatically edited and routinely gutted (including the talk page!), not to mention being copmpletely messed up structurally.  There seems to be a lot of agendas that are really wreaking havoc on this article, so I hopefully we can start from scratch and rebuild this into a decent encyclopedic entry. - Masonpatriot 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved them to the talk page because they were taking up 3/4 of the first page.  It's ridiculous to have that many boxes.  Cburnett 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I reverted Cburnett's move, then removed the cite and POV tags from the top, because cites have been added and the only real POV dispute (currently) is in the Controversy section. --Neurophyre(talk) 07:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assert that there are several unsourced statements in the introduction that could be considered biased. The article really does seem, as Masonpatriot notes, to be a battleground between two extreme viewpoints, and simply combining two polemics doesn't satisfy NPOV or make for a decent and readable article. I'm therefore putting the tags back at the top, as per standard Wikipedia practice. --William Ager 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: For those here who have not had much experience with Wikipedia, it is important to note that talk pages are for discussion of the article and potential improvements, not discussion of the subject of the article. Personal accounts of experiences with the society won't find an interested audience here, and would be more effective if posted somewhere else. --William Ager 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This talk page

message: Anyone got a list of well known regular (not honorary) members? In all the material that I've seen, Golden Key touts the list of Honorary members, but doesn't list famous members who joined as college students. I can't say it's a deliberate omission, but it does leave me curious. -- 16:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well Known *Regular* Members? 

message: That honorary members section is junk. 75.157.222.39 (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, there are sources that support Mr. T's community service, even if he isn't exactly known for that line of work. In any case, the revised list on the GK website no longer includes Mr. T. --Scottie_theNerd 17:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. T, a 'philanthropist'? 

message: I noticed that this page read like an advert for the organization.  I have restored some semblance of "journalism" to it today using previously submitted information.
History shows their PR dept can't keep their hands off it.  
Feel free to restore missing information and citations. Shamwatch (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Relations people at it again 

message: Per WP:SELFPUB in WP:V, sources on a subject published by the subject themselves cannot be used as the primary basis for an article. This article fails that criterion heavily, being based almost entirely on the website of the subject. This also means that it currently fails notability guidelines, and if proper and reliable sources are not found, the article is in danger of being deleted. --William Ager (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree strongly and have replaced your edit instead with the one source template at the top of the page. Mystere (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: There is ample discussion whether Golden Key exists only to serve and honor its members, so I propose a "Controversy" section added. There is a 2005 article in Peak, Simon Fraser University's newspaper, in which issues are raised regarding Golden Key. 
In addition, the 16 May 2009 version of this article included reliable sources arguing that Golden Key is a questionable honor society. Unfortunately they were not presented from NPOV and removed with the 24 May 2009 edit.
I would appreciate if others could assist in finding reliable sources supporting and arguing against Golden Key as an honor society. Mystere (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a "Controversy" Section 

message: I am a student in the US who has of course received information from Golden Key as have many others. I have read through all the drama on this talk page and see that some people have good points etc and others are just making personal attacks. I don't have a dog in this fight if that saying can apply here, but I am ofc someone who got the info from them so I am interested in learning about the nature of this society. Here is my assessment as of February 18, 2011.
The article has a feel to me that someone from the society itself has indeed been keeping watch over it even in the Controversy section. I am wondering about this bit where they talk about prestige. I and most people I know had never heard of this society. Truth be told, Phi Beta Kappa is really the only prestigious one as far as I know. I mean just being in it people will say "Oh my he was in Phi Beta Kappa." I don't know what being in PBK gets you on a job interview, but you do impress people and your girl (or guy, whichever) as most people (at least in the United States) know of it. Anyway, you need to actually have it fit some criteria for being prestigious I guess and maybe determine what actual prestige it grants (good luck with that). I don't feel comfortable using this article for information I can use in trying to decide how I should think of this society.
I think that given the fact that so many people get the emails and letters having the right and correct info here is crucial. It should certainly not be from the perspective of this society. People need to know A, what it actually gets members as told from a reliable third party-perspective. B, a reliable third-party assessment of the practices of the organisation that seem to be in question.
I think one of those Wiki-admins should take a look at this article as it is somewhat important in my opinion. People actually do read wiki when they want to get information on something quickly and having the right info here will help someone to better decide. If it is a shady operation as some people say then it would maybe help them avoid getting rooked. 
P.S. If you use personal attacks or w/e in your reply don't expect me to take your reply seriously, because trust me, I won't. TheArchaeologist (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had students who definitely were not in the top 15% get invitations, but I see that there has been some historical activity at KU, where I am a faculty member.  I guess the real question is whether or not the invitations are really based on the top 15% criteria.  This could only be done if there is a relationship with the university that passes the names to Golden Key based on academic standards.  I'm suspicious based on the emails my students have told me about, but will see if I can find out.  Jpgs (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you Archaeologist, and most of the article is clearly written by the staff of Golden Key. Even the language of the opening follows the same patterns and construction of Golden Key's own website, I'm going to go on a limb and say the same people wrote both.  And the very least it should be considered a massive problem that the ONLY source for what Golden Key does and how much it pays out in scholarships or what activities it's involved in is Golden Key's website.  Honestly, even if some Wiki editors want to jump on me for what I am saying here, isn't it a problem that the only source is the website?  How can that possibly be considered a "neutral source" of anything other than what the organization claims it does?  It should read that "Golden Key claims to pay out $1,000,000 in scholarships" because I see no substantiation of that.  An outside source, cited later in the article, examined their IRS records and in fact GK pays out more like 250,000 in scholarships.  The only part of the article that sounds remotely not like a puff piece of course has a POV label slapped on it.  Obviously editors like  Bebedebroadway are paid employees.  I am sure I'll get someone from Wikipedia telling me naughty naughty for attacks against other editors, but come on, let's cut the nonsense here, clearly anyone can see that  Bebedebroadway has an extreme personal bias in favor of this organization and one would have to be really, really naive to believe that bias isn't rooted in a monetary motivation.  GK wants their membership fees from unsuspecting doops and they don't want people they send letters to to come here (where everyone comes to read about subjects now) and see the organization for what it really is so they get employees to periodically troll this article.  That much is obvious.  With all of that said I will say I don't think it's an actual scam, they probably do payout SOME scholarship money, but from any neutral source I can find it is clear that they don't pay out anywhere near what they claim they do, their scholarships are extremely limited and membership is not based on academic achievement, but rather on whatever sucker is willing to pay $80.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.202.171 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the love of all that is holy can someone neutral deal with this article? 

message: How about just editing the article to make if more factual and leave out all the opinions (both pro and con)?
I realise that uni students tend to get all hot and bothered about all sorts of things, but there seems to be a whole lot of emotional baggage attached to this article and the talk page.
The 'controversy' section seems to be based only on a couple of op-ed pieces, and seems to be an unusually large part of a wiki entry, especially as it appears to relate to past-history more than current finances. If there are some hard financial facts available (eg. last years total new members, total membership fees collected, total scholarship value allocated etc.) they should be included in the article with appropriate referencing. But it seems as if hard data aren't available on this, so it falls into the realm of speculation, which shouldn't be included in a wiki article. Some stats about numbers of chapters and members in each country and so forth would be nice too.
From the comments in this talk page, a lot of the ill-will towards GK appears to be resentment that a) you don't get much tangible benefit for the membership fee, and/or b) some people involved in the organisation are getting paid substantial amounts. Neither of these issues are unique to GK - I never got my money's worth from Mensa, APESMA, IEEE, IEAust, RACI, RAS and the many other professional and other societies and organisations I've joined over the years. But that's because I don't tend to get myself involved and "take advantage" or what these organisations have to offer. I don't expect GK to be any different (I just joined last week - simply because it seemed like a cute idea and I fancy having another pin to tack onto my jacket while I'm in the mood. It's not fair to label an association a "scam" just because it doesn't offer (to some members) great value-for-money.
ps. Regarding the comments about it being cheaper to just put a note on your CV that you were "offered" GK membership, or simply stating that you were in the "top 15%" of students academically, are incorrect. Such notations on a CV are unsubstantiated, while a GK membership listed on your CV (preferably with a member no.) is (in theory) verifiable - a prospective employer could check with CK that the applicant is indeed a GK member. And, at least in my case, the invite letter (on behalf of GK) came direct from my uni, with a cover letter from the uni vice-chancellor which specifically mentions "academic achievement qualifies you for membership". The GK invite came the same week as my "Letter of Commendation" from the uni (based on my GPA for the previous calendar year), so I infer that the GK mailing list is generated by the uni as part of their annual processing of the previous calendar year's results.
Also, the comment that you can just attach your uni transcript to your CV to show that you were in the "top 15%" is also not really correct - unless an employer chooses to wade through the details of uni policy of grade distribution and GPA calculation, a uni transcript doesn't easily covey if you were in the top 5% or 25% or whatever. (At least none of the uni transcripts I have report a student ranking).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.97.132 (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more facts and a neutral view-point would be nice 

message: An image used in this article, File:Golden Key Honor Society Key.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests 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) 17:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Golden Key Honor Society Key.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: Should discussions of a Controversy section be confined to the talk page? This revision seems to include such a discussion in the article itself. Is this appropriate? ak5791Talk 16:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy section has been removed" 

message: While comparing previous versions, I noticed several from user AHouska. As it happens, there is an Ashlyn Houska listed as Director of Operations on the organization's website as of today (3 January 2013). The most egregious changes were on the Funding section, which was reversed later by others, and removal of the Controversy section. See edits on 7 Sept 2012, 5 Sept 2012.  See side by side Funding section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Key_International_Honour_Society&diff=prev&oldid=510963000
User AHouska has made other changes back through 2010. 
User AHouska also removed the Controversy section and replaced it with "Fund Distribution." See side by side: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Key_International_Honour_Society&diff=prev&oldid=510963000
Shamwatch (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Key staff apparently continuing track record of altering page 

message: In reading through the Fund Distribution section, I see no reason for an NPOV tag.  Unless someone can provide a meaningful reason within one week, I'm going to remove it.--TDJankins (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing the NPOV tag on the Fund Distribution section as it lacks foundation.  If someone feels this section needs additional content to balance out the point of view, then by all means add it, but an NPOV tag is a serious thing and does not serve as an alternative to adding content.  Without question this section could use improvement in the forms of clearer writing and additional citation.--TDJankins (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Any reason for an NPOV tag on Fund Distribution?

message: Does anyone have information one way or another as to whether or not those receiving Honorary Membership in Golden Key have to be asked if they accept it?Naraht (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All the puff pieces I am seeing are about people accepting them at some sort of ceremony and, sometimes, being the keynote speaker. Some don't distinguish between membership and honorary membership; Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, Ronald Reagan, Elizabeth Dole, and Bill Cosby are all routinely named as honorary members in addition to those already listed (e.g., , ). All of the reports I am seeing seem to have guilelessly accepted the promotional materials of the society itself; I see no indication these claims have ever been independently verified, but I guess there's not really much reason to think the society would be blatantly lying about the membership of public figures. Chubbles (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For the ones where they accepted at the ceremony, I'm fine with including, but for the rest, the secondary sources aren't much better than the primary. :(Naraht (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorary Membership 

message: There are also articles in the Portuguese Wikipedia and the Chinese (see the Languages to the left side of the article). The Portuguese is pretty vanilla, but it looks like the Chinese was translated at a point when the article was pretty NPOV. Not sure how much these can be dealt with other than with a native speaker. (Might be a bit in the Chinese we can simply chop).Naraht (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Languages

message: A user has recently begun making sweeping changes to this article. That user claims no conflict of interest on the user talk page, which I will assume is true (i.e., the user does not work for Golden Key and is not a member). :User:Fdrlwi, could you please describe the nature of the changes you are making? Chubbles (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to add positive (factual, neutrally worded) items to the page, so long as they are reliably sourced - and if you are also the anonymous editor who added a reference from the Georgia Center for Nonprofits, I think that would be a reasonable citation from which to begin adding to the page. However, the society has had significant negative (factual) press coverage, including regarding its finances and recruitment tactics. I added much of this sourcing, and attempted to make it as neutrally worded as possible. If we remove those, it fails to robustly tell the story of Golden Key as a historical entity. The purpose of this page is not to act as a promotional outlet for Golden Key nor to burnish its reputation; it is to give an accurate account of it using sources from the historical record. Your edits removed about ten of those sources. I think a better way to go about this would be to start with the article as it was before your removals, and then add to it the factual information you've found in the GCN article. If there are changes needed to the wording to make passages more neutral, we can discuss here as well. Chubbles (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Chubbles. Historical criticism and issues regarding the founder of the organization do have a place. Also, secondary sources (what others have written about Golden Key) are preferred to primary sources (what Golden Key has written about itself.Naraht (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I want to work with you, Frdlwi, so here's what I've done. I've restored the version as it was before your arrival, and included some (but not all) of the additions you made. I put the entire Criticism section back since this was well-sourced and since it is important to note that the organization has been subject to extensive scrutiny in the press. I kept the minor wording change you made in the introduction. Most of your edits were to the "membership and activities" section. I restored the old version of this section, then included information about international offices, the number of chapters, recent volunteerism efforts, and awards - all of which I sourced to the GCN article. I also kept a sentence noting that it is a registered 501(c)(3) and that it is currently rated A+ by Atlanta's BBB. There were some additions you made that I did not include. I did not keep the part about tax auditing, since this really needs independent sourcing (the organization's own webpage is too self-promotional for it to be a good source for this). I didn't keep the paragraph about the board of directors, though this is something that might be a good addition if it can be sourced to a news article or journalistic source. I also didn't keep the part about the size of scholarships distributed - their scholarship awards have been one of the major aspects of their operation that have received criticism, so I'm leery about including dollar amounts that don't come from rigorous external accounting (and the GCN piece seems like it may be relying on Golden Key's own reports). Lastly, I didn't keep the laundry list of membership societies. Most of these aren't really noteworthy enough to be included; if we can find a reliable source substantiating that Golden Key maintains membership in the National Collegiate Honors Council, that'd be a nice counterpoint to the ACHS paragraph. Let's talk here if you'd like to see further changes made. Chubbles (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fdrlwi, I see you have undone all my changes again without speaking here. You noted in an edit summary that the information you have repeatedly removed is outdated; however, as I have noted above, this is not a page that exists solely to relate current information; it is also a place to relate the society's history, which is decidedly checkered. You may be impressed with the society as a grandfather, but that does not give you leeway to unilaterally remove all this information, an action inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, reliable sourcing, and refraining from edit warring. Can you please reply here with further explanation of the need for your edits? Chubbles (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Fdrlwi, I see you have continued editing without responding to my last message. I hope you have realized by now that editing without discussion is unproductive; this will be the case in the future as it has been in the past. Chubbles (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

text: If there were statues to tear down on Wikipedia because they hurt people's feelings, such actions would be inconsistent with Wikipedia's mission. We do not remove content about public figures and institutions from articles because it makes people feel bad or is an impediment to their moving forward, as a matter of policy. If you want to improve the article for the sake of the institution's future, the best thing you could do is find recent news coverage of Golden Key that discusses their more recent history and attempts to build a better organization out of their past struggles. Since your recent edits, and the justification you give here, are fairly plainly in contravention of the guidelines at WP:PROMO, it is likely that I or another interested editor will revert them soon. Chubbles (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Fdrlwi, I encourage you to take a look at that guideline - WP:PROMO, especially #5 in that section - to see why the edits you've made and the justification you've given here are fundamentally incompatible with the Wikipedia project. If you believe the article as it stood before your edits was too negative, we can talk about possible changes here in this forum, but please talk before editing. Blanking out the criticism section entirely is borderline vandalism, since the information is not irrelevant, as you have alleged. I look forward to talking with you here about needed changes before further edits are made to the article space. Chubbles (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Fdrlwi, your most recent revert of Duffbeerforme, without comment (other than "outdated material", which I have at length explained is not a valid reason to wholesale rewrite the article), indicates that you are editwarring, and that you may not be here to write an encyclopedia. Your edits are not constructive, and I am far from the only person who has noticed it. I will revert your changes and ask you once more to discuss here before making further changes to the page. If you continue unilaterally restoring the promotional rewrite, I will have no choice but to pursue administrative action. Chubbles (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Fdrlwi appears to have created a new account for the sole benefit of editing this page. User:Be347863 is making precisely the same edits as User:Fdrlwi and the account creation is very recent. This will be your only warning, if another account makes the same edits, I will have to assume that they are sockpuppets and open a CheckUser investigation. Also, on a side note, if the section says history, I don't think "updating it for up-to-date information" exists. Dark-World25 (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Great, let's talk. So, administrators are like "janitors" here; they clean up and moderate things using tools granted to them after a long record of responsible editing. You can read about it at WP:ADMIN. We decide what a page must say according to a few rules; pages need to include verifiable, reliably sourced, and neutral information. I believe that the past has bearing on today, and Wikipedians in general hew to this stance; the history of notable things is as important to explaining them as is describing their current state. A "sockpuppet" is a secondary account that people sometimes use to game Wikipedia systems, in order to pretend that they have more support than they actually do. As you can see from their own editing histories (which are public), all of the editors involved in this discussion have been around a long time and edit independently, except you (who started only a few days ago and have edited only one page) and Be347863 (who did nothing but restore your changes). Thus the suspicion - but it may be pure accident, and no one has opened any official proceedings about it yet. If you believe I am edit-warring, you will see that I have spent a great deal of time trying to explain my reasoning to you here before acting, after which time you typically act and then (sometimes) talk. Your strategy is the exact opposite of the way Wikipedians recommend editing when there is a dispute over content (please see WP:BRD). That's a lot to take in, but you are moving very quickly here; perhaps you may want to take some time to familiarize yourself with established Wikipedia guidelines and policies before continuing to edit this page. Chubbles (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Fdrlwi, I believe I have directly and meticulously attempted to answer to your concerns here, point by point. Will you pay me the same courtesy and continue the dialogue? Chubbles (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Can someone please explain why User:Duffbeerforme removed a comment that I made about the Better Business Bureau's rating of Golden Key and sourced it with the location of where they have it on their page.  What is a reliable source if not from them and how am I suppose to put positive things on the page if everyone keeps removing them?  If this simple thing can't be added then what exactly can be?  This was a positive comment about the organization. Fdrlwi
:I guess there might be some question as to whether a BBB rating constitutes promotional material, but they're independent auditors, in my understanding. Anyone know if there's been a general discussion about the appropriateness of BBB ratings in articles? If we're going to include this information, sourcing it from BBB's own site seems just as good as from a third-party site, as far as I'm concerned; the BBB site would be more regularly updated, anyway - but there might be further question as to whether, if no third-party source has mentioned the rating, it's a noteworthy enough distinction to mention at all. Duffbeerforme, any further thoughts? Chubbles (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia should reflect what has been covered in independent reliable sources. Not cherry picked primary sourced factoids selected by promoters of organisations. What makes this rating at this time that significant? It wasn't reported on by the news or anyone. Wikipedia is not a current business listing. . duffbeerforme (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I think you got an explanation already. Duffbeerforme already responded to you immediately above this. You can debate with him on the merits of his reasoning, if you want...or you could go and find independent media coverage of Golden Key to improve the article. Chubbles (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanations - I'm really trying 

message: First of all, to be fair, the reference on John Holmes was horrible. The reference says that a student who lived across the hall who didn't want to be identified identified him as Golden Key. If Ahouska had challenged the reference, I would have been fine with the removal.
I would accept replacement of the info with what is in https://www.goldenkey.org/about-us/overview/ : Honoraries include Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel and Bill Clinton.Naraht (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't defend the third-hand source further. However, I think taking it directly from Golden Key's website is inevitably going to suffer from PROMO and SELFPUB problems; they are only going to selectively list members that burnish their legacy. Furthermore, they treat people who joined on account of their scholarship and people they gave honorary awards to the same way, which, I think, further calls into question the reliability of the primary source of their own website. What is the function of a member list - if it is only a select few of the most famous, it's rather arbitrarily promotional, and if it is a comprehensive list, we'd have WP:NOTDIR problems, given that it could grow to thousands of notable people. We could build a memberlist from scratch using only third-party sources (I think I removed one decent external source), but even those are probably sourced from Golden Key's own unreliable records. So I'm suspicious of the value of such a list at all. Chubbles (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members List