Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Kappa Kappa Gamma/Ivins mention

Wouldn't mind some input on this discussion, on whether or not it's relevant to add the Bruce Ivins Kappa Kappa Gamma obsession to the article. Thanks, --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 07:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved. Thanks for your input, all! 207.237.33.6 (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

College songs

There is a thread on the administrators' noticeboard which may affect editors involved in this WikiProject. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lyrics. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

MU Greek Life

I have been searching for information. But sources should be checked regarding the date that Alpha Gamma Delta was closed on campus. In the MU Greek Life page, it states that it was in the spring of 1993. This was not the case. Alpha Gamma Delta was closed spring semester my Freshman year and that was 1990. In addition, I am not sure that Alpha Gamma Delta sold their house to the fraternity that is listed. My reasoning is because Sigma Kappa moved into the house and where there until I graduated in August 1993. When I graduated Alpha Kappa Lambda was residing in a different house that was closer to Frat Row than Greek town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajb1971 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Template FratMember

After making some improvements to another member list template, I was asked to update some others, and other editors have copied some of these changes. In order to keep all of this centralized, I have created {{mem}} with the ability to create lists for general members, alumni, fraternities and faculty and is easily expandable. This template includes an image list that maintains the images in the proper place regardless of the screen size. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Beta Upsilon Chi

Beta Upsilon Chi has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Chapter articles

I need to know what the wikipedia policy is on naming and inclusion of chapter articles. The Mu Theta chapter of the Zeta Psi fraternity appears to have made an article on their chapter, how should it be named and how should it interact with the Zeta Psi article?

--metta, The Sunborn 05:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule, individual chapters are not notable. I don't see anything particularly noteworthy about this chapter. —C.Fred (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included." --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should have chapter articles on organizations per Wikipedia is not a directory. miranda 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy history has been that chapter articles are candidates for speedy delete. When i first started editing on wikipedia a few years ago i made a article on my chapter FL Zeta and watched it get deleted within an hour by an admin. Individual chapters just aren't notable on their own. Besides they tend to have no verifiable sources for info on them and if they did do something notable like say cause the downfall of the whole organization :) or be the mother chapter for an orginization it would likely be better documented in the context of the national article as a whole.... so yeah i think we are all agreeing that this article should be deleted and future ones should probably be also.Trey (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:10, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

NPOV regarding claims to prestige

There have been editor discussions and in one recent case a dispute regarding claims to prestige or comparative claims regarding selectivity. For example, "X honor society is considered the most prestigious Q" (see the WP:LEAD of Phi Beta Kappa and talk:Phi Beta Kappa Society) or "Y honor society claims that is it the most selective Z" (see talk:Phi Kappa Phi). It would be nice to come up with some general guidelines for making such claims so that it is consistent across all honor societies. can no claim be made about these, should they always be qualified as "so and so claims that…", or in some cases can one actually claim without indication as to who is making such a claim. --Lhakthong (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any NPOV to address this. Prestige and selectiveness are both inherently subjective, and claims as such aren't really encyclopedic. The only groups that have any actual claim to prestige are the various "firsts" and "largest" groups (IE, first fraternity, first sorority, first AA GLO, largest fraternity/sorority, etc.), and even then, where do we draw the line at what is prestigious enough (The first hispanic fraternity, the largest collegiate service fraternity) and what is not (the first Asian-American Sorority at ABC State University, the largest black greek lettered fraternity that isn't part of the NPHC)? Guidelines would be good, but they would have to be quite concrete. I've got no way in mind to address this, I'm partially just rambling and partially happy that someone else is interested in this. Justinm1978 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I just added six sources calling PBK the oldest and most prestigious liberal arts and science honor society. None of them are PBK itself or any of its chapters. The seven current sources include a mix of Universities discussing their honor societies, newspaper articles, University news bulletins, the Library of Congress, and student campus publications. I most probably can find tens more if necessary, as basically every university in the country with a PBK chapter (all 280 or so) refers to it as the "oldest and most prestigious" of the liberal arts and science honor societies. The claim for PBK is reliably and verifiably sourced. -- Avi (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
My comments on the PBK page regarding the Avi's comment is essentially this: We need a source such that any of the following claimc can be made:
1) "A survey conducted by X found Phi Beta Kappa to be the most prestigious…" (cite survey)
2) "So-and-so of X institution claims that Phi Beta Kappa is the most prestigious…" (cite publication where so-and-so makes that claim)
3) "Phi Beta Kappa was ranked "most presitigious" in Z publication." (cite Z publication where such rank is granted)
4) "Phi Beta Kappa claims that it is the most prestigious." (cite webpage or publication where PBK makes the claim).
The claims written this way are not subjective but reporting of fact, which is what Wikipedia does. To make a subjective claim and then back it up with sources which demonstrate why you think such a claim is justifiable is original research. They have to be written so they are unquestionably verifiable, cited to the immediate source, regardless of anyone thinks of the truth of the claim. Otherwise, it should not be stated. --Lhakthong (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
One side point, the sources brought are not supporting the claim that PBK is the most prestigious. The sources are being brought because each source calls PBK the most prestigious. That is not OR, that is proper sourcing. -- Avi (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand the sourcing issue and i agree it is properly sourced. I just find that the claim prestigious is so hard to say definitively. While PBK is very well respected and if you asked me what the most prestigious society is it would be right at the top of the list, show me a verifiable survey or quantifiable anything... Saying it is the most prestigious also seems to me as coming dangerously close to saying "its the best" i mean it is an honor society so prestigious.. best.. seems like a easy leap to make, and we should not be making those judgments. Articles by newspapers are great and the sourcing is good but its still a tough call to avoid that pesky POV. I mean i think most of us would agree Harvard is the most prestigious university in the US.. except for those pesky Yale chaps. And they both can produce numbers claiming their selectivity. It just seems like a Pandora's box type of issue. Yes you can find ten sources saying PBK is most prestigious but i could also probably find several sources making that claim for another and it does vary from campus to campus.(and don't ask me to find these sources I'm just making a point) I don't care one way or the other what happens to the PBK article i think alot of work could be done on it and the focus on this one part is silly and ignores the fact that the overall article is not in a great state for such a "prestigious and selective" honor society. I just don't want this to come back and bite us, particularly on the social Greek pages. Those are contentious enough without the Sigeps or kappa sigs or ATO or any other group making all sorts of claims as the most well respected selective or prestigious social organization.Trey (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor the point, but "widely reported as" is "mass attribution" (what objectively constitutes "widely"?) and is not adequate for verifiability. I understand your point regarding OR, and I agree with Treyt021 that you've done good work grabbing sources. But what is written now is not a verifiable claim in the way an objective claim ought to be regardless of the number of sources. Saying something "is the most prestigious" or is "considered the most prestigious" is subjective and vague, no matter who or how many people say it. So, it alone is not verifiable fact. What is verifiable fact is stating who exactly makes such a claim and citing it such that someone can go to the source and see that that person or that report or that survey did indeed make that claim. Thus my suggestions above. Considering it's a pretty solid 3 to 1 at this point and unless anyone new has anything more to add, I'm guessing we should request mediation if this is a stalemate. I'm relatively new here, so I'm not really sure how else to proceed. --Lhakthong (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is part of the problem. As PBK is the oldest extant honor society in the country (and that is just as strongly supported), it has been basically taken for granted as the most prestigious. To Trey, I do not believe that there is any other society that calls itself the most prestigious university liberal arts and science society. PTK restricts itself to 2-year colleges and PKP is careful to call itself the most prestigious all-discipline society, because PKB would not be applicable to technical colleges, for example. If you can find another society that makes that claim, I would be very surprised. When the society is the oldest, and is called the most prestigious by HUNDREDS of universities and publications, that is pretty clear, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I have added two more citations, both from The New York Times, 20 years apart, both referring to PBK as either the most prestigious or most coveted. I could go on and on, I'm sure, where no other society can. By the way, the next step if you feel that the eight representative citations are not overwhelming is not mediation, but a request for comment/request for third opinion. -- Avi (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Avi, thanks for the suggestion. The reason I did not suggest a third opinion is because that option is for a dispute between two editors only, and in addition to you and I two other editors, Trey and Justinm1978, have weighed in here, effectively giving us two third opinions. We might also include User:Ericdn, who asked me on the talk:Phi Beta Kappa Society page what would qualify as appropriate citation and had not since responded to my suggestions. That puts five editors in the mix, one that has not voiced an opinion on the matter since my suggestions, three suggesting the claim is a POV problem, and one defending it, with no more movement towards consensus. That is why I suggested mediation.
As an aside, technically PBK is not the oldest honor society. According to an article on the ACHS website, PBK was first a social and literary society, and only after the establishment of Phi Kappa Phi, Sigma Chi, and Tau Beta Kappa did it organize as an honor society:
"Tau Beta Pi, 1885
Sigma Xi at Cornell, 1886
Phi Kappa Phi at Maine, 1897
Phi Beta Kappa, founded in 1776 as a social and literary fraternity at William and Mary, officially became an honor society in arts and sciences in 1898"
This is to point out that claims need to be made in the format I suggested, otherwise they are wide open to debate on the grounds of technicalities and definitions and as such are open to violating NPOV. If a claim is this debatable, it's not a NPOV. --Lhakthong (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong, the source you brought is unfortunately contradticted by hundreds of reliable sources. The 10 or so I brought in the article already, the 100 more I could bring, and I suggest you look at PBK's own website http://www.pbk.org/infoview/PBK_InfoView.aspx?t=&id=8. The problem with the ACHS is that PBK is not a member of the ACHS, so I am afraid they are not neutral when it comes to PBK. What is fascinating is that Tau Beta Pi calls ITSELF the second-oldest society AND CALLS PBK THE OLDEST (see http://www.tbp.org/pages/About/Index.cfm and http://www.tbp.org/pages/About/InformationBook/History.cfm) So if the ACHS is contradicted by the society the ACHS is touting as the oldest, that brings the reliability of the ACHS site into question. -- Avi (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I must say I am concerned that you would take the word of one website, one with an interest in promoting its member organizations of which PBK is not over the 10 listed independent sources. -- Avi (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving for a conference, but I'll file for mediation when I get back if you haven't done so by then. You can do it here: WP:MEDCAB. --Lhakthong (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation is an option to be filed after we ask for wider input from wikipedians through an RfC. The issue should be brought before a wider audience than this project. I will file the RfC now. -- Avi (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A request for comment has been filed. Please make your opinions known at Talk:Phi Beta Kappa Society#Claim of "considered most prestigious". Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely relevant at the specificity of the dispute, but as a point of information regarding the earlier discussion on ACHS information, Baird's Manual of College Fraternities corroborates what is on the ACHS website: "Not counting Phi Beta Kappa, which did not originate as an honor society but became one, the first of the honor groups is Tau Beta Pi…" (Baird's Manual, 20th edition, p. I-20. ) --Lhakthong (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator is here to help resolve your dispute. The case page for this mediation is located here.

Sigma Rho

Are there precedents of adding the accolades obtained by a college frat member even though there are no evidence that point out that the awards are directly related to the frat itself? The article listed above gives a list of frat alumni with their corresponding honors. I don't think that the awards give any information regarding the frat itself unless it is proven that frat directly influenced their members to obtain such awards.--Lenticel (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly, I think you would want to list that member as a notable member. Then list the award on that member's Wikipedia page. If the member is not notable enough to have a wikipedia page, then he should not be listed (nor the award). See WP:NOTE I have heard some people suggest things like "X fraternities members have included past presidents and Nobel Prize winners". So, you could probably say something like that and make sure it's tightly referenced. I'm leaving out of town in just a few, so I won't be able to respond further for a while. --Lhakthong (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
okay. So should I remove members that have no Wiki articles?--Lenticel (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
This is similar to the problem i have ran across in trying to clean up the Tau Gamma Phi article. Lots of people with no way of telling if they are in any way related to the fraternity and even if they are very questionable notability. I notice one alum's notability on the Sigma Rho page is based on his achievement of becoming an Century 21 prestige Realtor... This is probably not going to pass a notability test. Having a unchallenged wiki page has served as a rule of thumb of late and i for one like it. I would recommend wiki linking the people on the article and deleting the ones who come up red. Most are not going to be notable under any standard. If they are a Governor or some actor though a quick Google search might be in order. Some groups are quite sensitive about their pages :) Trey (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I'll be using your advice to clean up the article.--Lenticel (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The link test is a good one, but it is not the end-all. Some people without pages are notable, where sometimes (albeit less often) people with pages aren't. I have been working hard on List of Zeta Psi brothers and one brother has the highest American medal for bravery but doesn't have a wiki page. Another brother is the grandson of the founder and very longtime chairman of the Molson brewing company. Everyone in Canada knows the Molson beer company, but Eric Molson doesn't have a page. Another case with a notable person without a page would be an 8-year chairman and CEO of Price Waterhouse. Also, from my point of view I don't consider state representatives or senators as being notable or just being an Olympian without winning medals others may disagree. Just being a rear admiral or two star general doesn't make one notable. However, having several slightly notable things might make one notable. Like being a rear admiral and being the international leader of the Knights Templar, that would be notable. Things in life aren't that easy and cut-and-dry. --metta, The Sunborn 03:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Pi Lambda

Wouldn't mind if somebody watchlisted this (Alpha Pi Lambda) - local frat on my campus has recently discovered they have a wiki page and want to whitewash the negative info, replace it with text from the local website. I think at this point I'm relatively too close to it to keep reverting (and I know somebody who has reverted it already) so any help would be appreciated. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to put it on my list. Thanks or all the vandal help too btw. I've seen you around on a lot of my watched pages lately. way to go. Trey (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
ok so the one guy seems to want to start a edit war. I'm about to max out on my reverts. its not that he's really killing the page but what he is taking out is notable and his additions are a little on the fluff side. also his revert comments are snarky and i resent the implication that i spend too much time indoors. :)

I left him a message maybe he will work with me but i kind of doubt it. I seem to have been involved in a few discussions lately so I'd really rather not have to get an admin formally involved here but i agree with Goddezz's version of the article that she has been going to. It follows guideline and read better than the one that the other editor is reverting to. Anyone else care to throw two cents in.Trey (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Trey, I appreciate it! I'm really beginning to hate editing these articles (DU) since it seems to make me a point of attack and/or outing.. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 21:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Acacia Fraternity

Notability needs to be established through citation to reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject (per WP:ORG). At the moment, the only citations are to the fraternity's website. The article will be nominated for AfD if this is not fixed (it has been tagged as needing citations since 2007). Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I see maybe four news articles mentioning the subject here. It also appears in quite a few books here, at least some of which to be kind of significant, with several other mentions, most apparently fairly trivial, here. John Carter (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what the issue is. This group has several chapters throughout the country a quick Google search returns thousands of hits they have been established for over 100 years at several major universities and have several notable alumni. An AFD is completely pointless in this case notability is easy to see and prove. Citations are always a problem for Greek pages because of the lack of academic work done on them. Please check the multitude of other discussions on this page concerning this issue. Trey (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the best way to resolve this is for the editors of the Acacia page to link to some of these secondary sources. Blueboar is assrting that Acacia's notability is not documented, not that Acacia is not a notable organization. One way notability is demonstrated is by citing third-party sources, and Blueboar is saying that this has yet to be done. If there are so many third party sources, which it seems there are, the editors should just cite those sources for info included in the article, and that should put the issue to rest. --Lhakthong (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Its done. yay for pointless wastes of time. If your going to threaten afd why not actually do some work first instead of just making threats that some other editor will have to come along and clean up.Trey (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Because, while I know Wikipedia's notability guidelines well enough to see that there was a problem with this article, I don't know the topic or the sources well enough to actually fix that problem. It seems you do, since you were able to fix it so quickly. Thank you for that. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, until you pointed it out i had never been to that page. But i know running a Google search can sometimes be hard to manage. Figuring out what words to use and what links to click... hard stuff. Anyways glad i could be of help in this caseTrey (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment of Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia

I would like for someone to assess Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia for elevation to a new quality classification. I just completed an extensive revision of this article and am certain that it is now above Start-class. However, I'm a relatively inexperienced Wikipedian and am not sure how good it actually is, and of course it needs an uninvolved editor to review it. I'd like to think that it's close to GA, though I know it probably needs some more 3rd party references. Thanks in advance for helping with this! Michael07lu (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've actually decided to go ahead and nominate this article for GA since it was reviewed for GA once before and failed miserably. Hopefully if it doesn't meet GA criteria then the review will provide good feedback. Michael07lu (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This article has finally been given a GA review, but I must conceded that it will probably not be successful due to a lack of independent sources. Outside of finding a larger variety of sources to cite, I feel that the article certainly rises above Start class and would request that someone associated with this WikiProject re-evaluate the article. I feel that it is probably a B Class article. Michael07lu (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ordering by Greek vs. English.

Do we have any guidelines as to under what conditions a list of Fraternities and Sororities should be ordered by the Greek Letters (i.e. Omega Psi Phi last) or by the english spelling of the greek letters (i.e. Zeta Psi last)Naraht (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I have always seen it ordered by the English spelling and i think that way makes most sense to a majority English speaking audience.Trey (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible issue

This may not be a problem or issue but it appears that James Wenneker von Brunn the holocaust shooter may be a Sigma Alpha Epsilon Alum. Sever attempts have been made to put him in their notable alum lists and a Google search does bring up the SAE letters in several articles of his and others. I was wondering how this may be handled if he is confirmed as an alum? I hate to see him in their lists or even mention of him or the event in the article and his actions have nothing to do with SAE nor does he i suspect. But i feel slightly hypocritical deleting him out while fighting to keep some pornstars and others on other Greek pages when their members try and delete them. Not that i compare the two. this guy is/was scum and i happen to think pornstars can be nice people and more power to them but i think some may draw a connection with the distaste inherent with the two. Just trying to be proactive here. Like i said it may become a non issue. Just trying to get some consensus from other editors so i may have a leg to stand on and to alleviate my hypocritical feelings i did not want to mention it on the talk page of SAE because my personal feelings are that it should not be anywhere near SAE or their talk pageTrey (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability would seem to be the key. Do any independent, reliable sources say he's an SAE? (Again, to compare, I can think of a Playboy centerfold where there's been plenty of sources besides Playboy confirming the woman in question was in said sorority and posed.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
And while MSNBC repeats the allegation that he was president of his SAE chapter,[1] it also notes the information came from von Brunn's website. This would fall under the guidelines of self-published sources, IMO.
Also, at some point, at least a summary of this discussion may need to go to the SAE talk page, to document why he should be in/excluded from the alumni list. —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
He probably was in SAE seems odd to lie about that and several other websited published before this event also state the claim. the mensa thing... but yeah his actions do not have anything to do with SAE and i would not be suprised if the revoke his status if they have not already. And i agree we should move at least part of this to SAE certainly if the decision is made to exclude himTrey (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I again hesitate to draw this comparison, but Bernard Madoff is mentioned in the Sigma Alpha Mu page when his affiliation was the subject of an article in the New York Times. My feeling is that if you're going to list alumni who we're proud of we might also need to (in the interest of neutrality) list alumni who are a little more infamous let's say. However, in the case of James von Brunn, let's make darn sure that it's true before we include it. --Mblumber (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Since its late and i'm feeling a bit tired i'm goning to cheat a bit and cut and paste the conversation i've been having over on SAE i think it illustartes the point i wish to make. And yes we need confirmation he is an SAE and that may be hard to come by. so the following is a several part convoTrey (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It would seem to me that history is history and facts are facts: If a fraternity was noted for a heinous infraction, or was in the news, the fact something occurred that would seem negative doesnt mean it should be excluded. It seems fraternity men are bound and determined to keep anything that may seem to others as negative out of wikipedia. Should we also go to Hitlers page and remove any reference to anti-semitism just because it sounds bad or makes it "Con". Facts are facts, and as long as opinion is kept out, it should be permissible. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC
    • Its also annoying that people assume just because something is deleted from a Greek page its because members are trying to protect their image... Anyways Discussion on this issue at the bottom of the page hereWikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities the question is not if it is good or bad or keeping something out I'm all for keeping notable but bad stuff in Greek pages makes them seem more non pov, but is this man notable in the context of SAE. his actions have nothing to do with SAE so he should not be mentioned in the article as a separate header. To use your Hitler reference that would be like putting Hitler's actions in the page for some Austrian or french town just because Hitler drove through at one point in his twenty's. He has through his actions today became somewhat infamous but does that make him a notable alum? And if SAE strips him of his alum status and they might have already we have no proof of his membership or status except for his own webpage then should he still stay? please discuss here or (preferably to keep things in one place) there before adding him back for now.Trey (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, you make a good point: He is notable in that he is in the news; In addition, his claim to membership may be false; he also claims to be a member of Mensa the "High IQ" Society. And I agree with your analogy that association with the group shouldn't necessarily mean the group should be painted with this. However, if SAE claims many high profile positive image members as part of its ranks, wouldnt they need to balance that with those who may be more infamous? For not I will avoid edits on this issue during discussion. Another question; do the acts of individual chapters that are in good standing not a part of the SAE history? For example, the SAE chapter in Baylor in 2006 and the party where members parodied negative stereotypes of blacks. How far does an chapter have to go before the organization has to recognize. If the fraternity has multiple instances of negative behavior, shouldn't the facts without opinion suffice in the article? Your thoughts?IlliniGradResearch (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
          • that's been a long term discussion does the actions of one group with maybe 60 members need to be mentioned on the page of any organization with thousands of current members and hundreds of thousands of alumni. I personally am fine with it to a point. I believe it was DZ or maybe DG that had a issue with girls selecting only pretty girls and it made big headlines at the time i fought hard for its inclusion. Thats been about two years ago and now i wonder if it should still be there. in 2006 the Baylor incident was notable because it got press coverage but in the context of a hundred and fifty year old organization? it seems to me to kinda pale. I guess in my case i have mixed feelings while its in the news it should probably be mentioned because people will come here looking for it but after a few years pass the issue of racial stereotypes and recruiting pretty girls seems small and if someone deletes it i won't be the guy blowing the whistle. Different if deaths were involved of course. Its a context thing. If you add it i wont be the one deleting it. And if your very interested i would recommend joining the project and contributing your thoughts there.Trey (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Chapter list characteristics.

I'd like suggestions on doing Chapter lists for a fraternity/sorority. I think everyone can agree that the school and the chapter designation (like Gamma or California Gamma) should be in the list. Which other fields do people feel are acceptable?

  1. City/State of the chapter/school?
  2. Status of the chapter (Active, Inactive, Colony)?
  3. Which Province/Region/Area of the Fraternity it is in?
  4. Founding date?
  5. Date of Inactivity (if exists)?
  6. Refounding date (if appropriate)?

Also, for the Status of the chapter, I've seen a page that designates inactive chapters with a gray background, useful or annoying?

I have most of the information above for my fraternity, I'm just looking to see which columns may not be appropriate.Naraht (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Phi 'secret motto'

Secret mottos seem to pop up every now and then however the bulk of them are removed as being unsourced. At Alpha Phi however the book Pledged claims to know the secret motto, it was inserted by an IP, and and now there's something of an effort by several IPs to remove this claim. I know adding 'secret mottos' are somewhat contentious (sources, publication, blah blah blah) so I wouldn't mind some input or another set of eyes on this. --ImGz (t/c) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

i really don't like this "pledged" claims to know it but the claim is no more verifiable than that of the anon IP editors who say they know what it is. Plus as a greek i have a personal stake in keeping my fraternity's secrets and I'll fight to keep them off wikipedia no matter what book is sourced. i try to be fair and unbiased but this is one i'm strongly against. And besides other than angering the members of the fraternity or sorority what does the secret motto or handshake or bird call add to the article? you'll never know for sure if that's really it or just some random thing somebody heard. And If you use it and are found out to to not be a brother or sister you are risking your health is some areas of the country. So yeah i would really like to see all secrets removedTrey (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I just requested and was granted a protection for the Alpha Phi article, so hopefully all the editors involved can discuss this at the talk page. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 06:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the protection request. Honestly I'm not sure where I stand with this, I'm kind on the 'if it can be sourced..' bandwagon (eg. the alums) but as most of the mottos are unsourceable this doesn't usually come up, but this book is by an investigative journalist (Alexandra Robbins) printed through a real publishing house (vs. self published) which adds credence to the source. Since noticing the back and forth IP editing I've changed it to say the book claims to know the secret motto, I figure that's better than saying 'this is the motto because this book says so.' Anyway besides my few edits to revert the blanking/removing of references to the motto the main people in this are IPs and I have my doubts as to whether they'll pitch in on the convo. --ImGz (t/c) 15:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a tough one. Secret mottos come up all the time here but this is the first one that actually has a reputable source. I'm always against any secret info being posted. It takes away from the uniqueness of the organization. It's secret for a reason. However, this is afterall Wikipedia and the rules and guidelines which govern this whole project are above any personal feelings, so unfortunately yes, it should be included because of the "it is sourced" argument. Sourcing is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. If this would ever go to mediation I'm almost certain that the ruling would be to include the info. I would like to say though that the inclusion of this info seems in and of itself based on some personal agenda given the earnestness of the inclusion and the fact that several other organization's supposed secrets are in that book yet are not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. I mean, did someone actually go out of his or her way to google "Alpha Phi" and "secret motto" and then include this information in a public forum for more people to see? ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 21:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I think a number of issues come into play here:
  • Does the inclusion of the information contribute to helping readers gain an encyclopedic understanding of the topic?
  • Articles should reference reliable third-party secondary sources. Certainly, Pledged, is not a scholarly study, but a mass market book with a narrative.
  • The referenced book purports to follow four sorority women; its author has stated details which would identify the campuses or persons involved were fudged and changed. Given that, how sure can we be that the motto information is accurate or reliable? ImGz's framing of it being a claim was of course an improvement.
  • The organization involved is not going to comment on the veracity of the claim about secret or privileged information. We cannot know how much it is speculation, heresay, etc. The yardstick is verifiability not truth, though that's verifiability to the best quality sources (per WP:RS/WP:ATT) for understanding of the topic at hand.
At present, I do not find the article is the better for its inclusion.
 –Whitehorse1 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If its sourced then it should stay is a tough argument but the source has to be reliable. And "Pledged" is not a reference book or i think a good source. Its a mass market paperback mainly for entertainment with changed names no proof of research and no claim to which chapter she was at. That could be a local chapter's secret not a national one. My chapter had a secret password that was not national due to our circumstances of not having a chapter house. But we wouldn't know what it is or how she got it and why we should consider her "research" reliable other than the author's word to go on. Hows that different than a editor putting in their own research? In my opinion using it as a source is not much better than using Jurassic Park as an authoritative source on DNA cloning.Trey (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

GA (Sweeps) Reassessment of Phi Delta Theta

Phi Delta Theta has been nominated for a reassessment, as part of WikiProject Good articles 'Sweeps', in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If these issues are addressed during the hold period, the article will remain listed as a Good Article. Otherwise, it will be delisted. Reviewers' concerns are here. Thank you. –Whitehorse1 01:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Delta Upsilon Rewrite

I have been working on a rewrite and expansion of the Delta Upsilon page. The draft is currently located at User:DUKyleXY/Sandbox. I would greatly appreciate if someone would review the draft and give it a preliminary assessment based on the WikiProject quality scale. If the draft is deemed better than Start quality, I will replace the main Delta Upsilon article with the draft text.

Thanks DUKyleXY (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi. I'd say B-Class rating. Some problems remain holding it back nearer C-class though, such as bias-wording/the odd unref'd statement:
  • Early on the article has non-encyclopedic tone, like a story of 'intrepid brothers battling against adversity':
    • "In the fall of 1834, on the Williams College campus arose a matter of great concern to the faculty and students."
    • "By 1864, the War Between the States had taken its toll ... The men of Delta Upsilon faced these facts and fought to preserve their Fraternity."
    • "It was obvious to many brothers that the Convention that year would be critical ... delegates ... went ... ready to act. The turmoil of the war kept all other chapters from attending, except the Rutgers College delegates, who had not sent word. ... The morning of March 9 brought grim news..."
    • "While many fraternities were found to have by-laws with criteria that permitted only certain men... Delta Upsilon... recognized only one distinction: merit."
  • Further down, there're slips (double-check you aren't parroting their website) into management-speak:
    • "The Institute program also seeks to model best practices for its most influential undergraduates."
    • "Through the efforts of Delta Upsilon Brothers, the Fraternity is able to touch the lives of thousands of people in communities throughout North America. ... By partnering ... Brothers are able to support and promote the Fraternity's Four Founding Principles with the leaders of tomorrow."
  • Misc:
    • "The bicameral legislative model upon which the United States government is based, is emulated during the Leadership Institute." Bit wordy; also, as-phrased, reads like the US govt. is modeled on the fraternity's structure.
    • "Delta Upsilon is one of the only fraternities to utilize a bicameral legislative structure" {{citationneeded}}
    • "Delta Upsilon was one of the first fraternities to offer a Regional leadership seminar" (cited, but is this accurate?)
    • Fraternity Awards section has inline cite [35] hanging at the bottom there. Should probably move it up.
    • External links aren't generally used outside of the external links section. You have 2 for the Quarterly and Ritual Book (also: random italics). You could probably just mention they're publicly on the website without giving the direct link in the External links section, alongside the main page.
    • It's unnecessary to wikilink decades, unless you really want to.
    • The Cornerstone book is used around 12 times; you may like to consider the WP:CITESHORT method to reduce the size of the reflist. Use whichever citation method you prefer though.
    • More third-party independent reliable sources are desirable. It's often difficult with fraternities, but worth a second look to books, newspapers, etc.

So, some suggestions. Overall, I think you've done a good job. –Whitehorse1 18:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Phi Gamma Delta Epsilon Chapter

I am going to AfD this article, because it's a non-notable chapter of a club. miranda 05:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

List of high school fraternities and sororities

This article needs lots, and lots of help. El Johnson (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikileak of Sigma Alpha Epsilon ritual manual

I don't see where this has come up before in the talk archives, but I'll mention the new situation here regardless. A relatively new account, Undoubtedly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has added text to the Sigma Alpha Epsilon article pointing out that their ritual manual and secret mottoes are on Wikileaks. He has not added said mottoes to the article.

On further reflection, the edit is within the primary-source guidelines. It reports that the leak is published but not any of the leaked contents. Based on the age of the organization, it stands to reason that copyright has lapsed on the manual, so the link doesn't violate the copyright infringement restriction on external links.

Has this issue of leaked secrets come up before? I'd like to get a wider set of eyes on the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

Hello. I might take a shot at working on some lists of members over the next couple months, but before I do so I want to make sure I do them right. First, is there any guideline for what [[List of [frat] members]] articles can be created, i.e. could I split that off of any major Greek organization? Second, what's the proper way to write the article name; is it List of Pi Pi Pi members or List of Pi Pi Pi brothers (or sisters)? I've seen both and it should be consistent. Wizardman 06:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Article wanting attention in incubator

Hi. I'm here to notify this project of an article in the Wikipedia:Article incubator, which is a new project to provide an alternative to deletion or userfication. It's for articles that are not up to standards, and would be deleted, but someone has expressed an interest in keeping them longer than the seven days of AfD to work on them. You can read all about it at the page.

The article I'm notifying you about here is Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Tau Omega Mu Fraternity and its Ladies' Circle. This one was tagged as a speedy, but then an editor moved it to the incubator, where it's been for nearly a month.

If someone from this project wants to help bring it up to standards, that would be cool, or if you deem the topic to really not deserve an article, i.e., it can't be brought up to standards, then we can proceed with deletion from there. I want to make sure people here have a chance to see it, anyway. Cheers. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 03:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigma Alpha Epsilon Pi

I have taken some time to make some update to the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Pi page by adding some references, adding some philanthropy references, and reorganizing the chapter list. I would greatly appreciate some style help as I have a difficult time figuring out the code for some things. I would also greatly appreciate some suggestions on other material to add. Thanks

AlgaeGirl (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)AlgaeGirl

I'm taking a look at it right now, focusing on converting the refs from bare links into {{cite web}} or similar templates. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson Duo Discussion Notification

Alpha Phi Delta

I am pretty new to editing, and Alpha Phi Delta use to have up a listing up chapters. The chapters were recently taken down for WP:NO, cause some of them had hyper links to the chapter website. I would like to have the chapter listing back up, I think chapter listings for Fraternities and Sororities are a good tool on here, in case a prospective is researching the group and can see where there are current chapters and inactive chapters.

Also, if we have notable members that don't follow WP:BIO how can we add them? ie. member who died giving his life 9/11 or a cop killed in the line of duty.

Burg (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If it is not possible to comply with WP:BIO for a member, then there is insufficient notability, and that member should not be listed.
As far as the chapter listing goes, I recommend that you create a list, post it to Talk:Alpha Phi Delta, and invite editors who have objected to comment if it is compliant. You should also have credible citations to back up the list. NYCRuss ☎ 22:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
For reference, here is a link to the previous version of the chapter listing that was added to the article. It has been removed by a few different users, but this Wikipeoject is more familiar with standards for this content, so interested in additinal comments from this group. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The formatting in that version is inappropriate, mainly because of the shear amount of white space that it consumes. It also lacks citations, and includes external links, both of which are not kosher. As it was in that previous version, I believe that removing it was a better choice than leaving it as it was. That said, I also believe that the list is salvageable, and could be reposted in a way that meets Wikipedia's standards. NYCRuss ☎ 22:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I replied at Talk:Alpha Phi Delta#Chapter listings ... from your comment above, I think we're on the same page on what needs to be fixed/resolved before the list should be added back to the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject specific welcome template

It seems to me that it would be a good idea to create a welcome template specific to this WikiProject. I'm personally partial to using Template:W-graphical as a foundation. The information that I'd like to add is:

Can we include something to indicate that accounts should created for a reason other than simply trying to publicize *one* fraternity secret? (Annoyed? not much.)Naraht (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, I think it is a pretty good idea. Could it be appropriate for both accounts and IP editors?Naraht (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
We could have two templates for both accounts. The general one that I like so much comes in two versions; Template:W-graphical and Template:W-graphical-anon. NYCRuss ☎ 14:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
What do think of this? I left out mention of some of the other stuff because it seemed like too much. NYCRuss ☎ 16:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

If you are interested in collegiate fraternal groups, please consider joining WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities by signing up here. You are free and welcome to edit any page that covers any group to which you belong, but please familiarize yourself with WP:OWN and WP:NPOV so that common mistakes are avoided. Conflicts of interest should be declared, and adding a userbox of your organization to your user page helps.

Happy editing! NYCRuss ☎ 16:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

RfC to remove section about Phi Kappa Psi's University of Arizona chapter controversy

There is an RfC about Phi Kappa Psi#University of Arizona at Talk:Phi Kappa Psi#RfC to remove the University of Arizona controversy, and comments are appreciated. NYCRuss ☎ 17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Lists for each institution

I think one of our goals should be that we make lists of greeks for each institution of higher-education. What do you guys think? - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

At this point in time, I disagree. I think that we should first improve the quality of existing articles, and then recruit more people to the project to share the load in quality editing. That said, you are certainly free to start lists. Just be aware that many such lists have been merged into the main articles of the host institution. Unless there is a lot of content that meets Wikipedia standards, be prepared to see your work redirected and merged. NYCRuss ☎ 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I think a pretty good "base template" to start the list articles you're talking about would be The College of William & Mary fraternity and sorority system (full disclosure: I made that, but still I think it's pretty good). Jrcla2 (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC:Fraternity brother COI for *all* fraternities?

On the Kappa Sigma page, I'm dealing with someone who believes that anyone who is in any fraternity has a WP:COI when it comes to editing any fraternity. I'm in Alpha Phi Omega which is a co-ed service fraternity, which is about as "far away" as two groups both calling themselves fraternities in common usage. So under what circumstances should someone be considered to have a COI in regard to a GLO that they aren't a member of? IMO, only if the groups are legally bound (Zeta Phi Beta & Phi Beta Sigma) or if the groups share National level resources (KKPsi and Tau Beta Sigma *or* Alpha Nu Omega fraternity and sorority). Does anyone think it should be wider than that? Same Triad? Same Conference (NIC, NPC or NPHC)? All GLOs?Naraht (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI uses "common sense" in the definition. In my opinion, it is common sense that anyone who establishes a user name that contains that organization's name, or who only edits one article has a WP:COI. Unless someone has an agenda concerning another organization, I'd limit it to just the organization to which you belong. NYCRuss ☎ 06:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone here *not* a member of a fraternity or sorority?

An administrator is looking to have an RFC on how to handle chapter events (such as hazing incidents) on the page for the National Fraternity. Talk:Kappa Sigma He doesn't want to do it here, since he doesn't think it would be balanced. Is there anyone on this project who isn't a member of a fraternity or sorority?Naraht (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

List of National Conferences as Wikipedia page?

Should the list of National Conferences for a GLO be a wikipedia page if the information is large enough? Assume at minimum year, location and what number convention it is? Right now there is an AFD for Kappa Sigma's list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Kappa_Sigma_Grand_Conclaves . AFDs are not votes, but I thought I should bring it up at the project. Kappa Sigma is not the only GLO to currently have a page with this (or similar information).Naraht (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Membership requirement changes.

I'm looking for help in putting a NPOV on membership requirement changes in Fraternity and Sorority articles. For example, is this NPOV?

When MMM sorority was founded in 1901, it was limited to only Taoists of Negro Descent. After unsuccessful attempts to open membership to non-Negros in 1951, 1954 and 1957, MMM was opened to all races in 1960. Unsuccessful attempts to open the sorority to non-Taoists were made in 2002 and 2005, A charter was revoked in 2002 at University of North Alaska for pledging a Protestant and a charter was revoked in 2009 at University of South Wyoming for pledging a Jew.

If there are separate history and membership sections, any advice on which one to put it under? (Assume that this paragraph is littered with references.)Naraht (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Template standardization

The fraternity and sorority infobox ({{Infobox fraternity}}) needs to be standardized with the infobox syntax. I tried to figure it out, but was unsuccessful. --GrapedApe (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Honor societies belong here?

This project seems devoted to social fraternities and sororities. However, the discussion pages for several honor societies (e.g., Tau Beta Pi; Phi Beta Kappa) say they're a member of this project. Casey (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO, they do belong. Fraternities and Sororities as a term definitely involves the professional and the service GLOs, and I'm not sure trying to split out the honoraries really makes sense, especially since Phi Beta Kappa is a part of the history to all other Greek Letter Organizations.Naraht (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Naraht. Fraternities and Sororities can be social, academic, and professional, or a combination of the aforementioned, to named a few possibilities. Moreover, not only is PBK part of the history of all fraternities and sororities, as Naraht mentions, it is the oldest fraternity in the United States, first it was a social and literary fraternity and then became an honor society as we understand it today.--Lhakthong (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvage possibilites

If you feel like trying to salvage fraternity and sorority articles, I suggest just about anything in Category:Fraternities and sororities in the Philippines. Naraht (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Zeta Omega Eta

Can I get some more eyes to look at the situation of Zeta Omega Eta? It looks like the article is being hijacked by a group of the same name at Arkansas-Monticello. This revision in particular is heavy on text about the UAM chapter while only glossing over the Trinity chapter—yet it's the latter chapter that got mentioned in Salon magazine, not the former. No fully independent sources about the UAM chapter have been provided; the UAM meeting minutes support that an organization was formed in October 2003 at UAM named Zeta Omega Eta but give no further details. —C.Fred (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you and I've added it to my Watchlist.Naraht (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

mounting my information on Wikipedia

mounting my information on Wikipedia I entered my personal info so as to become a Wikipedia contributor. I wrote a Wikipedia page for the Alpha Tau Gamma fraternity in Amherst, Mass. I reviewed it. It looked OK. When I log out and log back in to type Alpha Tau Gamma, I do not find what I entered? Where is my text? Alphataugamma (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's here User:Alphataugamma but at the moment I'd advise you not to try to move it into userspace as it's likely to be deleted. You might want to ask the people here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities for advice. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am now at the Fraternities & Sororities section. Please look at what Dougweller says "It's here..." May it be moved into userspace? Why is it "...likely to be deleted..." Alphataugamma (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Because right now it looks like something you would write for your web site or for a Facebook page. You have to mold what you have and shape it into an encyclopedia article. With links to other articles and other articles link to it. Also you have to have reliable references with inline citations. The first article is the hardest and some thing you might not understand at first, I personally recommend you look at other articles for examples of what you should do and how. Try Alpha Kappa Alpha or Alpha Phi Alpha for examples, or any other article in wiki. Good luck and don't get discouraged! El Johnson (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Fraternities and Sororities articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Fraternities and Sororities articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Alpha Pi Lambda (Drexel University)

Just for your information: the article on Alpha Pi Lambda is currently being considered for deletion. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have the general idea that the article is salvageable if an expert pays some attention to it. There are currently a number of "loose ends" that are tantalizing hints for making something out of this, like:

  • "During the first few years, the primary aim of the fraternity was to gain recognition on campus and insure its permanence." How did they do that?
  • "The board helped the fraternity stay on campus during the war." How? What measures were taken, what initiatives unrolled?
  • "They brought home customs and traditions that strengthened the fraternity's culture." For example... ?
  • "the efforts of the newly created alumni corporation" What did they do? What was the corporation? What did they do after the mortgage was paid off? Do they still exist?
  • "Thus they placed a strong emphasis on building positive character traits, management skills, and leadership abilities." Come on, they didn't do that just through balancing the checkbook and washing the dishes, did they? What else did they do in this area?
  • "The fraternity was closed in 2002" Why?
  • "The fraternity was reinstated in April 2006" Why?
  • "In 2009 the fraternity petitioned Drexel University to remain a local fraternity and won its appeal." Appeal? What appeal?

In other words, plenty of leads if there's anybody available who can fill in the blanks (and maybe save the article from deletion)...

Best regards, -- BenTels (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Dissapointed in this project.

I am extremely dissapointed in this project given the lack of greek involvement in it. Unless a party is a member of the greek system they have no room to comment on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.84.205.200 (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have specific suggestions for pages or templates that need to be created or improved?Naraht (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if Greeks only want to edit their own organization pages, and not that of others. I'm keeping an eye on several Greeks, mainly because they are focused on the LGBTQ community. Jademushroom (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm keeping an eye on two other Greeks largely because of efforts to WP:Censor information about their Greek from the page. (Info from the Kappa Sigma Founding and the Greek Letters for Phi Gamma Delta). I also try to keep a look out for all Greeks from the Philippines. I'm not sure any of the ones entirely in the Philippines are in even close to good shape. :( Naraht (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Christian "Fraternities/Sororities"

While I understand that many are tempted to include such organizations in the talks of an actual Greek Organization. These "fraternities and sororities" are simply not. They may use Greek letters for the sake of recruitment, but these organizations stemming from the 1980's are nowhere near as historical and therefore cannot be compared to actual IFC/PHC organizations. Please consider removing them from this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arl4545 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. They call themselves Fraternities and Sororities, they are at colleges and universities, their membership intake policies fall into the general swath of Greek Letter Organization policies (which frankly include just about anything other than sign a form agreeing that you are a student and running for president next week). Either scope or history may make a group notable, so a group which had spread to a dozen schools even if it were only 5 years old would be notable.
In fact, as far as I can tell, from a macro level, there isn't *that* much difference between Beta Upsilon Chi and the early years of Alpha Tau Omega (to pick an IFC fraternity with Christian symbolism). The main difference is that other older fraternities (which have changed their entrance requirements over the years) exist on campuses *and* that a university which would have barely noticed a religious requirement for a greek letter organization now is willing to go to a federal appeals court to fight it. Naraht (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

List of chapter articles discussion at AN (Proposed deletion)

Mass AfD nominations

The large flurry of AfDs for organizations starting in Alpha is due to Wuhwuzdat (talk · contribs), who has done some bulk nominations. He's also proposed deletion on Acacia Fraternity and Chi Omega, which calls into question whether he's just nominating everything that shows up in the project. Heads up to project members. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bizarre AFDs as the reaction.Naraht (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Pat Green?

Does anyody know anything about Pat Green? I believe he was in the Farmhouse Fraternity at Texas Tech but since they got shut down he joined Beta Theta Pi. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.216.212 (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This is probably better addressed at Talk:Pat Green than at the project level. However, the cited source in the article currently doesn't support his membership in Beta Theta Pi. —C.Fred (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Mother of Fraternities

There is disagreement in the Mother of Fraternities page. That moniker has been used to describe both Union College and Miami University. Now one can argue that Union College is the main college that deserves that moniker because the Greek organizations founded there are older. However, another point can be made that Miami is more deserving of that moniker because the membership number of the Greek organizations there is far more superior than those founded in Union college. In the end though, this is a moot point because it's all just a matter of opinion. I'm perfectly fine to have it stated that both colleges are referred to Mother of Fraternities 'equally'. Indeed this is the way it has been since the article was first created. However recently an editor disagrees. The editor at first removed any references to Miami University. When I fought this the editor re-introduced Miami University but implies that Union College is THE primary college that is referred to Mother of Fraternities. There is no evidence to support one way or another which is why it would be best to revert to what the article once was as to avoid bias or implication; that "Mother of Fraternities" is a term commonly used to refer to two different universities. Please someone chime in as to avoid an edit war. 71.106.150.61 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please use actual Greek letters rather than Latin alphabet lookalikes.

I've run into issues making tables of fraternities and sororities sortable due to the use of look-alike Latin Alphabet letters. For example, people using AXΩ rather than ΑΧΩ. The first only has one greek letter in it, the second has three. There are even a few Fraternities and Sororities where their entire name is writable in the Latin Alphabet like Zeta Beta Tau, PLEASE use the proper alphabet!Naraht (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

phrasing for the 'Kappa Alpha's.

Which of these is preferred?

  • Williams attended X University and was a member of [[Kappa Alpha Order]].
  • Williams attended X University and was a member of [[Kappa Alpha Order]] Fraternity.
  • Williams attended X University and was a member of [[Kappa Alpha Order|Kappa Alpha]] Fraternity.


Note that both Kappa Alpha Order and Kappa Alpha Society are members of the NIC and have wikipedia pages. Kappa Alpha is disambiguation page between the two.Naraht (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"...member of Kappa Alpha Order" is appropriate. Kappa Alpha Order Fraternity and Kappa Alpha Fraternity are grammatically incorrect, as the title of the order is "Kappa Alpha Order", not "Kappa Alpha Order Fraternity". You might say: "...a member of Kappa Alpha Order, a fraternity", if you wish to explain that it is a fraternity. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Lists and notability

While dealing with Split requests, I've come upon a number of requests which were made in August last year, to split off some embedded lists in Fraternities and Sororities articles. These are either lists of members or lists of chapters, or sometimes both. Lists of people need to meet WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:NLIST, so cannot be split out into standalone articles until they are fully sourced; they also need to meet WP:WHENSPLIT.

While lists of notable alumni is accepted practise on Wikipedia, the lists of chapters has given me some concern regarding the notability of such lists. Local chapters by themselves are not regarded as inherently notable per WP:CLUB, and I'm not clear why a list of such local chapters becomes notable enough for a standalone article, nor, indeed, if such information is generally encyclopaedic enough to list out in full in the parent articles. I'd be interested to hear rationale for why complete lists would be appropriate for either standalone articles and/or sections in parent articles. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Fraternity/Sorority Pins Up for Deletion in Wikimedia Commons

Please see this discussion on Commons about fraternity/sorority pins being up for deletion. miranda 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Organizing frat/sor/hon.soc. on an educational insitution's page

Hi, everyone. Just wondering if we should have some uniformity regarding how fraternities, sororities, and honor societies are categorized on a college/university page. For example, at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, honor societies are mixed in with fraternities, and those are listed separate form sororities. I'm not sure that makes sense. I'd like to propose that (honor) societies are listed separately than fraternities and sororities. In the rare cases of organizations like a co-educational honor fraternities, those should be listed under fraternities with a parenthetical notation that they are co-educational honor fraternities.--Lhakthong (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Archive_4&oldid=1148112990"