Talk:ANAK Society

ANAK Society is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 23, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 16, 2006	Articles for deletion	Deleted
January 31, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
February 19, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
February 29, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted
November 20, 2021	Featured article review	Demoted
December 4, 2021	Articles for deletion	Deleted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 29, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the ANAK Society, Georgia Tech's oldest secret society, claims to have covertly protected the university's first African American students during Georgia Tech's racial integration in the 1960s?
Current status: Former featured article

1908 ANAK Vice President

A number of errors have perpetuated regarding ANAK's founding vice president in 1908. Sources can't seem to agree on what the guy's name was. A brief overview of the variations:

Source	Spelling
1908 Blue Print, p. 37 (senior profile)	Harry Reid Vaughan
1908 Blue Print, p. 98 (Phi Kappa Sigma roster)	Harry Read Vaughn
1908 Blue Print, p. 145 (Anak Society roster)	C. H. Vaughn
ANAK Society website (history)	C. H. Baughn
ANAK Society website (members)	Harry Read Vaughan
Georgia Tech Archives website	C. H. Baughn
1997 Technique article	C. H. Baughn

The mysterious VP is front row, second from left.

What's going on here? My guess is like a game of Chinese whispers, the VP's name has slowly gotten more and more corrupted over the years as each source relies on the one before it. At this point I'm confident his first name is Harry, his middle name is either Reid or Read, and his last name is either Vaughan or Vaughn. For consistency, I'm using the spelling Harry Read Vaughan in the article. Here's my rationale:

"C. H. Vaughn" only appears once in the 1908 Blue Print, while Harry Vaughan's name appears many times. If C. H. Vaughn was, in fact, the VP of Anak in 1908, he would definitely have a senior profile in the yearbook, and he doesn't. In fact, I've never found any other mention of a "C. H. Vaughn." I think it's just a typo (I've found many in that edition of the Blue Print.)
Harry Vaughan's senior profile lists one of his activities as Anak, making a clear connection between him and Anak. By matching up his senior profile photo with the group photo, we can easily identify Vaughan standing in the front row of the 1908 Anak group photo next to the other three officers, suggesting that he's an officer as well. Everybody else in the photo is accounted for (again, by matching up photos).
There's no compelling reason to pick "Reid" or "Read." It seems that Vaughan's name would most likely be spelled properly in his senior profile, where his photo, activities, major, age, and other information is also present. In the senior profile, his name is spelled "Harry Reid Vaughan." On ANAK's website for the 1908 membership roster and the Phi Kappa Sigma roster, however, the middle name is listed as "Read." Because this spelling is simply more prevalent, I've arbitrarily chosen to use it.
"Baughn" is almost certainly a typo for "Vaughn." "Vaughan" is a far more commonplace spelling than "Vaughn"; certainly not foolproof, but worth considering.

There are probably other ways to get a more definitive answer but I haven't pursued them yet. Comments or additional effort in solving this puzzle is appreciated. MaxVeers (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently perused the ANAK Society membership directories available at Georgia Tech's archives and they confirm much of what I said here. At first the directories list a "C. H. Vaughn," likely transcribed verbatim from the 1908 Blue Print. Later editions of the directory correct this error and list "Harry Read Vaughan" instead. MaxVeers (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

What does "ANAK" mean? Is it an acronym, a made-up word, or what? 162.84.185.128 (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's ever discussed in any of the source material, at least, not that we've found. If you find something that does discuss the name, be sure to tell us about it here. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I just added a section addressing it but it might be too speculative/OR to stay. MaxVeers (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

Very nice well written article! Just a few small things noted below

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
A few prose tweaks and a copule of things that need to be in the lede
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
A couple of places need citations, and one quotation needs a cite.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Details:

Influence section, Student orgainzations subsection, second paragraph. The first sentence starts "Following the Blue Print, ANAK ..." I think it would flow better from the previous paragraph if it said something like "Following the founding of the Blue Print..." The current transistion is a bit jarring and the current phrase is a bit unclear (At first reading, I first thought that they were literally following the blue print.)Also, this paragraph is a bit short, and choppy, with only two sentences. Perhaps one more fact about the newspaper could be found? If it can't, it's not a big deal, it's just a bit choppy, and there isn't a good way to merge this with the surrounding paragraphs.

Done.

Rephrased and added an additional sentence about the first staff of the Technique. MaxVeers (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same section and subsection, third paragraph, second sentence would be less wordy if it said "ANAK worked to set up..."

Done.

MaxVeers (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same section, Traditions subsection, last sentence. The last part of the sentence needs a citation, should be easy enough to find a link to last years homecoming.

Done.

MaxVeers (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same section, Civil rights subsection, second paragraph. Second sentence says that ANAK did found the YMCA, but above the section says that it is claimed. The two statements need to be reconciled.

Done.

Left the information about the controversy and removed the subsequent mention of the YMCA's relationship to the ANAK Society. MaxVeers (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section, first paragraph the "fallen under heavy scrutiny" quote needs to have a citation right on it. See WP:CITE.

Done.

Moved citation closer to direct quotation. MaxVeers (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the society is named isn't covered in the Lede, it should probably at least be touched on. As well as the controversy section. Probably something like "The policy of keeping membership secret has led to some controversies in recent years." would be more than enough.

Done.

The reference to controversy was already there, but I added a bit of information about the name and reorganized the lead to accomodate it. MaxVeers (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name and symbology section, second paragraph and third paragraph. The last sentences of both need citations, or if you can't find them, they need to go, as they read like research.

Done.

Removed the last paragraph, which was mostly original research by me disguised as "obvious" observations. Also added a fact tag to one sentence, but this should still be acceptable for Good Article status as it is not a particularly contentious point. I simply haven't yet had time to look up the reference. MaxVeers (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I have a real concern about, and this is mainly because I dont' deal with modern subjects so I'm not up on image policy as much, is the two pictures courtesy of Georgia Tech. I have no idea if they fit inside image policy or not. I'm just noting that I can't say for sure if they are safe or not. I'll note they have lasted a month on Wikipedia, so I'm assuming they pass muster. The fair use rationales look good to me too, but...take it with a grain of salt. You don't need to change them, just letting you know that me passing them as okay is not worth that much (grins).

I spent a lot of time figuring that out in March 2007, going as far as creating a template about it; as far as I can tell, the powers that be (or at least, the individuals I dealt with) are okay with us using images to describe things such as this, especially in a historical context. Oddly enough, I've tried to get one of those images replaced with a free equivalent that I took myself, and I've had trouble getting someone to delete the conditional-use image. Just in case, though, MaxVeers and I have added detailed fair use rationales to the relevant image description pages. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate for this excellent article to have issues with the images, and would rather confess my ignorance of the whole fair-use policy than lead folks astray. Progress is looking good!Ealdgyth | Talk 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just waiting on that last citation on the third paragraph of the Name and symbology section. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please see above for a summary. MaxVeers (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! You caught me while I was sleeping! Passing it now. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

(1) In-house only

(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

(4) Typos and misunderstood coding

(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

(5) Edit-mode clutter

(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

(6) Limited application

(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and I have no intention of arguing with people's feelings on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest known secret society

The first line reads: The ANAK Society is the oldest known secret society and honor society based at the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Does this mean that ANAK is the oldest known secret society in history? If so I don't believe this is correct as the Masonic Order is often considered to be the oldest known secret society.Smallman12q (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence definitely means only with respect to the Georgia Institute of Technology. The wording seems confusing, any thoughts on how to make that more clear? Perhaps taking out the word "based", the parenthetical "Georgia Tech", and the unnecessary "USA"? The ANAK Society is the oldest known secret society and honor society at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia.

On another note, as far as I know, it is the only secret society at the Georgia Institute of Technology. -Multivariable (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't reference that its the oldest outside the first line...I'm not sure how to best rewrite it...I would put it is Georgia Tech's oldest secret society...Smallman12q (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the word "based" is really throwing the meaning off; without it, it becomes clearer.

The ANAK Society is the oldest secret society and honor society at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia.

Does that seem to work? -Multivariable (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very secret if it's 'known' is it? <apologies>LOLZ<apologies /> Cavie78 (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of the new opening sentence. It's awkward, especially with "the oldest known there" tacked on at the end. MaxVeers (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/anak/proj-int.html}}
- In History of Georgia Tech on 2011-03-29 14:26:15, 404 Not Found
- In ANAK Society on 2011-06-20 00:46:47, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://gtalumni.org/Publications/techtraditions/traditions/ratcap.html
- In Georgia Tech Yellow Jacket Marching Band on 2011-03-19 22:31:23, 404 Not Found
- In Georgia Tech Yellow Jacket Marching Band on 2011-03-22 04:02:23, 404 Not Found
- In ANAK Society on 2011-06-20 00:47:03, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on ANAK Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ANAK 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on ANAK 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on ANAK 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ANAK 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FA issues

This article is mostly cited to primary sources such as the university itself, or the secret society itself, which leads to verifiability issues if the source for a secret society is itself Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Pppery when you created this redirect, did you read the AFD ? DannyS712 on what basis did your bot mark this as reviewed? It was previously decided at AFD not to merge the article as no independent sources were found indicating notability. Explicit I rarely frequent AFD; am I misunderstanding something ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the AfD, but its decision not to do a merge does not AFAIK preclude a redirect being created years later. Also note that the target I used was a different one than was discussed at the AfD, and the content I was redirecting to has existed since at least 2007. DannyS712's bot marked the redirect as reviewed because I am redirect autopatrolled, and have been since around 2019. If you think this shouldn't exist as a redirect feel free to take it to RfD, but I don't see why a redlink is preferable to a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't frequent AFD much, so not for me to say ... will leave this to others. It makes no difference to me, just trying to understand ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]