Talk:Ancient and Honorable Order of Turtles

message: Shouldn't there be answers for the joke questions?  I myself don't know the answers, and feel that the humor is not fully explained if the answers aren't explained.  --Brandon Dilbeck 21:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the answers should NOT be provided.  Why give easy access of membership to such an illustrious organization?  And why reveal the secrets of the club?  Those who wish to become turtles, can research the answers. Stepp-Wulf 01:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps it would be more appropriate to create questions based on the specific type of humor to illustrate the type of humor without revealing the club's secret questions.  I just think that readers, such as myself, shouldn't be kept in the dark about such things.  --Brandon Dilbeck 02:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was joking.  Anyway, I remember reading most if not all of these questions in a magazine and they provided the answers, so Wikipedia wouldn't be the first to reveal this to a mass public. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 09:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if anyone was really curious anyway, they could just look in the article's history.  --Brandon Dilbeck 17:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I feel that's odd reasoning.  Articles are for public consumption- people read our articles, but we don't ask them to look into the history.  Why should they have to, when articles themselves are meant to inform (and not to tease, with hints?) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, keep the answer and the password for that matter off the page. When I’m initiating new members it’s frustrating when they’ve already looked up the answers. I disagree with refinishingtouch@aol.com about the “unspoken rules of the club” being that “no membership dues or money is to be made in the name of the Turtles” some groups are required by their Universities to charge a membership fee. Since each branch is basically independent some revenue is required based on their activities and the sophistication of their ceremonies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clash24 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answers 

message: Can we remove the notability flag as notability seems to have been established in the deletion discussion.
Ratwerks (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, our reliable sourcing policy might be a concern. I'm not a Mason nor am I particularly interested in their history (except as far as entertaining conspiracy theories go) so I couldn't vouch for the factual accuracy of that Masonic museum, but it seems fairly legit. The other sources are pretty dubious.John Nevard (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability still in question? 

message: Please excuse my annon edits.  It has been some time since I logged in to WP as "Maquis 10of9" and I am not certain I could remember my PW.  
Anyway, today I made a reasonable attempt at adding citations albeit many of the facts of the article are found within the external links already.  Hopefully I have done so in a way that is unobtrusive to the body of the article, formatting wise.  I removed the coding triggering the citation needed tags in good faith.  
FWIW, I haven't contributed to WP in some time after becoming disillusioned with some of the rediculous extremes WP's "watchdog" contributors take when determining "notability".  IMO the worth of WP is diminished because of the extremes, limiting worthwhile articles and references important to popluar culture and history.  But I digress.  Please excuse the soapbox and have a wiki day.  205.173.35.130 (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today I removed the Needs Citations coding... 

message: The credibility of this article seems very much in doubt.  One source is cited for half of the citations, there don't appear to be any print citations, and the tone of the entire article seems to be written as if the subject is a joke. Darthveda (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged the article as disputed/ref improve.  Most of the "evidence" for its existence relies on a single source, and the interpretation of a chat between astronauts. Darthveda (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems like this group could feasibly exist, but there is almost no information outside of personal web pages to verify its existence.  The outlandish nature of some of the information, initiation rights, etc. make it seem rather dubious.  I really want to see some concrete evidence for its existence. Darthveda (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Why does this credibility question keep coming up? It seems to have already been discussed and accepted as credible. The Ancient Order of Turtles is in fact an old joke organization; the organization itself is a lampoon of various other clubs, fraterntities, brotherhoods and whathaveyou. That does not (or at least should not) call the credibility of the article in to question. My father (himself too young to have been in WWII) explained "Are You a Turtle?" to me in the sixties. Because something is largely an oral tradition does not mean it is not real, does it? As before I refer people who want to dispute to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Turtle_Club. I am removing the disputed tag. --Ratwerks (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, my late father was in WWII as a US Navy pilot, an Army pilot and finally a paratrooper (he apparently wasn't good at following orders).  He "inducted" me in the Sixties, about the time I hit 18.  He had several membership cards in his wallet which were old and yellowed even then; there may still be some among his effects.  If so I'll scan it and add it to the article.  Vrmlguy (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article for real? 

message: I just added the section on "Modern Day Turtle Clubs". I put in a citation but am not sure if I did it correctly. Can someone look at?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clash24 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Day Turtle Clubs 

message: There's a site that gives the info that's marked as unverifiable, should someone use it?
This is the siteTurtleguy1134 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a personal tripod site, not a reliable source. - Dravecky (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite 

message: L Sondrad65 (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turtles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ancient and Honorable Order of Turtles. 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/20130813120926/http://worldturtleorder.info to http://worldturtleorder.info/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified