Talk:List of Chi Phi chapters

Question about orders

@Jax MN Northern Order was previously used instead of United Order in a list for this article. When I merged the lists, I changed to United Order to be consistent with the source I added (the Almanac). However, given the dates and chapters included, it clear that the United Order is the group formed by the merger of Hobart and Princeton that is also called the northern (little n) chapters in some older sources that I quickly scanned earlier today. Meaning that the United Order and the Northern Order are the same—a short-lived 19th-century fraternity. Based on the Almanac which is the cited source, it is not correct to label any chapter formed after the July 23, 1874 merger as being part of the United Order as that name was no longer in use after the merger into the modern fraternity. Unless you found another source?? Rublamb (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

p. 95 in the Chronicle of Chi Phi 1824 to 1938 by Theodore B. Appel says: "There was considerable mention made in the public press of the negotiations which had been in progress since 1865 to unite the Chi Phi Fraternity of the South with the United Order, bearing practically the same name, in the North, and which union into what was thereafter officially known as the Chi Phi Fraternity was consummated, March 27, 1874" This appears to confirm that the United Order (aka Northern Order) merged with the Southern Order to form Chi Phi Fraternity. However, on p. 244 of the same book: "First came 'The Ancient Order of Chi Phi' (Princeton), then 'The Chi Phi Fraternity' (Southern Order), 'The Secret Order of Chi Phi' (Hobart and Northern), and The Chi Phi Fraternity (United; Order)." So which is right? The Almanac certainly goes with the former. Rublamb (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

So the ruling document is a bit murky. I was curious about that, wondering if the short-lived united Order should be used simply to denote the surviving fraternity, and what was the distinction between that and the Northern Order. Since they are essentially synonyms, maybe we use Northern Order to promote clarity, prior to the merger with the southern chapters. For the combined fraternity, maybe it's best to go with "Chi Phi Fraternity" then. I found no national constitution for the combined fraternity, and the fraternity refers to itself simply as "Chi Phi Fraternity" on its website, today. Their archivist may want to clarify. Jax MN (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I have found the 1874 constitution in the source which mentions that it could be republished because "it was never secret". I know for sure that I found a summary of the conference where the merger took place. I will do some reading tomorrow, starting with the oldest publication to see what I can find. I don't know whether to thank or hate Hathi Trust for digitizing these resources. Maybe a newspaper will be more helpful--I will check Newspapers.com too. Rublamb (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Beta chapter

Rublamb, I note that you reordered the Beta chapters, with some slight renaming. The reason I cast these the way I did is that the Beta chapter from the Southern Order closed prior to any merger activity. There were several cases like this where a Southern Order chapter had died out and yet an identically-named chapter from one of the northern branches was labeled (first) -- even though it were created earlier. Assuming this was a Chi Phi staff decision on their naming convention, I left several of the southern chapters with such old names out of that progression of first-second-third. The only odd duck then was the Harvard chapter, whose name reverted (it seems) to a school that had previously held it, and was revived. With all this in mind, would you review your changes to Beta and let me know your thoughts? We may have to ping their national HQ and ask the archivist to weigh in. Jax MN (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Ha! I had warned you that this would show up when renaming. My guess is this is the reason for the Beta of Southern Order business. Unless we find otherwise, I would give the oldest (first formed) the name first, and go forward from there as per normal. Otherwise, it is too confusing to have a chapter labeled the first actually be the second, etc. Rublamb (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I also had the intuition that the names you had used when you originally combined the several lists, that these had come from a Chi Phi insider or someone with clear knowledge of their own naming preferences. For example, you also used Beta (first) to denote the Harvard chapter, which was the fourth formed under that name, and this comes from the original article before you and I began work on it in Jan 2023. On Wikipedia, we tend to roll with those names as the organizations themselves confirm them (noting this for future readers). The only time I deviate from this is when I find a clear error, or a discrepancy between sources. Jax MN (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed that issue was resolved when you changed the other names. Rublamb (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)