Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American ethnic and religious fraternal orders

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of American ethnic and religious fraternal orders[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic. This article has serious bias issues that cannot be corrected in its current format, and I don't think we should be creating lists like this in the first place. It also has errors in information because 98% of it is sourced primarily from three out-of-date books. Here are some examples:

The author placed all the Jewish fraternal orders in the "Ethnic" category. I think that's open to debate, as it is a difficult issue, especially with respect to fraternal orders, and it's not something we should be debating here on WP.
There's both a "Hispanic" and "American Indian" section - we don't use those terms here. Likely the result of direct lifts from old texts, and not enough attention to fix it.
Examples of categorization issues of groups - The Knights of Pythias are not African-American; this list says they are. The Association Canado-Americaine is listed as "French", but it is obviously Canadian from the name, and in fact is said to be heavily Catholic, which might make it a) French-Canadian, or b) Catholic. The characterization of this list is causing this sort of interpretive problem.
The Teepee Order of America is listed as "American Indian", and then says it accepted anyone besides blacks and European immigrants, "Indian or non-Indian" (also a good example of the cut-and-paste work prevalent in the article). Also, the verbiage used, "Alleged Blackfeet Indian" is not correct.
African-American fraternal orders are often heavily influenced by specific religious beliefs, but that distinction is not made here either.
The author did, however, make sure to discriminate between three groups of Slavs. I am reasonably sure that was a personal distinction, as well, not present in the texts.
The Ruthenian section under one of the Slav headers is basically "Greek Catholic", so those groups have the same problems here as with the Jewish ones, where ethnic and religious aren't separable.
Extraneous information from sources where the author did something not germane to this article. "Attempts to contact by mail in the 1890s failed." "Attempts to contact in 1923 failed" etc.
Errors: Galilean Fishermen in African-American section: "Founded in 1856 in Washington, DC by Anthony S. Perpender. One of the oldest orders of its kind," except Prince Hall Freemasonry, also listed, dates to 1775!

The issues are pervasive and not correctable. MSJapan (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is my point by point response:

The author placed all the Jewish fraternal orders in the "Ethnic" category. I think that's open to debate, as it is a difficult issue, especially with respect to fraternal orders, and it's not something we should be debating here on WP.

Jewish fraternal groups come in both religious and secular forms - ergo the Workmans Circle, which identifies itself as ethnically Jewish, but is a secular group as far as I am aware; see the larger discussion about Jewish ethnic and religious identity at Who is a Jew?

There's both a "Hispanic" and "American Indian" section - we don't use those terms here. Likely the result of direct lifts from old texts, and not enough attention to fix it.

Actually no, I choose those names. And there is no official WP that I am aware of to use different names.

Examples of categorization issues of groups - The Knights of Pythias are not African-American; this list says they are.

The Knights of Pythias link goes to an African American order of the Knights of Pythias. They were like the Prince Hall version of the K of P.

The Association Canado-Americaine is listed as "French", but it is obviously Canadian from the name, and in fact is said to be heavily Catholic, which might make it a) French-Canadian, or b) Catholic. The characterization of this list is causing this sort of interpretive problem.

This is a matter of semantics. "Association Canado-Americaine" was an organization of people of French descent (mostly Canadian) that was also Catholic. Its seems kind of pointless to distinguish between French American and French Canadian American. I believe that their primary ethnic self - identity is French;

The Teepee Order of America is listed as "American Indian", and then says it accepted anyone besides blacks and European immigrants, "Indian or non-Indian" (also a good example of the cut-and-paste work prevalent in the article). Also, the verbiage used, "Alleged Blackfeet Indian" is not correct.

I would refer you to the Historical dictionary of American Indian Movements, where I got this information, for the issues relating to this order.

African-American fraternal orders are often heavily influenced by specific religious beliefs, but that distinction is not made here either.

The same could be said for the European immigrant groups that often overlapped with sectarian identities ergo, Irish Catholic, German Lutheran etc.

I do not know what you mean by "specific religious beliefs" - none of these African-American fraternal orders were ever tied to any specific denomination that I am aware of, other than the Catholic Knights of Peter Claver

The author did, however, make sure to discriminate between three groups of Slavs. I am reasonably sure that was a personal distinction, as well, not present in the texts.

That is because there were alot of orders relating specifically to the different Slavic ethnic groups. Particularly Slovaks.

The Ruthenian section under one of the Slav headers is basically "Greek Catholic", so those groups have the same problems here as with the Jewish ones, where ethnic and religious aren't separable.

"Greek Catholic" also known as Uniate Catholic or Eastern Catholic is not an ethnic but a religious term - many of the Ruthenians were also members of Uniate Churches. When they immigrated to America alot of ethnic groups were tied closely with specific religious denominations, as were their fraternal order - the Irish Catholic Knights of Equity etc - these orders were for Ruthenians (also called Rusyns, Carpatho Russians etc) who were also members of the Greek Catholic rite; See Ruthenian Catholic Church

Extraneous information from sources where the author did something not germane to this article. "Attempts to contact by mail in the 1890s failed." "Attempts to contact in 1923 failed" etc.

Whats wrong with that? I went to the last time an attempt was made to contact the order, giving the reader a time frame in which it must have dissolved.

Errors: Galilean Fishermen in African-American section: "Founded in 1856 in Washington, DC by Anthony S. Perpender. One of the oldest orders of its kind," except Prince Hall Freemasonry, also listed, dates to 1775!

Yes it was one of the oldest orders of its kind - an African American fraternal order not linked to an earlier order such as freemasonry or Oddfellowship (Grand United Order of Oddfellows)

As for the sources, I'll admit Axelrod 1997 has its flaws, but Schmidt 1980 was a scholarly publication. Preuss and Stevens were the source for much of the information in both. When I could, I went to their sources. Whats the problem?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the article, period. The sources are problematic and out-of-date. The classification is problematic to the point of not working at all. Justifying why something was the way it was still does not make it correct or in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. Referring me to an outside source in an AfD discussion to clarify something in the article doesn't make the article "correct", nor is it really an appropriate response - no one else reading the article is going to run to the original source either. Linking entries to the wrong pages and then making mistakes because of that is a problem - as with Freemasonry, there are two branches of Knights of Pythias, and the whole group was classified incorrectly because the article creator did no go far enough to verify the material. There's no justification there - it is absolutely incorrect. My concern is that much of the information I can verify from within the article or within WP, I have found to be wrong. What about the material I can't verify?

Also, as it is impossible that he personally was a member of all of these groups, the classification by the author (because this is essentially a one-person endeavor) of whether a group was more "ethnic" or "religious" is actually pretty arbitrary in those cases where there is overlap. Arbitrary classification of ethnic, religious, or fraternal groups is bias - end of story. The Workmen's Circle, by the way, isn't a Jewish fraternal order and never claimed to be - read the about page of one of the local ones - they specifically say religious background is irrelevant, and that they focus on social issues and cultural education. Claiming it as a "secular Jewish fraternal organization" and a reason to make the others ethnic as a result has no bearing on this article. Who is a Jew? is an article about self-identification, and isn't germane to this article either, because this isn't a self-identification problem. The Jews are only one example of the overlap problem - I've mentioned others, and have a few more below. It's very simple: if a group has a specific religious qualification, then it is religious. If it has a specific ethnic qualification, it is ethnic. If it isn't clear and can't be figured out, don't guess, because that's original research.

Now, the reason I pointed out the African-American orders as having religious components is because many of them are strongly tied to shared religion as an essential cultural component - as a result, there's less religious diversity in those groups without it being a specific religion's group. There is specific religion invoked in these groups, but it just so happens that that's culturally the way it is, so there's no overt religious qualification; it becomes such as the result of the underlying cultural assumptions. Why am I picky about French-Canadian? Because the term exists for a reason and claims its own distinct culture from the rest of Canada, as they go to great lengths to indicate. It is also a heavily Catholic group. The rest of Canada is primarily British and a mix of other religions. Again, it's an issue where religion and ethnicity may not be separable, but they've been separated here. Ancient Order of Hibernians? Listed as Irish here, but it's not; it's Irish Catholic only, so no Irish Protestants will be joining that organization.

The underlying classification scheme of this list simply doesn't work. When the distinctions in this list go away, the article becomes nothing more than a meaningless infodump from old books, and has no encyclopedic value.MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Knights of Pythias link did not go to the overall K of P article, but to the section of that article about the Afro-American version. The Workmans Circle has always been a secular Jewish ethnic fraternal order. They may now allow non-Jews to join, like the Sons of Norway allow non-Norwegians to join, but that is what it is. Read World of our Fathers by Irving Howe. The cultural education you mention is of the Yiddisheit - the Eastern European Yiddish speaking ethnic Jews. They come from a heritage of socialist thought that was popular among them in Europe in the late 19th century and was brought over to America. I do not know if they consider themselves socialists anymore, but the divide between religious apolitical and non-religious socialist Jews was very real and was a factor in the creation of the order in the first place. In any event, all of the orders listed were founded for ethnic Jews.

Now you make a point about religious and ethnic overlap- if you knew anything about the history of European immigration to the US in the nineteenth and early 20th centuries then you would realize this is a red herring - different ethnic groups tied their cultural identities closely with their denominations - Scandinavians were Lutherans, Irish Catholic etc. However there were also religious minorities in these groups and secular ones. For instance, most Lithuanians were Catholic, but there was also the Lithuanian Workers Alliance which was secular, most Slovaks were also Catholic, but there was also one for Slovak Protestants; St. Patricks alliance was open to all Irish regardless of faith, while the other two were open only to Irish Catholics. All of the ethnic orders are listed based on their ethnic identities. When an order was open to all ethnicity of a certain religion then they are under religious orders. (In any case, many of these orders that are still around are now required to admit anyone, which has alot to do with changing laws, attitudes and assimilation of European immigrant identities - however they were founded to preserve and help these specific ethnic and/or religious groups. They are an important part of American history and that is why I created the page.)

I am still not quite sure what you are trying to say about the African-American orders relation to religion - some of them had religious aspects, like how the Masons use Biblical imagery, some were led by clergy which was important structure for the Black community then (and now), but I don't think any one of them was a specifically "religious" group. As for the difference between French-Americans and French-Canadian Americans - it still just strikes me as hairspliting and semantics. Most of the French ancestoried people in the US could probably count as French-Canadian Americans - the Cajuns who trekked from Acadia to Louisiana, the French communities in Vermont and New Hampshire - there are two French American orders, do you really think we need to split that into two category headings?

I really don't get what your point is. Yeah, ethnic and religious identity often over lap, but it is clear from looking at the list that orders that serve one ethnic group are in that ethnic category regardless of religious affiliation, those that serve religious groups regardless of ethnicity are under religion. What is so difficult to understand?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is so hard to understand is that you say "orders that serve one ethnic group are in that ethnic category regardless of religious affiliation, those that serve religious groups regardless of ethnicity are under religion." and that is absolutely not the case in this article at all. Hibernians and The Order of the Teepee are clearly misplaced by your criteria for different reasons, and there are many groups that serve an ethnicity and a religion, not one or the other. However, I also see you're trying to turn this into a content dispute, and it isn't. I don't doubt that what you copied out of the books was what the books said. what I have a problem with is that you devised an arbitrarily wide division scheme to create a listdump article, and that scheme is the problem. MSJapan (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Teepee and the Ancient Order of Hibernians were created to serve the needs of specific communities. Yes, they began to allow others in, but that does not change what they were founded for. Read any history of the Workmens Circle - it was founded to help and preserve the culture of secular, socialist East European immigrants. The link that you send in fact says that it is a JEWISH CULTURAL center. By law or by custom most of these groups are open to and have to serve other communities, but that is beside the point. Like anyone can join an Asian Club at my University - its a law - but the reason the Asian Club was founded was to serve the Asian community. So whats your point? Yeah, some of these orders were related to a specific denomination and an ethnic group, but it seems rather logical to put all of the ethnic groups together, then the ones that serve entire religions. Else the list would be cluttered and less user friendly. Perhaps this is arbitrary, but I was Wikipedia:Be bold. That I have created an article where I repeat information gleaned from published sources? Well, I cannot do Wikipedia:Original research, and their websites are usually not WP:RS. Every thing is true according to the sources that I list. So times I can refer your to those sources because they are out of copyright and on the internet ergo Stevens and Preuss and Fortnightly Review. Other times I can only refer you to a published source for my information. What is that I have do wrong? If this is an "infodump" then wikipedia itself is a giant infodump.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - I share some of MSJapan's concerns. In some of the orders listed (such as Prince Hall Freemasonry), the order was founded to serve a specific ethnic group... but may have subsequently changed or expanded its focus. And the line between religiously focused orders and ethnically focused orders definitely needs better clarification. I am not sure if the list deserves to be completely deleted... but if it is to be kept, it will need an extensive re-thinking and re-working to better define its scope and inclusion criteria. For example, if the article were moved and re-worked as: American Fraternal orders founded to serve specific ethnic groups I think it might help give clarity as to what belongs on the list, and where. Blueboar (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about we split it into two - one for ethnic, including ethno-religous, and the other for purely religious orders. There is also National Fraternal Society for the Deaf which was neither, but which was set up and modeled after the ethnic orders.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We're not here to discuss whether this or that term is preferred for this or that ethnicity, or whether there is an error here or there with the information presented, or whether it might be better to split this up into two lists instead of one — only whether this list is encyclopedic and helpful. It clearly is. Material is well documented with footnotes and this is a subject of considerable academic interest and study. The presentation of a more or less comprehensive listing is also in no way novel; see, for example: Albert C. Stevens, The Cyclopaedia of Fraternities: A Compilation of Existing Authentic Information and the Results of Original Investigation as to the Origin, Derivation, Founders, Development, Aims, Emblems, Character, and Personnel of More Than Six Hundred Secret Societies in the United States (1899) and Alvin J. Schmidt, Fraternal Organizations (1980). A very bad notability challenge, in my estimation. It should also be noted that this page provides a useful index for articles already in existence and redlinks for work needing to be done. Everything else is an editing matter: play nice. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Carrite has pointed out the nomination doesn't actually give a valid reason for deletion. As for whether there are flaws with it , well it isn't my subject area, but taking "One of the oldest orders of its kind," except Prince Hall Freemasonry, also listed, dates to 1775!" from the nomination; If the article had said "The oldest order of its kind," then it would make sense to correct to "One of the oldest orders of its kind,". An assertion by one editor that something has errors that are uncorrectable does not mean that errors are uncorrectable by others, or indeed even errors. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is great to have as a list-article for purpose of identifying gaps (red-links) in Wikipedia coverage, besides for usual purpose of providing a comprehensive index (which Wikipedia is great for doing). I am surprised there are so many redlinks; it is random that there is Danish Brotherhood in America but not others like it. Bellerophon5685 thank you for developing it.

It's an obviously notable topic as there exist books on the topic. --do ncr am 17:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.