Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

New Barnstar

The Fraternity/Sorority Barnstar
{{{1}}}

Miranda 06:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Chapter Pages

What's the word on individual chapter pages? I've created one and it's relatively decent though still being regularly edited. I was going to create a chapter infobox template as I couldn't find one already out there. Questions, Concerns? Corsulian 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Individual chapters aren't generally notable enough to warrant their own entry. An example would be the Delta Zeta controversy that took place at DePauw. It affected one chapter however that controversy is under the Delta Zeta page because the chapter (besides this one event) isn't notable, but the controversy itself is. --ImmortalGoddezz 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I have responded on that article's talk page. —ScouterSig 23:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no individual chapter that is notable enough to have a seperate article. Refer to WP:NOT. Generally, Wikipedia is not a webspace provider for any individual chapters. I've recently nominated two chapter articles created for Phi Delta Theta for AfD. One just got deleted, while the other is about to. Every single chapter article has been deleted. I know that there were several from Kappa Sigma, Sigma Phi Epsilon and a couple of others which were deleted. In fact, for those who recall, an entire project which was aimed at creating an article for every single Beta Theta Pi chapter was deleted. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 23:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Chapters aren't notable, just organizations. Miranda 02:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

After doing the appropriate research, I concur. My apologies--there was a separate PhiSigWiki site that would have been more appropriate but it has, as many wikis have, been targeted by malicious spammers who work faster than any moderators could hope to. Corsulian 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

CREATION of a fraternity and how it is done

this is one thing i haven't seen anything on yet, is it even practical to ask for something on this I wonder. Someone elaborate on this please. Murakumo-Elite 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you go to a school (College or University) that already has fraternities, the best first step would be to talk to them about chartering a new chapter of an existing fraternity. If you mean to start one, brand-new, from scratch, then perhaps looking at a copy of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities would be a useful reference. —ScouterSig 03:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I feel if i start something, it's going to impact the nation, and maybe the world as well! Murakumo-Elite 08:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Founders

An IP as well as Justinm1978 are putting prods on notable founders of NPHC organizations. In my opinion, that's disruptive to make a point. What do you all think? Miranda 00:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Founders of large Greek organizations (large may include but is not limited to international groups, members of a large multi-member council, and those that are generally notable enough to merit a wikipedia article with multiple connected sub-pages (such as list of chapters and list of notable members)) are notable solely for founding that organization, as well as any other notable characteristics ("firsts," "mosts," and "bests", for example). See: Ralph C. Smedley who founded Toastmasters; Sir George Williams who founded the YMCA; Hassan al-Banna who founded the Muslim Brotherhood; E. Urner Goodman and Carroll A. Edson who founded the Order of the Arrow (a Scouting society); Frank Reed Horton who founded the Alpha Phi Omega honor fraternity; and A. B. Graham who founded 4-H. If the organization they founded is notable, then they are notable. Simply provide sources and information enough to create at least a fully-formed stub and the article can stay. —ScouterSig 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that "the" founder, as in the person who was the originator of the organization, could be considered notable. I disagree with a list of 20 people who were the initial members to be notable. In the articles cited above, there are typically one or two individuals who were the genesis behind the group. In the articles that I prod'ed such as Winona Cargile Alexander and Ethel Cuff Black, there is hardly any notability cited other than the fact that they were one of the first 20 people to be in the org. I don't find that notable, hence the prod. One was defended with a revert that said "DST Founders play a major role in women suffrage, passage of civil rights act, bailing students out of jail, granting scholarships", but couldn't provide any citation. Since there were thousands of individuals doing this, I don't find this notable either. Justinm1978 02:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
First, HistoricDST is new to Wikipedia, so please assume good faith. Second, I don't have access with Delta history except In Search of Sisterhood. So, in relation to those articles, you need to work with HistoricDST to provide more information regarding those two individuals. Miranda 10:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Funny, you ask me to assume good faith about someone in the same day that you accuse me of being disruptive to make a point. The difference? I disagree with your POV. I have listed these articles for deletion, since I don't think they can stand on their own:
If the community agrees with me, then they'll be deleted. If they agree that they're notable, then they'll stay, and that's cool too. Justinm1978 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And so out of a sense of revenge (as best as I call tell), Miranda has put Frank Reed Horton and Ray O. Wyland up for deletion. Miranda, I don't believe that Justinm1978 proposed deleting every one of the founding sisters of DST. Alpha Phi Omega has 14 founding undergraduates and 6 founding advisors. Only two (FRH & Dr. Wyland) have wikipedia articles. I will in fact oppose Wikipedia articles for most of the other 18. (The one exception being the President of Lafayette College at the time, in general University and College presidents are considered noteworth). Naraht (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes he did put pages of DST founders to be deleted. I really think this user is stalking me. If I would have cared, I would file an arbcom case, but I really don't. That's how much faith I have in this project, because I am sick of the fucking disruptions. Miranda 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tau Gamma Phi

Can somebody please keep on eye on the Tau Gamma Phi article? I've added {{wikify}}, {{ad}}, {{weasel words}}, and {{unref}} tags back to the article 3 times, I believe, and I've warned the IP once about removing them. I'd rather not get into an edit war and it seems like this page is always a target for removal of information or additions of huge amounts of unsourced information like this. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll help, i just put it on my watchlistTrey (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've had it in my watchlist for a while. I'll be happy to help in whatever you come up with that doesn't involve large amounts of explosives.Naraht (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:Since the IP seems intent on owning the page, I have semi-protected it for now. Let's clean it up. —ScouterSig 22:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

...which apparently didn't work. —ScouterSig 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe only admins can semi-protect.. Thanks for looking after this everybody. I was hoping the IP would give up after awhile and I could go in and clean it up but it seems like this has been ongoing for a while now. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't anybody look at me, I'm a moron!. Yeah... I knew that... right. —ScouterSig 00:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • well i've started cleaning the page. we'll see what the IP thinks of that. I removed a massive amount of just lists and random chapter founding dates. in addition i cut out alot of NN "famous" alum. I've also started to put things into the correct tone past tense third person and such and removed all the bolding and random copyediting that was done but there is still much to do. This page really needs some help. I know nothing about these guys so all i can really do is just edit what is there. Hopefully someone else wants to do some researching. and the overall page needs to be cleaned and of course more re-writes. See the talk page if your intrested :) cheers everybody! Trey (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible expansion of project

There is currently a rather significant collection of articles relating to secret academic societies like Skull and Bones. I note that several of these are already within the scope of your project. I have recently worked to revive the moribund Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies, and found that several of the articles in the various categories we work with could fit within the Category:Collegiate secret societies. Would the members of this project object to taking on management of the articles that either already are or could reasonably be placed in that category? Generally, I've seen elsewhere that it helps a lot for purposes of organization if a project had a category which defined their scope. Would you be agreeable to having the category above placed in the Category:Fraternities and sororities? Thank you in advance for any and all responses. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not the worst idea I've heard. The issue is that there are also secondary school fraternities & sororities and some fraternities & sororities would probably not consider themselves to be secret societies. Corsulian (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability of notable members

The question has been asked about whether to include a list of notable members, but there's another facet of that issue: Is the fraternity, or its website, a reliable source about whether certain individuals, especially living people, are members?

The issue first appeared at Sigma Alpha Mu. The list of notable members came from a scholarly work (master's thesis, eventually expanded into a full book) which included an appendix of notable members. Prevailing opinion in the discussion there is that since the information arose from the fraternity and might not have been vetted since it appeared in an appendix, it is not reliable.

The counterpoint is being raised at Zeta Phi Beta. Discussion has just begun, but an editor has made the point that using the sorority's website as a source shows "who was initiated into their sorority, verbatim" (User:Miranda). That strikes me as entering the realm of primary sources.

Rather than have piecemeal practices that differ among articles, I'd rather get project-wide consensus. Since the fraternity/sorority would have the membership records, are they a valid source for membership? Can they be used as a primary source, or should they only be used as a secondary source, as when the list appears in a book? Is the bar set differently depending on whether the member is dead or living, due to WP:BLP? —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, fraternity and sorority sources concerning membership is a primary source. I have used fraternity/sorority membership lists for lists on wikipedia. Both the fraternity and materials are reliable sources. Miranda 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Even though they are self-published? —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand that reliable sources are important, but short of having each notable alumnus/alumnae email Wikipedia to confirm their membership, what could be more reliable than an organization's roster; a baseball team roster I am sure is acceptable, even if it is a 'primary source.' The roster (list, whatever) could be published by the organization at large, the chapter, or the university; all should be understood to be reliable. I don't really know what other source(s) could even conceivably cover as much as these. —ScouterSig 18:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I hate using membership lists in wikipedia so I try to find other sources first before going towards the membership lists. However like others have said you're most likely not going to get a more comprehensive list elsewhere. The lists have been published by the main organization from their own membership roster and I believe that they're pretty trustworthy. I mean if x sorority publishes that the First Lady is in x sorority and it turns out to not be true that's possible legal problems for that organization. Additionally chapter Magazines that are sent out to members/alumnae, I believe, hold more reliability than chapter lists. Usually because, from what i've found, they're mostly one on one interviews with said person about how they're sorority/fraternity life influenced where they are now, etc. That's more of a published source than the chapter list. Frat/Sorority chapters are not appropriate sources (except in some rare cases) so those should be avoided altogether. In the end I would rather have a person sourced by the membership list than exclude them saying 'no sources available' since taking them out, at least on the National Panhellenic Conference, will ensure that that person, along with others will be added in again. --ImmortalGoddezz 18:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the national rosters shoudl be acceptable as primary source, but not those published by a chapter that do not make reference to the national roster. I'm sure all of your orgs are the same as mine, in that nobody is actually considered a member until that paperwork and related fees are in the national office. Universities only report what the chapter tells them and do not verify with the national office that they are actually registered (unless a risk management issue comes forth), and chapters can all say whatever they way. However, if a name appears on a national roster, odds are that if something is incorrect, it'll be noticed a heck of a lot sooner. Plus, the national organization as a whole typically has more "staying power" than a local chapter. So yeah, I'd say go with the national roster/webpage as for verification. Justinm1978 (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This really isn't the place to have such a debate. It is more of a Biography of Living persons issue. In reference to the discussion, consider the consequences if we accepted any organizations claim of notable members? A famous person dies, and 50 years later it is uncovered that the Nazi party said he was a member? I don't think this would be acceptable as a primary source. Alan.ca (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I completely agree that that would be the proper place to be discussing this issue since a lot of alumni don't fall among that category. I also think that if we are discussing the use of primary sources used in the biography of living people such as this then List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers, List of Athabasca University people, List of Dartmouth College alumni, etc. et al. from WP:FL really need to be re-hauled as well since nearly every one of those uses primary sources in several incidents.. and I'm pretty sure those haven't all been written by experts in their field and then published in third party sources. This doesn't mean that I'm saying other stuff exists and uses primary sources and so should this. --ImmortalGoddezz 16:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • First, I have to disagree with the suggestion that a scholarly work is not a valid source. In fact, all of the Wikipedia policies that I have read seem to suggest that academic papers and books are to be considered MORE reliable. Specifically, WP:V states "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses..." The source in question was a book published by a university press. Maybe it's just because I'm new here, but I still cannot understand how that is not a reliable source. Nobody responded to that on the Sigma Alpha Mu talk page. Perhaps one of you could here?
As far as the issue of the list appearing in an appendix, I still have to disagree. Just because information is published in the appendix of a book does not make it any less reliable (and unless I'm missing something, I see no Wikipedia policy asserting that either). If someone published false information about a person in the appendix of a book, I am sure that the victim would still be able to sue for libel. Do you disagree? I think the point here is that Wikipedia is not simply publishing information that has nothing to back it up. In this case, there is a published book and the Sigma Alpha Mu article is just quoting that book. If a person was so offended by being listed as a notable alumnus, they would have already taken action against the publisher of this book. PittSammy (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Shannon James/Zeta Tau Alpha

I've run into a bunch of IP's who don't particularly like the fact that a (former?) member of Zeta Tau Alpha, Shannon James, posed for Playboy and are removing the cited information; saying that she's no longer recognized by ZTA. The removal of information hasn't been heavy enough to report but it is enough that it's getting annoying especially since they're so persistent in it and I'm very close to violating WP:3RR today. They've left a message on my talk page asking about the removal and I've replied, probably not to the satisfaction of the IP. I'm not sure how to handle it from here on out besides to keep saying she can be sourced as being a member (whether former or current) and it can be sourced. Any help/insight would be muchly appreciated. --ImmortalGoddezz 02:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Now here we have a case of a reliable source (newspaper article) saying she's a sister. They'd need to come up with either a source to refute that assertion or one to say she's been expelled. This should probably also be addressed at Talk:Zeta Tau Alpha. —C.Fred (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
(reads talk discussion closer) Ah, the other issue is, is she an alumna? She's still in school, which the source probably also supports, but she's listed in the Notable alumnae section. Is that reason to strike her from the list? —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the name of the "notable alumnae" to "notable members," which I know to be precedent at least with fraternities—I'm assuming it is no different with sororities. —ScouterSig 17:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice catch. That's why I like project pages: there's no reason for articles on similar topics to go in a hundred different directions. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Went to save my reply and I got commented out... so just responding with my original comment. Actually that's not the case: She's a graduate of the university (I believe I've heard) and she's an alumni (former member) of the organization, whether she was given alumnae status by the organization or not. Frats/Sorors are weird in the fact that each org seems to handle 'alumni' differently, and like the national roster alumni lists are not made public so whether she's considered alumni, according to the organization, or not is up for debate. They however don't want to claim that she's a current member or has been a member of the organization at all (Can be evidenced by the constant removal of information from the Shannon James page that says former member). So it's not just dickering about the definition of alumni. Since removing members from the roster is not publicized there is nothing to back up their claim that she is no longer a member but there is a source that say she is. I get the impression that this is somebody from her specific chapter that dislikes her being on the page and wants it removed or implicitly clarified that she's been kicked out, and is willing to go (or so it sounds) up to nationals to get this removed. And I'll eventually copy the conversation over to the ZTA but I'd like to keep the conversation going in one place for now. --ImmortalGoddezz 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of former members being the standard, which is kind of interesting since I've brought up 'notable alumni/ae' previously several times before. In any case alumni can still means former member or student. It seems to be my day to piss off people and I'd prefer not to do it anymore, even though I do like to be right, so I'll just go with whatever is community consensus on this one. --ImmortalGoddezz 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
clarifying: Not that I'm right in the alumni thing (or wrong either). Just re-read that and it sounded.. bitchy. Meh.. story of my day. --ImmortalGoddezz 18:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This a great point to bring up. If the person is notable (for whatever reason) and was a member of the sorority then they should be listed. I'm sure there are quite a few fraternities and sororities that would like to disassociate themselves from certain members because of lifestyle choices. At the end of the day, they are or were a part of that organization.Knicksfan4ever 18:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If she was ever a member of Zeta Tau Alpha with a verified source, her name should stay regardless of the feelings of the National office. The IP address claims that the non-affiliation has nothing to do with "some people not liking it" (i.e. the fact that Shannon James is Playboy Playmate), although actions suggest otherwise. You can be technical about it all and say no, she's technically not an alumanae but yes, she was a member. James Dean was never initiated in Sigma Nu yet he's somehow listed. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys - I just wanted to clarify the situation with current vs former vs alumnae member. When a woman joins a NPC women's fraternity or sorority she is a member as a collegian and as an alumnae. That is why you see many referring to "lifetime" members, etc. You do not become a former member of ABC because you graduate. If membership is removed it is most likely done at the National Board of Directors or National Council level. Often these are not made public because as stated above the national organization is removing its association with an individual. If your membership is removed when you are a collegian or an alumnae membership rights are revoked including participating in any collegian or alumnae activity or stating that you are a members of ABC national sorority. Each NPC member handles their "member in good standing" differently. The best way to verify the information would be to contact the national HQ of the group. Just wanted to clear up that alumnae are in fact members in good standing. Good luck with the rest of the project. Daurorj (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Pi Kappa Phi

I would like for some one here to rate the Pi Kappa Phi, but I am not sure how to do that. Storkpkp (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Miranda 05:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sweetheart Organizations

There are many sweetheart organizations out there, some who are welcomed and some who are not. To my knowledge as far as BGLO's the only organization who recognizes sweethearts is Iota Phi Theta[1]. A couple of my friends are Kappa Alpha Psi sweethearts and they take it very seriously. Do you all think they should be addressed in this project? This past summer an issue was raised as to whether or not imitation went too far in regards to Men Interested in Alpha Kappa Alpha (MIAKA) [2]. Would love to hear feedback. Thanks! Knicksfan4ever 17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see some benefit to addressing sweetheart orgs, but if there is no verifiable documentation that recognizes sweethearts on a national level, then it starts entering into the realm of chapter-level traditions/recognitions. I don't see the activities of an individual chapter or group of chapters as being notable unless it had a direct and verifiable influence on the activities and direction of the national organization (IE, in my org, the push from various chapters to become co-ed). Justinm1978 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
What you are saying definitely makes sense. The only one I know of is Iota Phi Theta that recognizes sweethearts nationally. I think you are correct about it being a chapter level tradition. I visited IUP back in 1991 and I met some Sigma Chi Sweethearts, but I had never seen any at any other school. As far as BGLO's quite a few do have sweetheart organizations Omega Psi Phi, Phi Beta Sigma etc, depends on the chapter. I know at my school these organizations were banned because of the reputation that came with them. Thanks for responding. Knicksfan4ever 18:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there is probably enough information about HBCU Auxiliary organizations (both official and unofficial for a page. This would include both the sweetheart organizations (which other than the Iotas in the HBCUs aren't official it could also including some of the "junior" organizations for the NPHC sororities.Naraht (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Alpha Phi Alpha host a national paegeant held at the General Convention to crown a national Miss Black and Gold. The contestants are sweethearts at local colleges who win the chapter, state, regional and finally the national title. Kappa Alpha Psi has college sweethearts, but it also has a national Silhouette group which consist of the wives of members. In fact, I think they have a seat on the national kappa foundations. I don't think a separate article is necessary, however; a section within the "fraternities and sor..." article might be more appropriate.--Ccson (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Some affiliate groups are banned by the NPHC and organizations themselves. miranda 14:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, MiAKA should not be addressed in AKA, because they are not a part of AKA. miranda 14:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to MIAKA being a part, AKA does not even recognize them (unfortunately it had to be addressed-see link [3], just giving an example on how some groups are frowned upon, however as User:Ccson stated, some organizations do take their auxiliaries very seriously. Again, the only one I know is Iota Phi Theta, they include a section for them on their national website. I agree, it should be addressed in a section within the frat/sor page. Just wanted to bring it up to see what everyone thought! Thanks! Happy New Year!! Knicksfan4ever 14:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Chi Omega

I'm not going to be online for the next few days (driving very long distances, yay!) could somebody look over the Alpha Chi Omega page? A user is contesting (and tweaking) the 'controversial' (sourced) information that is on there that doesn't exactly shed a good light over the organization. Thanks! --ImmortalGoddezz 02:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of its inclusion in any event. I'm not sure that a single event like that rates mention as the percentage that it is of a page representing a Sorority that has been active for that long. I seriously doubt that it is the only chapter that has been declared inactive by the Sorority. Also, no mention at all is made on the Pi Kappa Alpha page. If every fraternity and sorority on Wikipedia had that much text for each event which people would consider that serious or more so, *many* of articles would look different. For example, I would personally count hazing incidents that led to hospitalization (or death) of a pledge more serious. Naraht (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Might want to look at a PR. A google book search is cool, too, for references. Also, might want to put a fair use image guideline on the crest. miranda 12:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
PR might be the way to go however I leave today. My concern is that this page is being WP:CENSORED. I've asked for a reason why the information should be removed and haven't gotten a specific answer and the user has not been WP:CIVIL. As for the inclusion of the information; I realize that not every page has something in the way of controversies on them however this did make national headlines (CNN, NY Times, Denver News) and is properly sourced and cited (college citations could probably be trimmed down and replaced with other links). My own personal policy is that wiki isn't a rush brochure.. but be that as it may the information was added and passes guidelines. If community consensus is that it should go, that's fine, but I hate it when newly registered users (most likely members of the org) come in and remove 'controversial' information. With no clear reasoning besides and a whole 'I'd fix it but I don't want to so it should go' reasoning. There's been a discussion on the talk page that summarizes the whole situation. Oh and thanks for letting me know about the FURG if nobody gets to it before I get back I'll add one. --ImmortalGoddezz 14:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

new layout

Since I made a new layout, we need to delete this Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/to do. miranda 11:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Deleted. miranda 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been busy or else I would have said this earlier: I think the layout looks nice. Thanks Miranda for all the work you put into it. :) --ImmortalGoddezz 06:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

We also have a backlog of 190+ unassessed articles. Can we assess these as a group? miranda 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

yes I'm gonna take some time right now to clear some of those out over the course of the day hopefully in a day or two we will have most of those rated. Please feel free to come along behind and look over my assessments. I did most of the original articles when the grading system was first introduced and those did not meet with much controversy so hopefully these will not either if it looks like it will be controversial i will make a note of it here :) Trey (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to do a script, but the script crashed my browser. We should assess according to the rankings on the WP:1.0 page. miranda 01:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Thats what we have always been using along with the additional guidelines we as a project set forth a while back on what determines the importance rating of the article.

And I'm for now just working from the Category:Unassessed Fraternities and Sororities articles for now.Trey (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. miranda 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And now we are done. This list on Category:Unassessed Fraternities and Sororities articles is cleared. However it's still showing the Lists as un-assesed. Glad thats over with.Trey (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I can fix the lists. miranda 06:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
All done! miranda 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Phi Beta Chi

I am trying to update the Phi Beta Chi page, since there was pretty much no information on it. However, most of our chapter pages link to non university sites, so the system keeps deleting my changes...is there any way to stop this? Im new at this wikipedia editing thing, but im hoping editing the page will look good on our organization... Bxgirl2010 (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are spam bots that automatically revert edits like that. Since you probably added sites that are notorious for having spam or user generated content (eg. geocities, bravenet, etc.) your edit was reverted. Since wikipedia is not a directory they generally shouldn't be added anyway, however that doesn't stop them from being added occasionally. Since I'm not sure how the bots operate I can't really add any more info than that. --ImmortalGoddezz 06:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

List of organization chapters

Should be deleted according to WP:DIRECTORY. What does everyone think before I take this to AFD? miranda 09:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Chapter list pages? Like List of Sigma Kappa chapters and List of Phi Delta Theta chapters? Because those are near and dear the heart of many editors both regulars here at this Project and out in Wiki World. We created those to clear them off of the main article since some can run hundreds long but without them vandalisms becomes a bigger problem since every annon wants to add his or her chapter. They have stood for quite some time I believe a few have survived AFD's already and i know many Admins have already seen them. Personally i never look at them I'm not even sure if there is one for my Fraternity but i think you may get some strong arguments if you start trying to delete them. I see no real reason they should go myself. In any case they do serve some purpose a Greek organization is nothing but a collection of chapters at various universities and their history is usually developed through the actions of a specific chapter so having the list as a reference is useful. In addition even our own importance scale that we just used to clear that massive backlog (thanks for the Barnstar btw) is based on the number of chapters a organization has. Thats what i looked at to determine a High or Mid importance rating when they were available. And they as pages in their own right have already been taken into account in the ratings. Just some thoughts. Trey (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can the chapters be found in on the national website? miranda 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I say AFD it, per WP:DIRECTORY, unless someone can come up with a complelling reason to keep them. This seems like a replication of data that would (and should, IMO) be maintained on the national organization's website. Justinm1978 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They probably can be found on some sites with some digging but by that definition then nearly everything on Wikipedia should be deleted. Most certainly all those list of Notable Members which can be found (usually on the main page) on the national website fall into that category then. Chapters them selves on their own are not notable enough to merit a wiki page that we have long since reached consensus on but locations of chapter houses are useful at the least to members of the organization check to see if a house is at a particular university. And we also allow a full listing of every Greek group at a university. Note the Dartmouth College Greek organizations Nothing more than a very well done List. So whats the difference in having a chapter list of every university a organization is at? I'm not saying they meet WP:Directory they might even be in direct violation of those Guidelines but they are a useful list and allot of work of other editors has went into themTrey (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See previous discussion. Acidskater (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've actually been separating those lists from the main page of the article that way if they are sent off the the chopping block (which I fully expect one of these days) then there's not too much disruption to the main articles. The lists seem to provide some point of reference within the articles however many people see them as a place to include their chapter websites. I've gone through and removed the websites before but they've always been added back and it's not on my high priority list. I could easily lean either way in regards to them. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox change proposal

I'm proposing a change to how the number of chapters are listed in the infobox are deliniated. I find the numbers to be misleading, and would like to suggest a way to correct that. Please give some feedback/comments. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigma Chi

I just wanted to give all the members of this wikiproject a heads up that user Jjbarea keeps adding the supposed 'ritual' to the page (he even added it to his own userpage, I guess to let everyone know). I have reverted it twice and Dysepsion did as well, but it would be helpful if others in the project could keep an eye out as well. I really don't care about him having it on his userpage, it is his own page, and it isn't even close to the real thing. Thanks! Acidskater (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There's always some weirdos trying to give away what they think are fraternity secrets, it's good to know that these are false. I will indeed keep an eye on the page to stop his vandalism. Samwisep86 (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this "ritual posting" is not limited to Sigma Chi recently, but also Kappa Alpha Order. An anonymous editor has been posting sensitive information for KA in the past couple days, so please be on the lookout for these kind of "spoiler" editors. Samwisep86 (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

pretty interesting stuff. how big should a fraternity be? for inclusion. 150.210.176.71 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Primary source tagging

An editor added a need primary source tag to the Sigma Phi Epsilon article because all the references are from the Sigep national website and Sigep historical documents. Now, i don't dispute this fact but their are no reliable outside third party sources for the huge majority of Greek organizations even the books on greek groups tend to be published by the Greek headquarters. The national websites tend to be quite accurate they are vetted by other Greek organizations since they are a primary recruiting method for prospective students and their parents. If one group was making false claims you would know from other groups crying foul pretty quickly. Other than news reports that are almost uniformly negative (and even if not are usually only specific to a certain chapter) their really is not a up to date national publication that can be used to verify facts third party. So I removed the tag from the Sigep article since its not on any other Greek page. The Sigep article is quite well cited by our standards most Greek articles don't even have sources from their own websites or any others. I think instead of trying to find almost non existent outside sources we should focus more on citing the facts in Greek articles i don't see a major problem with using the Nationals websites for that. And lets avoid having a big glaring tag at the top of each and every Greek page. Thoughts? Trey (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Getting third party sources mentioning a fraternity or sorority is almost impossible unless some controversy is involved (e.g. Delta Zeta, Pi Kappa Phi). Most Greek articles don't have sources outside their own organization. If anyone wants to question that, take a look at Alpha Kappa Alpha and Alpha Phi Alpha, both of which are featured articles yet the majority of their cited text comes from primary sources. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As wikipedia's guidelines state, using first party sources are acceptable unless there are certain conditions. Two of these are if the 1. information is highly contentious or 2. Unduly self serving. Claiming sig ep is the largest social fraternity clearly falls under both of those categories Asics4381 (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Looking at the attribution guidelines, I find:
  1. "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge."
  2. "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible."[Emph mine]
  3. "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking policy or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves."
  4. Self-Published sources (this is where you get your two points, and so I'll enumerate all the points here)
  1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves.: "[The source] is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; [and] the article is not based primarily on such sources.
  2. Professional self-published sources and Carefully selected temporary links with regard to developing current events don't seem to apply.
So, the way I see it
  1. Membership numbers are "descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge."
  2. There are no (as far as I am aware) published secondary sources that provide this information. The best you could do is the out of date Baird's Manual, which simply quotes self reported numbers anyway (I think).
  3. National/International organizations have editorial oversight and fact-checking policies, as a general rule. I am unaware of any reputation the NIC groups, at least, have for miss-stating their enrollment numbers. They are certainly not "extremist," "promotional," or based on "rumor" and "opinion." Further, if these sources were questionable, they could still be used in articles about themselves.
  4. I presume membership numbers are relevant to notability (or we wouldn't be talking about this). They are not terribly contentious (at least to others), or there would be discussion. And, they are not unduly self-serving. Perhaps this last point deserves more explanation. Membership numbers are collected routinely for internal purposes and for the purposes of reporting to the NIC. Since each group does this, it is clear who reports the biggest number. Since they collect these numbers for internal purposes as well, there's a reasonable expectation that they're close enough to accurate.
And there are reasons why groups like national/international fraternities record membership numbers for things beyond bragging rights and beyond the NIC. Banks and other lending institutions require this sort of info.
Getting back to the issue at hand. If there is any contention about what group is the largest, I see no reason why it cannot be mentioned in its own section on all the viewing group's articles. Otherwise, a simple statement such as "Based on Sig Ep's count of men initiated, they are the largest group ever" followed by a cite that points to Sig Ep's website ought to be fine. Otherwise, "Sig Ep's claim to largest group ever(cite), is based on their own report of 5 members;(cite) however, other groups dismiss this claim(cite) citing their own numbers to be in the dozens.(cite)" should work. (Those last cites are very important.)
Why should this be hard? Don't clutter every page with annoying banners. And worse yet, don't just pick one group and harass them. Thanks. — gogobera (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Return of banned user who is editing fraternity/sorority articles

Mykungfu who has been banned since late 2006 is currently active with socks and has edited articles relating to NPHC organizations including (but not limited to):

His modus operandi is to claim that Alpha Phi Alpha is not the oldest fraternity. He uses such examples like Sigma Pi Phi, Gamma phi, and Alpha Kappa Nu in order to dispute the claim that Alpha Phi Alpha is not the oldest fraternity for African-Americans. He has abused numerous IP socks from AOL in the past, and is currently active on Talk:Alpha Phi Alpha disputing the first versus the oldest fraternity.

Other helpful links:

miranda 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal

What do the members of this project think about creating a Fraternities and Sororities portal?El Grande Johnson (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you post an example of such a portal? Corsulian (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
eg. Portal:Philadelphia. With wikiprojects and mainspace pages the usage of portals are kind of on the fence with me, I rarely see/come across them (eg. they don't really help me with my navigation of the subject) and I'm not sure what they really add to the project because of that. More info Wikipedia:Portal. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 14:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah--while I think it's a very well-intentioned idea, I'm not sure if our cherished subject here really has enough to fill up a portal even if one were to be created. We have organizations--many with two attached lists (members and chapters), umbrella organizations, and a couple broad informational articles in need of repair. What else would be in the portal? Corsulian (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideas needed

I would like to ask anyone greek speaking that have contributed in this WikiProject to read the greek article el:Ελευθεροτεκτονισμός to give ideas and advices.--Iordanis777listening 10:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Might want to ask the Greek WikiProject. miranda 17:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


little help

An editor is challenging me on the first party reliability of SigEp's claims to the largest fraternity and i suspect he will soon begin challenging all the other fraternity's claims to size and achievements. His argument is the usual first party cite. Does anyone know of a third party source that would have these numbers? an if not can anyone develop a better argument than what i can to defend this position. He strikes me as willing to take thi up with Admins and we need a good defense/ Since it SigEp thi time i feel a little biased but if SigEp's is removed so will TKE SAE and any other first party cited claims which is many claims on many organizations. The discussion such as it is is located at Talk:Sigma Phi Epsilon if you want to have a look. thanks in advance for any help ya'll can provideTrey (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Two ideas:
  • It actually is poor form to use first party claims as objective sources for "largest," "fastest growing," etc. However, it's a simple change to state, "Sigma Epsilon officially claims to be ...." It doesn't lose any information -- in fact, it's more descriptive. Having an outsider come in and take us to task on the issue should not be considered an assault on our various national organization's integrity, but rather a legitimate chance to improve the encyclopedic nature of our articles and the overall quality of our project.
  • Baird's Manual is pretty much the source to go to. However, the most recent published is 17 years old, making it essentially useless for current statistics. Theoretically, (according to our article), the NIC plans on publishing electronically this year or the next. So, that'll be the great if and when that happens. Meanwhile, I think that the NIC requires member groups to report such stats. Presumably other umbrella orgs do the same. If they publish those numbers, I would prefer them as a source. However, since they (the umbrellas) share common interest with their member orgs, it would still be useful to phrase the statistics as "according to the NIC" or something equivalent.
I cannot think of any group that would have invested the time and energy in verifying these records that doesn't have a conflict of interests at some level. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't use self-reported numbers (without context, even) for things like infoboxes. In the articles (in the body text), I see no reason why we shouldn't be clear about our sources.
(Full disclosure: I'm a brother of ΛΧΆ: "the youngest of the fifteen largest social fraternities, Lambda Chi Alpha has initiated the fourth highest number of men ever." (-: And that's unsourced, entirely! So I guess I oughta do right and fix up the article.) — gogobera (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I don't think Baird's does anything more than report what each org self-reports to their editors. I am not aware of any publication that has attempted to verify these types of numbers. Since we're not supposed to do original research, it seems like quoting self-reported figures is probably the best we can do. Let's just be clear about it. — gogobera (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

i have no problem qualifying the cite if that will make the admin's and editor happy. But the editor wants it totally removed and i personally think its very important info. not just because I'm a sigep but for the fact of it if delta chi was the largest fraternity even not being a member that would be very important info to me. for perspective greeks current greeks and even just people interested in greek life the largest, or fastest growing or smallest or most chapters or most alum or oldest or newest, all these facts are important. the fact that no third party really reports on Greeks should not be held against them. If it is it really limits the scope of the article and the usefulness of it. at least in my opinion. Anyways Baird's is no better than the chapter websites. i haven't heard about the NIC's project maybe that will help. Personally at last these would be better than coming from Sigep.org or TKe.org or whatever even if the numbers were no different. i just think its all some hypocritical bullshit.Trey (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Chapter List Template

So there's a fine template on here for notable member lists. Any objection to a chapter list template? I think the use the notable member template, at a minimum, improves the appearance of these lists and greatly quiets the dicussion of removing them. This could also be good for chapter lists. Yes, chapter lists are often available on national Web sites but they rarely contain all the possible information. Some don't include dates, current status, when a chapter became inactive and, dare I propose, you could add an image or two of houses? Corsulian (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty good conversation I've got going with myself here, so, here's what I was going for:
Name Chartered Institution Location Status Notes Reference |- style="vertical-align:top;" class="vcard" Alpha 1873 University of Massachusetts Active

Corsulian (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I do like the chapter list template. There's not much else I can chip in but thought I would at least leave positive feedback on it. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Corsulian (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I love the new template, but I think you should also add a column for notes. I know the List of Sigma Chi chapters has multiple chapters which merged with other chapters or have something to note. Acidskater (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this a bit would it make better sense to separate the location into city and state? I know people like to easily look for chapters by state and the current location set up only allows arrangement via city. Trivial but something to discuss before I start adding this to all the PHC sororities. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 15:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thats a great idea. I'll go ahead and change that up. Acidskater (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


Why do we need a location column? If you're linking already to a specific university, this seems redundant. A reference column seems pointless, too. Most references are going to apply to the entire list, not individual rows. The work by littlealien at List_of_Pi_Kappa_Phi_Chapters is good I think. Iheartwiki19 (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that brings up a few things. There are people that like to sort by state. I'm not sure what the point of cities. If it's a specific campus, that could be explained under "school." For references there are things to consider like how often some sources are updated, status changes, etc. Most of my chapters come from one particular book but there may be national magazines that describe closures and rechartering. National Web sites are not reliable for all orgs. I do agree that there's a bit too much in the template at this point. Corsulian (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I made some truncated versions (just add a "2" at the end of the existing templates) which don't have "city" or "notes." I would just use the Notes reference templates if there's something particular to discuss about a chapter.Corsulian (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Chapter Colonized Chartered School State Status Charter range Reference
University of Massachusetts Massachusetts Active

Wikiquote

I started this if anyone wants to chip in: Fraternity & Sorority Life on Wikiquote. I'm pretty new to Wikiquote but I don't think I've committed any major crimes by putting that article together. Yes, the sources are all just from the new member manual I was given years ago but the quotes themselves come from a variety of people from different organizations.Corsulian (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

So I've been playing with reorg ideas here: Corsulian's Sandbox. I also posted on the fraternities and sororities talk page for feedback but it's tough trying to gauge how many users here actually look at that page. Any feedback would be appreciated including but not limited to:

  • "Shut up, Corsulian"
  • "This idea is so brilliant that it is notable for inclusion on WikiNews"
  • "You...you can't do that...it's unthinkable"
  • "You...you can't do that...you actually don't have the permission levels to"
  • "I support your aim and offer the following constructive criticism..." Corsulian (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Separating References

Hello, I am new to editing wikipedia and I have been working on editing the list of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority sisters to provide a more comprehensive list of all members, in addition to more references and a more detailed description of what makes them notable. However, I believe I have been using the correct format for references, but after reference number 35, all of my citations run together. Could someone please help me figure out how to provide a separate entry for each source? Thank You. Divainred (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Divainred, June 23, 2008.

I've fixed it. It happened when you duplicate references.. you were adding <ref name="ebony"/ref> when it should be <ref name="ebony"/>. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

C-class

I upgraded Delta Sigma Theta to C-class. If certain start articles meet C-class, please assess them as such. miranda 09:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

References

When I first came to en.wikipedia, I had a lot of trouble establishing citations and references and just finding good information that wasn't just pulled from some org's national Web site. I thought I hit the jackpot when I discovered that Baird's manual from 1879 was on wiki source. But the real jackpot, I've found, is Google Books. Search for your organization or terms and you can find old texts and publications (and pictures even) that are now in the public domain and scanned online. I personally suggest citing these with ref tags and the Citation template. Corsulian (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Scanned by Google does not mean things are now public domain. All the old rules apply as far as copyright goes. It DOES mean you can link to references, though, which does help a good deal.LesleyAnnWarren (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Mystical 7 Society

It might be appropriate to include this (Mystical 7) in the Fraternities and Sororities project.LesleyAnnWarren (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Start. miranda 18:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Fraternities and Sororities articles

I don't know but it seems that a lot of articles on Fraternities and Sororities are degenerating into lists of chapters and 'Notable members'. ---No history, no analysis, no nothing. I realize this can all be controversial, but it seems that an article with just a list of members, (i.e., Beta Theta Pi) serves virtually no purpose at all.LesleyAnnWarren (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

History, history of the system

There has been a page "History of North American college fraternities and sororities". With this edit '15:32, 1 July 2008 Corsulian (Talk | contribs) (22,798 bytes) (Hard Replacement. Not finished--but nothing of particular importance has been replaced.)' Corsulian changed the name of ths page to read "History of the North American fraternity and sorority system" apparently to signify that the new page should reflect that fraternities work as a system.

However, there are entirely legitimate fraternities that are a part of no system, such as the Yale societies. I have recreated a new "History of North American college fraternities and sororities" page to have a more inclusive history, and allowed the "History of the North American fraternity and sorority system" page to remain so Corsulian can continue on with whatever work he wants to continue on with. Writing about the inter-relations of fraternities and sororities as an article of its own is as legitimate as is necessary.

(Although appropriating the group efforts of one article and redirecting it to another article somehow seems incorrect.)

The general history, it sems, should be under the most general and inclusive header as possible.LesleyAnnWarren (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My name reasoning was that the existing history was already 99% about the North American fraternity and sorority system. There is a whole Secret Society wikiproject that seemed appropriate for groups such as Skulls and Bones that, without question, share traits and historical elements with Greek Letter Organizations but they've largely evolved and become organized along very different lines. I feel like "fraternities and sororities" shouldn't be an article - the disambiguation pages for "fraternity" and "sorority" ought to allow people to see the North American system (with the secondary school system as a subset), the Filipino system, other collegiate societies, the various European systems, etc. In any case, the previous history article was mostly a collection of "firsts" that were only vaguely accurate. I'm putting together a "history of firsts in the North American fraternity and sorority system" article for all that with hopefully enough categories to appease all (claims for being the "first fraternity" or "sorority" or "black fraternity to create a publication with the Arial font" can all be legitimately claimed by many groups and often are...with an incredible number of related edit wars).Corsulian (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I exactly understand what it is you mean to do. Whatever system there is, it would be fine to have a history of that. I wasn't really speaking about Skull & Bones type organizations, but any college fraternal organization--there are those that work in NIC-type settings, and those that don't. And the development of these organizations from the 1820's to the 1870's was largely outside any organized system. But as far as Skull & Bones type organizations are concerned, there should be one common history article for all kinds of organizations. They did all develop as separate strains out of the same common origin. As far as the 'fraternities and sororities' article itself goes, I agree that should be a general article, and 'North American College Fraternities and Sororities' should be a separate article, (even sororities really should be separate).LesleyAnnWarren (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Fraternities
Fraternities, General
Odd Fellows
Freemasons
Ancient Order of Old Bastards
(etc.)
History
Common articles about
Fraternities, Academic
Fraternities, Academic, (America & Canada)
Professional
Honorary
Social
Secret societies
Coordinating organizations
History of...
Fraternities, Academic, (Germany)
Fraternities, Academic, (United Kingdom)
(etc.)
  • Sororities

(etc.)

Just a sketch... LesleyAnnWarren (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pi Delta Psi

Hello. Some new editors are trying to create an article on the Pi Delta Psi fraternity (their first effort was deleted by me as a copyvio). They've asked me for some help, but I figure that the people on this project have more interest in this specific article and could offer better help in how to write a decent fraternity article. User talk:Changm55 is the place where the discussion is currently happening. Thank you! Fram (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Adult oriented Fraternal Groups

A question has come up at Freemasonry as to whether that article should be listed as being under this project? I suppose the answer depends on whether this project limits itself only to collegiate (Greek) Fraternities and Sororities, or whether it also deals with adult oriented Fraternal orders (such as the Masons, Elks, Knights of Columbus, etc.) If the consensus is that it only deals with collegiate bodies, then I think we may need to form another project for non-collegiate bodies. Perhaps we need to reorganize with a broader "Fraternal Organizations" project, that could have a sub-project for the collegiate fraternities and sororities (this page), and another for the adult oriented fraternities (as a working title, perhaps "Fraternal Orders" would do). Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I think it is an excellent idea. The problem is that this project group should really be WikiProject College Fraternities and Sororities, and the general should be WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. (Ideally, Wikipedia's structure would follow the Library of Congress subject keywords index.) But clearly, the 'adult' societies are the broader categopry of which college fraternities are a subset. Only you have to come up with a better term than 'adult'.P22575R15 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, but remember that HighSchool Frats and Sororities (no mater how small they may be)are under this proyect as well El Grande Johnson (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The disambiguation page Fraternity

Over at WikiProject Disambiguation, we're discussing how to best handle the disambiguation page Fraternity, and any input from knowledgeable folks from this Wikiproject would be most appreciated! The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Fraternity.2C_Sorority.2C_and_the_whole_deal. Thank you for your help in working on this topic. -- Natalya 18:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 506 articles are assigned to this project, of which 187, or 37.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Delta Upsilon

Can someone keep an eye or weigh in on the Delta Upsilon page? There was a list of notable alumni which was a duplicate of a 2nd article with the same info. I've removed this info as redundant but one user keeps reverting without explanation. If I'm wrong and the duplicate info needs to stay, thats ok, but I'd like a 2nd opinion. Jrssr5 16:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've commented at the talk page. I agree that a full restatement of the list should not be made. Listing a few key alumni is reasonable; I know that's standard practice in the universities WikiProject. —C.Fred (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Gamma Phi Sigma

I was told to talk to you about why the page i created for Gamma Phi Sigma was deleted as it had the same format as many of the pages i've seen in wikipedia for other frats and sororities. (20:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gphi1992 (talk • contribs)

Look at your talk page, and it explains the answer. Also, a banned editor made the first edits. miranda 08:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Fraternities and Sororities

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the ranking of all articles in the WikiProject is based in part on quality, and I think there are quite a few articles that are much improved beyond their current quality rating but have not been recently reviewed. It may be the case that only the selected article - Freemasonry - qualifies due to hit-count to be included, but I think it would still help if all did a quick re-assessment of pages in the project? Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppfleiger (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Theta Delta

Fox Theta Delta has been nominated for deletion. Please review the AfD discussion here. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 01:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The 2 or 3 KAs

Kappa Alpha Society, Kuklos Adelphon, and Kappa Alpha Order are so thoroughly confusable that the articles should probably explicitly discuss the distinction.
--Jerzy•t 19:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Help on Theta Chi

Three of us are discussing whether to retain in the Theta Chi article the news from this past May on the San Diego State University drug bust. The discussion on the talk page seems to me to be involving strong opinions. I would appreciate help from the Fraternity & Sorority project in resolving this discussion, especially from people not affiliated with that fraternity. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should include controversy due to NPOV, because I had to do that with Alpha Kappa Alpha, a featured article. miranda 22:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I am also in favor of including it. Another example in keeping NPOV has been in Phi Kappa Psi, which was also included in the SDSU drug bust. Samwisep86 (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion discussion

Hi. An article related to this WikiProject is currently up for deletion: Articles_for_deletion/Pi Delta Kappa
(don't think it's on WP:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Watchlist, though is in Category: Fraternities and sororities.)

Recently closed results (I had a spare few mins) include:
(Type: (local, regional/national); org status: (current or historic); AfD result: (open, re-listed & ongoing, keep, delete).

Best, Whitehorse1 22:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Alpha Kappa Alpha added to FA scheduling requests

I added Alpha Kappa Alpha to featured article scheduling requests. miranda 22:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comments/Evaluation/Help - List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines

I've spent about the last three weeks attempting to reference all of the Fraternities and Sororities on the List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines page. I would appreciate comments on the talk page for the Article. Some pieces of information:

  • Most of these groups were added by unregistered users who appear to be interested only in putting their own group on the list. Some of them didn't care whether it wrecked the table structure or not. I have alphabetized (and sorted by type) however.
  • Right now there is no page inclusion criteria. There are no multi fraternity national organizations equivalent to IFC, NPC, NPHC or even NALFO. Unfortunately a simple count of chapters is not appropriate since one of the most prestigious as possibily oldest (Upsilon Sigma Phi) exists on only two campuses: The main campus of the University of the Philippines and another campus of UP.
  • Every reference on the page was added by myself, just so you know where to complain about that. :) Along those lines, yes I know that some of the groups have as their reference either friendster, alumni.net or a yahoo group page. I wanted to find the best reference I could for all of them regardless of how bad it was and then later, perhaps use the fact that there are no better references as part of the criteria for determining notability and/or deletion.
  • Yes, I know that an initial paragraph would be useful. I'm still researching possibilities for that.

I am doing my best to make this a useful article. I feel that it can be and that without it, unregistered users from Philipino greeks will be more likely to make uncaring edits (as opposed to pure vandalism) to other lists of fraternities and sororities. Thank You.Naraht (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Archive_3&oldid=1227272285"