Jump to content

Talk:Alpha Phi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sources for Tammy Trenta and Rosemarie DeWitt

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.228.118 (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Founding Date

The Fraternity was founded on September 30. The date is now celebrated on October 10, but that doesn't change the actual date we were founded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.8.72 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy violations

Please refrain from copy and pasting info onto this article. This article as well as other fraternity and sorority articles had to be recreated because of it. Thank you. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 03:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just removed further blatant copyright violations from 216.81.191.13. --Yamla 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


The motto needs to be taken off immediately! Our motto is only for initiated members to know!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.230.215 (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The motto is a privacy violation and needs to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.161.36.241 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Secret Motto

The motto needs to be taken off immediately! Our motto is only for initiated members to know!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.230.215 (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)



I have reworded the information added about the secret motto. Whether or not the fraternity has a secret motto we can't confirm since it is unlikely that the frat will publish it, however the book does claim to know a secret motto and adding that, with references, is acceptable. Do not delete this without discussing it here first. --ImGz (t/c) 18:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The page needs to have the information included, as it is relevant. It should at least be protective to ward off censorship from vindictive alpha phi members. Vkgfx (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • see the problem i have with this whole thing is that people who do not want there secrets exposed and are trying to protect them and have some claim to have this removed are labeled as vindictive. And this claim is made on nearly every Greek page when some controversy comes up. This is not a case of members trying to deny the fact they got caught hazing and they wound up hurting or killing some pledge this is a organization trying to protect and an integral part of their identity from a claim that is based on nothing other than a person who managed to get a tell all book published and has little to no credibility to their name. They are just trying to protect their organization's integrity. And if the claim is false then they are also protecting the integrity of Wikipedia such as it is.Trey (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
They provide no source to counter the claims. Wikipedia isn't about making their organization look better, or else it would not have blocked Scientology editors from doing just that. This isn't some flier at a university orientation, this site aims to be encyclopedic. Vkgfx (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
you can't source a secret motto. To do so would give away the secret. And as i said i am not making a university flier. If you have bad info about the organization by all mean put it in. If you check my record you will see that i constantly uphold keeping unsavory alum in lists and hazing and discrimination incidents in. But secret motto's un-sourced except for a paperback novel are not encyclopedic.Trey (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
"you can't source a secret motto. To do so would give away the secret." Too bad, keeping secrets isn't Wikipedia's job. I provided a source, unless you can then it deserves to stay. Vkgfx (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • actually you have to prove the suitability of the source and Pledged is not a very reliable source. Have you even read the book? Or did you just find a quote on the internet? her comments are based on other girls accounts not her own experience.Girls that she duped Sororities have publicly came out stating that her accounts are blatantly false at worst and overblown and sensationalized at best. she's hardly credible and has never provided any documentation backing up her claims. So despite you being awesome and me obviously not, just because you found a source does not mean you get to throw in whatever you want.Trey (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see a source on the claims that her book is false. Vkgfx (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

never said her book was false just un-reliable and that the claim could be false you have no way to tell from some novel. go check amazon one of my personal favorites is here http://www.amazon.com/review/R3PO3FYCFCPVBN/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?_encoding=UTF8&cdPage=1&newContentNum=5 newContentID=MxXK9Y7M67D52P#Mx2488NH71VSQDQ. Here is another decent one pointing out that with info from only one chapter she can hardly claim to represent the entire system http://www.historyinreview.org/ar_pledged.html. And here pointing out here staged events and lack of any real sources other than these five random girl's word http://media.www.drurymirror.com/media/storage/paper740/news/2004/10/29/Features/Book-Review.Pledged.The.Secret.Life.Of.Sororities-785853.shtml. Which is my whole point. You are trying to be encyclopedic but yet you take the word of a novelist who is taking the word of a college girl who is lying to her friends in order to help said novelist write a book. and that's it. No fact check no digging no finding another source no independent source nothing just "Vicki said..." or which ever one it was. How is that encyclopedic? I don't deny that bad stuff happens in the Greek system its does and should be reported on. Frats and sororities are horribly guilty of many things But there are honorable Greeks out there and it does provide benefits and is a great experience if your with the right people and can stand up for yourself. What I question is that you believe her word as to what a secret motto is can be trusted. She was not there its secondhand info from one of four girls who lied to their sisters to feed her information from a campus we don't have a name for. How is that reliable?Trey (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a secret motto this is only told to someone after they have been initiated and become a sister. Its called a secret motto because well... its secret until you are a sister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor37 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does seem to be public knowledge. (see citation) Also, please read wp:censor as Wikipedia is not censored. Perhaps you should change your secret motto? Jim1138 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The secret motto needs to be removed immediately! it is only shared with initiated sisters and needs to be removed and unable to be put up again. i have already removed it once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.161.36.241 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This is hilarious! Look guys, just get yourselves a new motto and DON'T TELL IT TO ANYONE, then it will be a secret, which your old one ain't no more.--80.3.135.7 (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Saying just get yourself a new motto is absolutely ridiculous. it still means something to each and every alpha phi and it is something that has been sacred and passed down to every initiated sister since our fraternity was founded. just because its "literal" translation is on here, doesnt mean that the public knows what it means, because only alpha phis know the meaning behind it, not just the latin translation. Generations before us chose this as our motto, we can't just change that, its not just a motto to us... its a part of us and its very sacred to each of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphaphiodu (talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I think everybody here understands that. You had a secret motto, but failed to keep it secret. You have my sympathy, I'm sure it's inconvenient and upsetting for you, but that's the thing about a "broken" secret - it's not a reversible condition - you cannot put the cat back in the bag, and certainly wikipedia can't help you to try to do so.
Can you imagine what would happen if everyone who could find some information they wanted removed from wikipedia because they personally would prefer it was "secret" was allowed to remove it? I'm sure they would all have reasons they believe in just as much as you believe in yours.
If you can imagine that, maybe that will help you to understand why your requests can't be acted on, absent consensus from editors that removing this content would benefit all wikipedia readers, rather than just those affiliated with the article subject. Begoon talk 04:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012

Please remove the part under Motto that discusses AOE. This goes against Alpha Phi International Fraternity's policies, bylaws, and moral codes. Many members are VERY upset over this addition and it need to be removed IMMEDIATELY!!!

184.158.44.105 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia is not bound by any fraternity's policies, bylaws, or moral codes; see Wikipedia is not censored for details. If you want the information removed, you will have to establish consensus that the article would be better for the average reader (not just for members of your fraternity) without this information. Anomie⚔ 20:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand that wikipedia is not bound by anything, but could we all agree that this should not be on the page and take it down?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrpasquino (talk • contribs) 01:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 April 2012

The motto section of this article contains content that is NOT ALLOWED to be PUBLIC. It is a sacred part of the chapter and needs to be removed immediately. Thank you. Jenng1891 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

See the numerous responses above. DMacks (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What was actually said at RSN

Sycamore writes above "This issue was taken to WP:RSN as suggested here and the opinion of the editor who replied was that if a public work about an organization is contradicted by the organization, publicly and verifiably (as it is on Alpha Phi's website in this instance), then the controversial statement may be removed." and "An editor went to WP:RSN and the work in question was judged unreliable given Alpha Phi's public statement."

There was only one reply, and that said

1) Footnotes aren't required. Robbins seems to be writing for young adults, and Hyperion is similarly a popular, not academic, press, so this isn't the highest reliability source, but neither does this seem to be the sort of information that would require one. It seems to be sufficient.

2) If your fraternity specifically contradicts something the book says publically and verifiably (say on your official web site, if you have one), we will either go with what you wrote, citing the fraternity's statement, or (if it's a notable controversy in itself, or we still have reason to believe Robbins) write both claims. If you merely contradict something privately, that's much harder. If it's a minor issue, then we can make an editorial judgment to remove the statement - we don't have to write everything our sources do, we get to pick and choose. If it's a major issue, though, enough that leaving it out makes a noticeable gap, then contradicting it privately isn't going to be enough, a verifiable public contradiction that we can cite in the article will be needed. (Think of Obama's birth, for example.) What makes something major or minor enough is debatable, of course, so specifics matter. --GRuban (talk) 9:48 pm, 14 March 2012, Wednesday (4 months, 13 days ago) (UTC+0)

— end of quote copied from WP:RSN

So the editor considered Robbins book reliable enough to use in general, right? And suggested that both claims might be included. GRuban didn't say it was "unreliable given Alpha Phi's public statement if I read the edit correctly. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I got pinged to confirm here. Yes, that's what I wrote. Here is the link to the archive: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_117#Contradicting a Public Work with a Private One and determining a reference to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. The frat has publicly stated that Robbins is wrong. (Well, they're being edgy about it, and don't come right out and say "AOE is not our secret", but I'm guessing that is at least what they want us to think they mean.) So we can't just write what Robbins says as fact, since it is disputed. The only question is, do we write both statements, or neither? That's a question of weight, not of reliability. So quite possibly the editors who more know about the subject would be able to say more than I. Is this a big enough controversy for us to actually write about it as a controversy? Just from my uninformed position, I took a quick web search, and can't see any big argument about it. If there is a notable controversy, we should certainly write about it, but it's not our place to make one up. If there is no notable controversy, while we're not sure about an item of information, and it's not a particularly notable or important item of information, so that leaving out would harm our readers, while writing about it would seem to harm someone, I think we should err in favor of leaving it out. --GRuban (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


Contrasting

I'd just like to contrast this situation with the other two Greek Letter Organization pages with apparent repeated deletion by members of the organization. For Phi Gamma Delta, the issue is over use of the greek letters in the article versus the fraternity policy of only using them in specific places. For Kappa Sigma, the issue is more similar to that of Alpha Phi, in that it appears to concern information specifically revealed to new members. However for Kappa Sigma, the fact is referenced to Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities and elsewhere. If Robbins's book is one end of the scale for a reference for a fact for a Greek Letter Organization, I feel that Baird's Manual of American College fraternities has to be the other.Naraht (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 February 2012

Please change "The 'secret' motto is A.O.E, which stands for 'Alethia Orno Eteronis'" to "The 'secret' motto is A.O.E." because, as clearly stated in the sentence, the motto is meant to be a secret for the members of Alpha Phi fraternity to know. By putting this motto's meaning on Wikipedia, it is made available to the public, and therefore loses its attribute of secrecy. It would be greatly appreciate by the fraternity of Alpha Phi if this were to be taken down. 173.160.161.170 (talk) 05:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please see the response from Anomie in the section directly above. You would need to establish a consensus to change this page for all readers. The rules of an external "fraternity" or "club" do not apply to wikipedia, which is written as a general reference work, and WP:NOTCENSORED. Begoon talk 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
A couple of points. First of all, this request was ultimately successful and the later IP editor's actions are in effect (though very poorly done) a request to remove that information from the talk page as well. Is there any way to request a removal of the phrase from the talk page? I'd suggest Archiving, but it's too recent, and probably half of the text on the talk page in some way relates to this. Note: I'm on the other side of this issue on another Greek Letter Organization, in that one, the text they want hidden is in the article and just too well referenced.Naraht (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The members are doing their darnest to confirm by their actions that this material actually is reasonably correct and some sort of privileged info, despite their protestations that it's all either bogus or should not be discussed (Streisand effect vs WP:CENSORED). I could envision archiving together all the discussions about the motto, so that the scattered sections are removed from the main talkpage without having to wait for normal chronological archiving to expire them. DMacks (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I agree on the Streisand effect, but the best comparison that I can give is whether or not the Streisand estate is in the 10 pictures chosen by the organization who photographed the entire coast to represent its in a public art gallery. And WP:Censor is overriden by its lack of WP:RSNaraht (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Motto:Two questions.

Within the rules of Wikipedia, there are only two questions regarding the private motto, first, is including it relevant for the article, and second whether or not "Pledged" stands as a reliable source.For the first, I would point out that similar articles for other American Social Greek Letter Organizations do not contain that information. While I recognize that there are those who would place this information if it were available, the fact is that the current articles do not. In regards to the second question, I would like to point out that there are large number of things in the book which are footnoted including other things in the "secrets" section, The Alpha Phi motto certainly isn't.Naraht (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the discussion that needs to be had. I, personally, think it's only worthy of inclusion if we can say the book is a reliable source for what the motto "is". If we needed to resort to "One book published something which it alleges to be the secret motto", then I'd oppose it as undue, rumour. If it is well and reliably sourced, it should be included. (I'm ignoring the WP:OTHERSTUFF you mention about other societies because I believe we would treat those articles the same in the same circumstances) I know that means I'm pushing the argument back to "is it a reliable source?" - but, frankly, that's a place we should never have left. It's the salient question. Begoon talk 00:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Right now I have copy of the book sitting next to my computer, I'll be happy to answer any questions in regard to it. I have the 2004 edition (ISBN 0-7868-8859-8). The book uses endnotes rather than footnotes with the endnotes referencing pages in the main text. The page that the reference from wikipedia for this article is on is page 285, and there are only two endnotes which reference that page. The first endnote is in regard Delta Zeta's sorority whistle which is referenced to Delta Zeta Sorority 1902–1982: Building on Yesterday, Reaching for Tomorrow, the second is about Pi Phi's official flower and the meanings of specific parts which is referenced to the book Pi Phi Forever. Nothing in regards to Alpha Phi has an endnote for that page. Note, the Endnotes are not visible in the preview on books.google.com. I would therefore count this book as not a RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) OTOH, do remember that "other stuff exists" (or "doesn't exist" in this case) isn't often considered a very strong argument. It tends to work best on issues of formatting rather than content inclusion/exclusion, or issues that have actually been discussed in the past to reach the current status quo. As you mention yourself in passing, it's lack in other articles may simply be that reliable sources for other groups' secret mottos is not available.
The question of whether "Pledged" is reliable or not is a good line of inquiry, which I leave to those who care about this topic; you may also want to ask for advice at WP:RSN. Anomie⚔ 01:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Anomie, I agree, and that's what I was trying to say above. I really think the question of reliability of the source is what it comes down to. Like you, I only commented here initially because of the protected edit requests, and I can't offer much more, but your suggestion of WP:RSN is a good one for those who wish to see this resolved. Begoon talk 01:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"Pledged" is not a reliable source. The sentences referenced about Alpha Phi have many inaccuracies. What would be the best way to prove it an inaccurate source? Should Alpha Phi International publish a referenceable statement on their web site? Or should we reference the actual documents that prove "Pledged" inaccurate, even though the text of those documents are published only to a private audience? Any advice is appreciated. Lkahangi (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an official reference that confirms the inaccuracy of the statements in the book and the unreliability of the source as it applies to Alpha Phi. http://www.alphaphi.org/aboutus/unreliablesources Lkahangi (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is a self published source, so it's not usable in that way. As I'm sure you will understand, Alpha Phi can give the opinion that any source it likes is not reliable, so that's no different to you saying it here, in person, really. If you want to move this forward, and get a decision or ruling on the source, you should start a discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Begoon talk 05:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This issue was taken to WP:RSN as suggested here and the opinion of the editor who replied was that if a public work about an organization is contradicted by the organization, publicly and verifiably (as it is on Alpha Phi's website in this instance), then the controversial statement may be removed. The material from Alpha Phi's website does not contradict WP:SELFPUB and indeed many fraternity and sorority articles are built on self-published material. With this in mind, I am going to be WP:BOLD and remove the information in question. Sycamore (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It would seem to have been validated by the organization itself: all the repeated take-downs citing "it's a secret". Jim1138 (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
None of the editors are RELIABLE or VERIFIABLE and taking their word is ORIGINAL research. Sycamore (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I must admit that I'm baffled at the admonition to "get consensus first" to remove information that is in this article contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. An editor went to WP:RSN and the work in question was judged unreliable given Alpha Phi's public statement. According to WP:RELIABLE, "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions ... as well as more ill-defined entities." I would assert that Alpha Phi fits this statement, and I don't understand why a consensus must be formed in addition to the established unreliability of Pledged for that information to be removed from this article, and I am again reverting based on WP:DRNC. Sycamore (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's amusing that throughout this argument, no-one has thought of translating the alleged "secret motto" into English. Maproom (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now discussed this with a classicist, and we conjecture that the motto was supposed by the author of Pledged to be "ἀληθεια οὐρος ἑταιρων", meaning "truth is the protector of companions". Maproom (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I have heard again from my classicist friend, he has another, better conjecture for the Greek that was mangled to give the version in Pledged. It is "ἀληθεια ὁρμος ἑταιρων", meaning "truth binds (links, unites) friends". Maproom (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
And that is relevant to the article in what way?Naraht (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess it isn't. It just seemed strange to me that people discuss this motto in a foreign language, without considering what it means. What is relevant is that the version of the motto given in Pledged is so badly mangled that Pledged cannot be regarded as a reliable source. Maproom (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Should there be external links on the Heart to Heart Grants?Naraht (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Propose adding archiving

Does anyone have a problem with us having Archiving on this page?Naraht (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the relatively small number and rarity of posting here, do we really need every month separately rather than just a single archive page that grows over time? DMacks (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I was bold and set it up as automated and monthly. My question is whether it is worthwhile to try to create a single archive page from what has been set up by the automated bot.Naraht (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a long-term problem with inappropriate edits to others' talk-page comments. I think single-page makes it easier to watchlist for that mess. No problem for me to merge the archives. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Duke Conflict Mineral sport?

Under notable alumnae, why is the conflict mineral thing listed under sports and also is founding some campus club worthy of this article anyways? Recommend remove line entirely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.212.88 (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Removed list entry. - Camyoung54 talk 19:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2014

Please update number of chapters from 152 to 163, reflecting the correct number as of 11/14. Lkahangi (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Done –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Undone: This request has been undone. I've undone this until a source can be provided to back up the claim. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't of thought he was lying but no worries I perhaps should've been less lenient, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2015

Current text: "Alpha Phi (ΑΦ) International Women's Fraternity was founded at Syracuse University on September 18, 1872. Alpha Phi currently has 152 active chapters and over 200,000 initiated members.[1] Its celebrated Founders' Day is October 10.[2] It was the third Greek-letter organization founded for women."

Alpha Phi was not the third Greek-letter organization founded for women. It is the fourth. They are in order: Alpha Delta Pi, Phi Mu, Pi Beta Phi and Alpha Phi. Pi Beta Phi was founded on April 28, 1867. This information is from: https://www.pibetaphi.org/pibetaphi/About_Us/History/History_of_Pi_Beta_Phi/ . Megdowney407 (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alpha Phi. 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.

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Made changes in the Philanthropy section

Hello there,

Just wanted to inform my corrections/additions to this page.

In the philanthropy section I changed "Heart to Heart Grant" to "Heart to Heart Cardiac Care Grant" and then I added how much Alpha Phi raises annually each year. I also added what Alpha Phi does during the month of February to promote cardiac care. I then added my reference which is at the bottom of the page.

[1]

Amsaku (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)ASK

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alpha Phi. 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) 19:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alpha Phi. 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) 07:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Blanked sections

To users deleting the following passage, please justify why you are doing so. This passage has legitimate sources and belongs in the Controversies section of this page: In February 2018, a former sorority member at the George Washington University went viral following the public release of a racially insensitive Snapchat photo, in which she posed with a banana. The photo was captioned "Izzy: I'm 1/16th black." [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs) 02:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


While looking for the restructing template add, I found there's also other controversies (with sources) that have been deleted through the history of this page here ... keeping a fair history would help with the depuffing most sorority pages need to go through. I'm sure other sorority women may see this so I'd like to say we also need to hold our history accountable to learn from it. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 14:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, when adding controversies, please please please source things. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 18:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.alphaphi.org/potentialmember/philanthropyandservice
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alpha_Phi/Archive_1&oldid=1175430834"