Category talk:Secret societies

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies articles
NA	This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Organizations Category‑class

	This category is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

comment obtenir un cite en Français?

Brethren of purity[edit]

Would the Brethren of Purity satisfy the criteria for inclusion in this category? gergis (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Societies at Purdue[edit]

Society of the Unworthy
Purdue Skeptics Society
Strands of System
Phi Delta Theta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.119.48 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers[edit]

Anyone know anything about the tunnels between the fraternity houses?

Huh? Jmlk17 04:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are are asking about secret tunnels? Jmlk17 07:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't talk about them... they are secret. If they exist that is. :) Blueboar 18:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KKK[edit]

Why is the KKK being listed as a Secret Society? Zos 00:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably get more response if you ask on Talk:Ku Klux Klan. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Zos 01:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Knights of Columbus is not a secret scociety.[edit]

The Knights of Columbus is not a secret society. The only secret kept my members of the order is of the four ceremonials. Membership is not secret, neither are finances or procedings. By definition a secret society does not devulge its membership,ceremonials or inner workings. This should be ammended, Catholics are prohibited from enrolling in secret societies. The Knights of Columbus has been called by the pope "the strong right arm of the Catholic Church" an edorsement for such a group would be ludicrus if members were automatilcy excomunicated by joining.

Daniel Schachle, Past Grand Knight KofC member since 1994

Hmmmm, what? Never heard that before. Jmlk17 04:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all well and good as long as you totally ignore the Knights' ghoulish and flamingly Masonic rituals which send the opposite signals to anyone with even the foggiest awareness of history. I'm pretty sure Masons don't always keep their membership a secret anyways. What's the cataclysmic difference between the two groups?

I removed the category from the Knights of Columbus article. If you wish to restore it, or otherwise discuss if it is applicable or not, please use the talk page for that article. SlowJog (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fraternal orders[edit]

We really do need to discuss whether all college frats or adult fraternal orders fit this category. My contention is that they do not. Blueboar 18:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to add Internet Globalization Control in the secret societies category

Common Purpose[edit]

Common Purpose, which started in the UK, is a plan to indoctrinate key people in every town and city of the UK, and in other countries. It is the doctrine of Hitler; Hitler's plans have never died, and the NWO are finding it a great tool to brain wash people. Again we are going to see a repeat and much worst of what Hitler did; there will be holocost etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 007superflash (talk • contribs) 23:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

I have been bold and removed the definition paragraph at the top of the cat... our Secret societies article makes it clear that there are multiple (and conflicting) definitions of the term. It is fair to say that "Author X defines the term as X" and "Author Y defines the term as Y"... but it is POV (and even UNDUE) to choose one as being Wikipedia's definition. Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]