Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project page, where you can join the project, and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


List of chapter articles discussion at AN (Proposed deletion)[edit]

Mass AfD nominations[edit]

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?[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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. (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please use actual Greek letters rather than Latin alphabet lookalikes.[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Should lists of chapters be deleted?[edit]

I am wondering what is the encyclopaedic value of lists of chapters. I'd like to hear a rationale for why we have these: Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society. I note this question has been asked twice recently with no response. I feel these lists of chapters fail both WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:CLUB and so should be nominated for deletion, but before nominating them I feel it's worth getting some feedback from the project. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CLUB essentially indicates that individual chapters are not worthy of wikipedia pages. OTOH, I think that Baird's qualifies as a third party source for the lists, at least the portions which are prior to 1991.Naraht (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that WP:CLUB doesn't apply to the lists of chapters; it only applies to articles for each individual chapter. WP:NOTDIRECTORY may apply, but only if the list is ONLY a list of chapter names and locations and does not include any other information. Lists that include the charter date of the chapter, years the chapter has been active, and perhaps other narrative information regarding chapter statistics or historical information would, in my opinion, make the list encyclopedic in nature. Michael07lu (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, some of them have considerably more. I've seen some that have the *day* that the chapter went inactive/became active again as well as the chapter letters, and the location within the fraternity organizational structure. Now there are *still* issues in regards to the lists of chapters where the chapter name is linked to a chapter website, but to me, that should be dealt with separately.Naraht (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I am looking here for the reason why a list of chapters is considered of encyclopaedic value. I don't see that adding the date a chapter was founded gives encyclopaedic value to the general reader. If a list is of little value in itself, adding minor details doesn't make it of greater interest, it simply makes the list bigger. It would not help to add the telephone number or post code, either. In the same way that a list of branches of McDonald's is not of value, adding the date they opened would not then make such a list of interest. What I am looking for is the reason you guys, who are interested in Fraternities, would value a list of chapters for each Fraternity. Why is that of interest to you?
As an outsider I wonder if people have been including it simply because the information is available, without thinking of the value of the information. And because the information is quite long, folks have then been splitting the information out into standalone articles so as not to swamp the parent article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not extremely well versed in Wikipedia policies, but I can speak as to why I feel this information is important and not at all comparable to a listing of branches of McDonald's.
1.) First of all, there is no uniform way that chapter names are issued. Most (if not all) fraternities use Greek letters to distinguish their chapters, but they vary in the order that names are assigned, especially when dealing with double letter names. While names are generally issued alphabetically according to the chronological order that chapters are chartered, some avoid repeated letter names (e.g., Alpha Alpha, Beta Beta, etc.), while others incorporate other eccentricities in their naming systems. Information on the naming system used is either directly stated in or can be extrapolated from the "list of chapters" articles. Chapter naming is of particular interest among fraternities because chapter names indicate relative age of a chapter (see next point).
2.) Single letter chapter names indicate the oldest chapters in a fraternity. These chapters are usually held in higher esteem because they would most likely have been founded at the same time that the fraternity's founding members were still active in the organization. Thus, there is historical value to be gleaned from knowing what chapters are oldest and which are newest.
3.) Most all lists of fraternity chapters include the founding year of the chapter, and some the exact date. This information allows analysis of the boom growth periods of a fraternity.
4.) For the average user of Wikipedia who may stumble across an article about a fraternity, it may be of interest for that person to be able to see whether there is a chapter of that fraternity at a particular college or university.
These are just some things I thought of quickly.Michael07lu (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks Michael. The 4th point falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY - the amount of information we could include because it may be personally useful to an individual reader would swamp the encyclopaedia if we didn't have some form of restriction. The information we put into articles should be of general enduring interest to any reader, not to a select handful who have attended a particular college. Having said that, it may be appropriate to mention in an article on a particular college that it has certain fraternities. But that's a different issue. The other three points are all related, and I can see the value in charting the growth and expansion of a fraternity - but listing chapters is a very unsatisfactory way of doing that. What we do on Wikipedia is summarise knowledge gained from reliable sources. So if a reliable source has written about the growth and expansion of a particular fraternity based on the spread of chapters, then that would be fine. But copying out a list, and then expecting our readers to do some original research from that list, is not what we do. We do not do the original research ourselves, and we do not present the full text of primary sources. So, the way we expect things to be done is like this: Acacia_Fraternity#General_history rather than this: List of Acacia chapters. We put material in context, as said in WP:EMBED :- "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." Your first three points are all best done in prose rather than in list format. Unless there are any further points to consider, I'd like to put List of Acacia chapters up for discussion at AfD to see how the community feels about these lists. I don't think these lists are obvious deletion candidates, but neither do they appear to be appropriate encyclopaedic content, so the discussion may be interesting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly areas out there where complete lists are included and *not* turned significantly into prose, such as Modern pentathlon at the 1912 Summer Olympics or All-American Girls Professional Baseball League batting records. There is a degree to which Wikipedia is not just an Encyclopedia, but also to some degree an Almanac Jewish holidays 2000–2050. The guide that is being used as to what is appropriate is Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities which is *the* reference book for Greek Letter Organizations.
Additionally would the List of Acacia chapters would be more acceptable *with the exact same data* if only the chapter names and schools were available from the website and the dates of chartering were pulled from Fraternity magazines and Newspapers?
And I've always considered Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources to be about prose, *not* lists.Naraht (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we have a lot of list articles. Lists can be useful for presenting certain forms of information in an accessible manner. Though not all forms of information are suited to list format, and not all information meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. What I am looking for here is why a list of chapters would be useful on Wikipedia. One answer has been that is shows the history and development of the fraternity, though that - as indicated above - is better done in prose. Are there any other reasons? SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The value is probably pretty low, but I would be inclined to keep them as long as they're sourced and as long as the list is too long to put in the main article. More of a style issue than anything.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd be interested in why you would be inclined to keep them. What value do they provide? I have not taken any of these lists to AfD, as there are a lot of them, which suggests to me that some people find them of value. I am, however, missing out on why they would be of value. If there is a way of utilising that value on Wikipedia, then I would rather do that than have them removed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I think a well done list has value: List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters and colonies. Gives an interesting view of the frat's growth and geographic extent. --GrapedApe (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is a well done list. From that I can get a sense of the value of chapters to someone interested in the history and development of a fraternity. The list format might be seen as a more useful way of presenting the information because so many chapters are mentioned. To mention all those chapters in prose sections would be unwieldy, and would inhibit navigation. That list could be a Featured List. Seeing where a list could end up if appropriately developed shows the value for even the scruffiest and inadequate start. If a list is of value when done properly, then it is of value, and we don't delete something simply because it's scruffy and starting out. It might be worthwhile someone doing a guide for this project on how to do lists, based on List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters and colonies. Such a guideline would also give legitimacy to this sort of list and provide a ready answer for people like me who might consider nominating a list for deletion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words about List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters and colonies. I'm the primary editor, although I've been mostly away from editing duties for over a year. With regard to making it an FLC, there are a few more things that I believe need to be done.
  1. The first is that there is another list, List of Phi Kappa Psi Grand Chapters and Grand Chapter Award winners. I am not sure if this list should stand on it's own. My plans are to put the finishing touches on at, get a peer review, and than make it an FLC. If along the way it is not deemed to contain sufficient encyclopedic value, then it will likely be merged into List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters and colonies.
  2. Another issue is that a template may need to be created to make it easier for others to edit List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters and colonies. It seems that every time someone makes a good faith effort to edit it, the formatting gets screwed up.
  3. It is my view that more information should be entered for various chapters in the notes column. That will take a bit of time.
If all goes well, I see it becoming an FLC around April. NYCRuss 20:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting in on this late but think the chapter lists are extremely useful; on a separate page "List of..." is fine. Triangle Fraternity's is an excellent example of a comprehensive list supplying various pieces of information mentioned by other editors as potentially being useful. Check a movie star's Wiki page and somewhere you'll find a filmography even though that info is available elsewhere such as IMDB. Notwithstanding the fact that chapter lists are probably available on the websites of each chapter's national HQ, I suggest keeping the chapter lists somewhere in Wikipedia. And what about a national fraternity no longer in existence? It won't have a national office but may be deserving of a Wiki page. Casey (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month[edit]

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Fraternities and Sororities will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in sorority history. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Filipino Fraternities[edit]

I've been recently dealing with Wikipedia pages for various Filipino Fraternities and Sororities Category:Fraternities_and_sororities_in_the_Philippines and they tend to have a high degree of Self-promotion in the pages and my guess is heavy WP:COI issues. Any help and suggestions would be welcome.Naraht (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article candidate[edit]

Kappa Kappa Psi is a current Good Article-class, High-importance article in this WikiProject and it is being considered for Featured Article status. The current nomination is due to an exemption given by one of the FAC delegates; the first nomination closed with few comments and no consensus on whether or not the article had achieved Featured Article status. I am posting this to ask all contributors to the FRATSOROR project to consider reviewing the article. Thanks! Sycamore (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Single chapter fraternities[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kappa Phi Epsilon. Notability claims based on receiving "first place in spirit points at Dance Marathon."--GrapedApe (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


Recently, a WP:V was added to the Kappa Sigma page. A cursory glance at other fraternity and sorority pages contains no consistency of when or why the tag was added, other than many of these pages contain lots of references to the organization's own web site, pledge manual, or newsletters. Pages without tags include Sigma Chi (reliance on the Norman Shield - their pledge manual), Beta Theta Pi (only one reference to their web site), Alpha Chi Omega (several references to its website). At the same time, both Delta Gamma and Pi Beta Phi have the verifiability tag attached to their page.

To me, this raises two questions: 1) Since WP:V does allow for self-published sources, does reliance (or heavy reliance) on an organization's website or other material merit that the page should be tagged with a WP:V tag? 2) Since most of these organizations do not get much press coverage (with the exception of college newspapers), are there better ways to find neutral third party sources about these organizations? --Enos733 (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the answer to you first question is "no." The two FAs under this project (ΑΦΑ & ΑΚΑ) have over 50% of their references from self-published resources. The only current FAC (ΚΚΨ) has a similar percentage. You point out the reason--there just isn't much independent coverage. But ΑΦΑ, ΑΚΑ, and ΚΚΨ have many independent resources citing important bits of information also. If there is TOTAL reliance on self publication, I think WP:V might be merited. Reliance, even heavy reliance, on self published material is to be expected of articles under this WikiProject. We must ensure for the integrity of the project that this reliance does not introduce or excuse issues of POV. 2) But there are resources for all GLOs: Greek marketing websites can serve, as they do for ΚΚΨ, an independent attestation of membership numbers. Google Books and Google News Archive can provide historical facts. University archives from Alpha chapters may display yearbooks and college newspaper archives online, or a collegiate editor from the Alpha chapter could access microform editions. Baird's Manual is in just about every college library in the US and can provide an independent resource for expansion rates, historical events, and even verifiable descriptions of the society's jewelry. Most facts will be cited back to pledge manuals or the inter-/national website, but creative editors can find ways to cite quite a bit through other means. Sycamore (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Disputed/protected pages...[edit]

At this point, I know of 3 Fraternity and Sorority pages which are at various level of protection due to a referenced fact being included on the page where that fact is something that a significant number of members of that Fraternity or Sorority do *not* want on the page. These are

  • Kappa Sigma - Name given for organization in Kappa Sigma History
  • Phi Gamma Delta - Use of the Greek Letters of the organization in the Infobox instead of Fiji

I'd appreciate any additional entries to this list and ideas on how if at all as a project, we can work on this. For example, as far as I can tell from the argument, if a decision was made on the Wikiproject that exceptions could be made to the policy of using the Greek letters in that location, it might be good enough to change the decision on Phi Gamma Delta. For the others, perhaps a dicussion of what is and is not a proper reference for greek information might be useful. This might change the decision on Alpha Phi (which is from one book that doesn't have a good reputation). I doubt it would do so for Kappa Sigma, as the reference there is to an old edition of Baird's (and if Baird's is not an acceptable reference for Fraternity and Sorority articles then we might as well *all* go home...)Naraht (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the FIJI talk page, "The decision to include the Greek letters in articles about fraternities was made at WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. They have decided that the Greek letters add encyclopaedically useful information to articles about fraternities and sororities." I think that, if FIJI does not use their Greek letters the same way other fraternities do, it's almost misleading for us to use them the same way on Wikipedia. The words "Phi Gamma Delta" and "FIJI" are okay to use, so we just need a note on the page explaining that they only put their Greek letters on certain items and change the Greek letters on the page to FIJI, as that word replaces for them what the actual Greek letters are used for most other Fraternities.
As for Alpha Phi, I think that the source for what is allegedly their secret motto can be contested under WP:RELIABLE and removed. If another, reliable source comes along, then unfortunately it would likely be added again.Sycamore (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
See section created below. For Fiji, having the discussion on the Template page and referencing it here (and the Phi Gamma Delta page is, IMO, the way to deal with this. In addition, I can't find where the "decision" was placed in stone. One way or another, I think it is a good way to go.Naraht (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal on change to description of the letters field.(Fiji exception)[edit]

On the talk page for the Infobox Fraternity (Template talk:Infobox fraternity#Proposal on change to description of the letters field.), I started a discussion on allowing for a more common name in place of greek letters if appropriate. Yes, this is done as the formal way to consider allowing for the use of Fiji rather than the greek letters in the Infobox at Phi Gamma Delta. Please comment at the Template talk page. I am also posting this to Talk:Phi Gamma Delta.Naraht (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Single chapter fraternities[edit]

Is every club with Greek letters automatically notable, even if it has only 1 chapter and totally fails the general notability guideline? Some people think so. Over the past few weeks I have been trying to review the hundreds of articles on single chapter fraternities to determine which are actually notable. Here are some AFDs that could use some review by project members:

Essay for new Fraternity pages...[edit]

There is a Wikipedia page for every NIC, NPC, and NPHC organization (except Iota Nu Delta), but there are still more pages about Fraternities being created, and especially for non-honoraries, there are *severe* COI and N-NPOV issues. I think of particular difficulty in this regard are the Fraternities and Sororities in the Philippines. I'd like to put together an Essay in this regard, either for creation of all new Fraternity/Sorority pages or particularly for the Filipino groups. I'd like suggestions and such for the essay including any essay would could be used as a guide...Naraht (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Lede convention[edit]

It seems to be conventional for fraternities to begin their lede with the Greek-letter name of the fraternity, rather than the legal name—such as "Kappa Kappa Psi, National Honorary Band Fraternity, (ΚΚΨ, colloquially referred to as KKPsi or KKY)" as opposed to "Kappa Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc. (ΚΚΨ...)". All three Fraternities and Sororities FA-class articles are formatted that way.

The reason I bring this up is that recent edits to the Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia page have changed the lede to "Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia Fraternity of America, Inc. (also known as Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Phi Mu Alpha, or simply Sinfonia)". This appears to be in line with WP:NCCORP, which recommends that the first sentence include the full legal name of the corporation. Should we change fraternity pages to be in line with this naming convention, or create our own naming convention for fraternity and sorority pages that excludes legal names? In most cases, the legal name is just "Fraternity, Inc." or "Sorority, Inc." appended to the end of the Greek-letter name and seems superfluous to the article. Sycamore (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd have the Fraternity full name including Inc pushed down to the history section which probably should include the date it was incorporated.Naraht (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Two different lists of Stubs...[edit]

Ideally Category:Fraternity_and_sorority_stubs (which comes from putting the {{Fraternity and Sorority-stub}} on the article page and Category:Stub-Class_Fraternities_and_Sororities_articles which comes from putting {{Template:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities|class=Stub|importance=Mid}} (or other importance) on the talk page for the article, *should* have the same articles in each category, right? Any situations in which they should be different?

Sigma Theta Pi's article/page deletion[edit]

The wiki page about Sigma Thêta Pi, an international francophone fraternity was deleted on October 28, 2012 by User:RHaworth. Please review this deletion and the issues that led to the page's deletion, as this fraternity is a legitimate and recognized Greek letter organization. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Actually, it was deleted 3 times (Sigma Theta Pi and Sigma Thêta Pi). Please review WP:GNG to learn about the requirements for a notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I am aware of the requirements of notability. I believe you missed my concern and request. Would someone from the fraternity and sorority project group please take a look at Sigma Theta Pi Fraternity and the deleted Wikipedia article about and determine whether the organization merits having an article in this Wikipedia and how, if it does, can the page be restored/re-created and improved so that it meets Wikipedia standards. On a general note, I see up-page that there has been discussion about articles for single chapter fraternities/sororities; I guess I posing a new general question, which is, What, in the project group's opinion, makes an international fraternity or sorority notable enough to warrant having an article written and posted about it? Drdpw (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Tau Epsilon Phi Fraternity[edit]

Hi I have recently been following the Tau Epsilon Phi Fraternity wikipedia page because my children were involved in a hazing incident at Cornell University. There were significant amounts of 'legal' debates going on that wiki page that just are not about the spirit of fraternities in general. I have looked at other fraternites on this network and not one of them has these objectionable content posted. I think that there is a lot of selfish point of view being tossed around and things that are not important to encylopedic content. As a parent, already, flabergasted by a hazing situation, I think you need to put a stop to Tau Epsilon Phi talking about personal corporate business on its site and removing the legal issues all together. It is not good for the spirit of fraternities in general and some things are best kept inside. Thanks.

If a fraternity has legal issues due to hazing that are covered in reputable secondary sources, it is appropriate to have information to that respect in the article. For example, look at the Kappa Kappa Psi article which addresses issues that arose with the (non-fraternity) hazing death of FAMU drum major Robert Champion and how those issues affected the fraternity's FAMU chapter. While I don't think that a laundry list of any fraternity's legal troubles should be included in their article, it's encyclopedic to include when it can be cited appropriately. I think it's appropriate to keep such information concise, though—the Tau Epsilon Phi article is about half legal issues, which seems overkill. Sycamore (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Then, why doesn't the same apply to butt chugging incident of Pi Kappa Alpha and how it affected the UT chapter like FAMU chapter by indefinite suspension? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Because without the contentious material, the Pike article sits at 381 words of prose. The Tau Epsilon Phi article does not include any contentious information as of right now, and sits at 556 words of readable prose (as calculated by User:Shubinator/DYKcheck). Tau Epsilon Phi's article is nearly 1.5 times as long as Pike's, and the ΤΕΦ history section is 316 words. That's 83% of the entire size of the Pike article and 135% the size of Pike's history section. The issue, as I alluded to above ("While I don't think that a laundry list of any fraternity's legal troubles should be included in their article, it's encyclopedic to include when it can be cited appropriately. I think it's appropriate to keep such information concise, though—the Tau Epsilon Phi article is about half legal issues, which seems overkill."), is WP:WEIGHT.
Including information about the incident at FAMU for Kappa Kappa Psi is not WP:UNDUE because while that portion includes 246 words of prose (over half—65%, to be precise—of the size of the entire Pike article, for comparison), the Kappa Kappa Psi article itself is 4,281 words of prose long, making the information about the FAMU chapter only 5.7% of the entire Kappa Kappa Psi article. Furthermore, the Kappa Kappa Psi article gives a great deal of background regarding the death of Robert Champion because no article exists to cover that incident. If an article is created for Robert Champion's death (which I have been considering for some time, but have not had time to create yet), the material on the FAMU incident could conceivably trimmed at KKPsi to be less than 5% of the entire article, which I believe would be ideal.
That gives the information about FAMU half the weight of the Howard University incident as it is currently included (specifically, the sentence "This and contemporary racist incidents at other schools caused Pi Kappa Alpha's move to begin a colony at the historically black Howard University in 2006 to be met with disapproval from many students and alumni.") which is 35 words and 9.2% of the Pike article. This previous revision of yours had 12.2% contentious material, and this older revision which still had information about hazing events at Berkeley had 16.7%—nearly 1/5 of the article—marked as undue weight.
That is quite different than Kappa Kappa Psi's 5.7%, but not as severe as ΤΕΦ's obvious undue weight in this revision, with 24% of the article devoted to the fraternity's legal troubles, and certainly not as severe as the undue weight in the revision that sparked this original conversation, in which a whopping 62.5% of the article was devoted to its legal troubles.
While I don't think it's appropriate to say "at this percentage of an article, contentious material becomes WP:UNDUE", I think it's useful to make these comparisons for the sake of discussion. Sycamore (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I saw a parent post the Cornel Hazing allegation on there but it was moved and rightfully so. I think specific names of indivudals and legal battles about money and god knows what else is a silly a useless waste of time and resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of notable incidents that receive US wide or international coverage[edit]

Company pages on Wikipedia sometimes include notable incidents receiving major attention even if it was something that occurred at one location. One such example is McDonald's coffee incident which can be found n McDonald's' Wikipedia page

When butt chugger butt chugged at PKA frat, it received international attention. If incidents put the name of fraternity in international light, wouldn't it be notable event to include? (positive or negative) Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If it references reputable sources and doesn't give undue weight to the incident, then it should be included. Pike's article is currently very short (295 words of prose), so including information on the incident could easily be as long as the existing content which would give undue weight to a single incident at a single chapter of the fraternity. When the Florida A&M chapter of Kappa Kappa Psi was shut down for hazing and made national news, I worked it into the KKPsi article—but the Kappa article sits at a little over 4000 words of prose, so including it doesn't lend undue weight to that incident. Sycamore (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


The McDonalds's coffee incident had long lasting effects on McDonalds and actually had international coverage. I've been unable to find *any* news source outside the United States on this. The fact is that the incident got less coverage than many Hazing incidents, I've seen. The *only* thing that I've seen that is notable from it is that the word "butt chugging" has made some end of the year "word lists" but the first one I checked, it was one of 30 or so words for the year...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talkcontribs)
The fact that it got picked up by UK, New Zealand and Hong Kong news outlets speak a thing or two about notability. Daily Mail UK and Huffington Post UK New Zealand Hong Kong and actually re-written in what looks like Chinese Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you that it's a notable incident, but I think that adding it to the Pike article when it's as short as it is lends undue WP:WEIGHT to this one event. I don't think this is really comparable to the McDonald's incident, either. It doesn't look like this is going to have a lasting impact on Pi Kappa Alpha or Greek life in general beyond the term "butt-chugging" and the suspension of one chapter for three years. Sycamore (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
What about the recent Northern Illinois University hazing death in which a member died? Media reports it a ritual, fraternity national office allegedly refutes it. In RfC, comments were made that actual hazing incidents connected to the association can be worthy if inclusion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, it's an issue of WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia articles about fraternities and sororities should not be laundry lists of hazing incidents at chapters of those organizations. If an article is long enough to support information that is unfavorable to the image of its subject, such information can be added if it has been widely covered and is notable. It's my personal opinion that the Pi Kappa Alpha article is not long enough to support this, as it doesn't look to me like there is enough information in the article for even a single new member education session. Adding information about either the NIU hazing death or butt-chugging would easily be as long as the current article if any amount of necessary detail was included, so I don't think it's appropriate to add it without likewise expanding the history and philanthropy sections. Sycamore (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
So, what is your interpretation of that policy? It says that "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." If most of coverage in mainstream media is happens to be more negative than positive, that represents the majority view and as such, it doesn't appear to represent "minority view". Do you have same contentions about frats that only have positive coverage in its article and should those points be removed until counterbalancing negatives are found? I don't think that's how it works though. Look through press coverage. If you were go go back to early 20th century, you'll find routine announcements about its social events and such, but it is predominantly about incidents, death, hazing, authorities and what not that PKA chapters find themselves in. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Even going back to historical things and print books.. Again it looks like death... hazing... is a big part of histories of fraternities, as well as PKA [1]Wrongs of passage Whites Only clauseCantaloupe2 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The relevant part of the policy is the fourth paragraph in that section (emphasis mine):

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

I don't personally care whether or not the majority of news coverage of any given Greek-letter organization is positive or negative. I imagine that it's mostly negative, but fraternities and sororities actively pursuing their purposes and mission aren't interesting news stories. The point of Wikipedia is not to give a laundry list of every negative incident that makes the news for any organization, because that's clearly POV, regardless of the viewpoint given by news articles.
And yes, hazing has historically been part and parcel of Greek life, and racism has a long history in predominantly White GLOs, but it has been decades since the last national GLO lifted its Whites-only clause, and every national GLO has anti-hazing policies. It's not significant in my opinion to mention Whites-only clauses in fraternity and sorority articles unless an organization was particularly and notably stubborn in refusing to remove such a clause or if it is part of a detailed history of the organization in question. Looking back through this conversation and your recent edits, it appears to me that you have it out for Pike. Sycamore (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not something I was aware. Its actually something I discovered as I was sourcing "Pi Kappa Alpha" on Google Books, so I learned something new; and I would guess as will the article reader, which is the point of this purpose. People don't come to Wikipedia to read up on things a duplicate of what they can read on the homepage of the subject. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
As a comment, Alpha Phi Alpha *does* include information on when the Fraternity allowed men of all Races (previously limited to only Negros), but that's part of a History section for the Fraternity that goes on for 4 or 5 screens. Get the PiKA history (and note, I've *never* seen Pi Kappa Alpha abbreviated PKA before) up to 2 screens and I'd support adding it. I would also personally be supportive of a wikipedia page with information on each fraternity/sorority who had or have limitations based on race and/or religion, when they removed it and whether any chapters left or were declared inactive over it. *That* article belongs on Wikipedia.Naraht (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
What else would you use to establish the organization's notability requirements? Until I started editing, the article was pretty much spokesperson page for PKA based entirely off of their website which is a ground for notability failure. If the majority of reliable and significant coverage is mainly negative, would you say its POV? I can understand POV concerns if there's plentiful of press coverage on both sides. If general coverage skews to one side, it maybe a good representation of general perception by society. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Almost every extant fraternity or sorority can use Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities to establish notability and provide citations for basic facts about the organization such as a brief history. A matter-of-fact handling of the organization's history may be supported by WP:PRIMARY sources (A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.) and secondary sources where these exist. What is inappropriate is bringing up several incidents, including incidents that happened over fifty years ago as you did on the Pike article, that are "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" and therefore at odds with WP:UNDUE, which I have mentioned several times and you have ignored each time. Sycamore (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
In this case, I suggest [2] and select the top of the 3 entries which is the 1920 Baird's.Naraht (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that once notability is established, factual information about organizations can be described using their own materials. This is not to say that they can be used to establish notability. If it was, any page about anyone would be allowed on Wikipedia written entirely off of their personal site, press release and such. Companies, organizations, and people REQUIRE reliable, in-depth, third party coverage for inclusion consideration. A mere existence does not automatically constitute notable. There is no Wikipedia POLICY which says fraternities are held to different notability standards than other private groups (i.e. community groups, student groups, church groups, etc. etc. etc.), so everything is to be held to WP:CORP and WP:ORGDEPTH unless contradicted by policies. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Which is why I said that you can use Baird's Manual to establish notability. That's literally the first sentence of what I wrote and the entirety of Naraht's contribution. Sycamore (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


There doesn't seem to be any information about "auxiliaries" on Wikipedia--that is, typically female-membership "little-sister" organizations to fraternites. They've been banned by the NIC, but they were fairly significant and widespread in the early- to mid-20th century from what I can tell. Do later editions of Baird's say anything about them? I would like to see if there's enough information out there to create at least a stub covering auxiliaries. It would be useful for Tau Beta Sigma, which originally petitioned Kappa Kappa Psi to become a nationally-recognized and sanctioned auxiliary unit, and I don't think it's necessary to expand on the concept of auxiliaries in a single sorority article when it was not unique to TBSigma. Sycamore (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Created a stub at Auxiliary (fraternity or sorority) but there's a lot of room for improvement. Sycamore (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

I have initiated an WP:RfC at Talk:Pi Kappa Alpha#RfC: Weight and treatment of controversial incidents.

Concerning supposed project wide conflict of interest editing[edit]

In light of my recent editing, another member who is apparently well versed in this area of articles commented that there is a project wide struggle with WP:COI, WP:SPS and WP:RS. I should also note that the member who commented this on this page is a Pi Kappa Alpha member. Given this loaded POV expressionhis significant direct editing is highly controversial. In the areas of products and companies page, astroturfing by company staff and PR firms have raised many controversies, including Microsoft, Daimler, US Congressional staff and Stella Altois. Given a charged statement "I took it upon myself as a brother of PIKE to restore it to a respectable state", "respectable" in the interest of Wikipedia and how the subject wants to be portrayed are not consistent. Pike maintains a library about its organization and I would think that other ones do as well, however such library is a private library and can cherry pick which books to stock and reasonably carry something that looks favorably upon itself.(as do churches about their own denomination). If "brothers" and "sisters" write based on those materials, it can cause systemic bias in GLO articles.

Fraternities are organizations and as such they should be held to the same scrutiny as a company officer editing their company page when it comes to self advocacy(through their pledged members who are supposed to be honorable to their fraternity). "honor to fraternity" and neutrality can have a conflicting interest. I'm not seeing enough use of {{request edit}} here to avoid direct editing by members and alumni. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the appropriate comparison here is with a company. I think the appropriate comparison is with a religion. Pi Kappa Alpha brothers should be held to the same standards editing the article that a Catholic would be held to when editing Pope Pius VI (to pick a random pope.). (Officers in a company are likely to measure no more than 1000, both fraternity and religion membership are several orders of magnitude more)Naraht (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree with the last comment. The problem is not that members of an organization edit, but how they edit. If the editor tries to "cleanse" an article of controversial facts, that is the problem. If an editor, who happens to be a member of the organization adds relevant, encyclopedic information, that should not be discouraged. Enos733 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
First, WP:COI is a guideline, not policy, and it clearly states at the top that "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." There is nothing that says fraternity members must make use of {{request edit}} in order to edit their fraternity's page, so long as they are editing with the goal of improving Wikipedia thru their edits and not to promote their organization—though the former may have the same side effect of the latter. It would be best practice for fraternity or sorority editors who intend to heavily edit the article of their own organization to declare their affiliation, but I see no requirement in any guideline. What is not and should not be permitted is the editing of any GLO article by that organization's headquarters staff because they are paid employees of the organization. Even if an editor is an officer at a local chapter, that is not comparable to serving as a paid officer of a company and editing that company's article. Naraht's comparison is accurate. Sycamore (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that is incorrect. There is no written policy which differentiates closely affiliated personnel from paid editors. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, you're wrong. There is no policy that deals with COI (COI is a guideline, not a policy—a minor but important distinction in this case because guidelines "are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" according to WP:PG). According to WP:COI, "Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors." and "Paid advocacy is a subset of COI editing" which means that in fact paid advocacy is different from unpaid volunteer editing by affiliated parties. Sycamore (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I was addressing that there's no distinction between paid vs unpaid editors in how policies are applied. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Did you read WP:COI? It very clearly states that "Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously." while "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question, or on a noticeboard such as WP:COIN. ... If you have a financial connection to a topic (as an employee, owner or other stakeholder), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection. You may use the article talk pages to suggest changes, or the {{request edit}} template to request edits. Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other, and may not be acted upon."
Very few fraternity/sorority members are stakeholders, owners, or employees of the corporation that controls the fraternity. Mere membership in the organization does not confer stakeholder status. There is a very obvious difference between paid editors and unpaid editors in how WP:COI (which again is a guideline and not a policy) is applied. Sycamore (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with comparing with religion. Entering/leaving religion is much easier than joining/unjoining frats. Suppose PiKA members were to insert something that goes against something that is in conflict with his pledge of conduct, or something unflattering into PiKA page. Could the member receive any sanctions? What if a member posted a phrase from the uber secret ritual and the chapter/national found out? Could he be subject to persecution, harassment, or sanctions? If so, there is a PW:COI which limits how someone may edit openly. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

phi beta sigma fraternity inc. philippines chapter[edit]

phi beta sigma fraternity inc. Founded here in Philippines DECEMBER,07,1973 on julo sulo.. Our Mother chapter MSU.. Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity was founded at Howard University in Washington, D.C., January 9, 1914, by three young African-American male students. The Founders, Honorable A. Langston Taylor, Honorable Leonard F. Morse, and Honorable Charles I. Brown, wanted to organize a Greek letter fraternity that would truly exemplify the ideals of brotherhood, scholarship, and service. The Founders deeply wished to create an organization that viewed itself as “a part of” the general community rather than “apart from” the general community. They believed that each potential member should be judged by his own merits, rather than his family background or affluence…without regard to race, nationality, skin tone or texture of hair. They desired for their fraternity to exist as part of an even greater brotherhood which would be devoted to the “inclusive we” rather than the “exclusive we”. From its inception, the Founders also conceived Phi Beta Sigma as a mechanism to deliver services to the general community. Rather than gaining skills to be utilized exclusively for themselves and their immediate families, they held a deep conviction that they should return their newly acquired skills to the communities from which they had come. This deep conviction was mirrored in the Fraternity’s motto, “Culture For Service and Service For Humanity”. Today, Phi Beta Sigma has blossomed into an international organization of leaders. No longer a single entity, members of the Fraternity have been instrumental in the establishment of the Phi Beta Sigma National Foundation, the Phi Beta Sigma Federal Credit Union and The Sigma Beta Club Foundation. Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, founded in 1920 with the assistance of Phi Beta Sigma, is the sister organization of the Fraternity.

Mission Statement

The brothers of Phi Beta Sigma are the Fraternity’s most valuable resource and strength. They are the primary means by which the Phi Beta Sigma objectives will be achieved. In order to accomplish the Fraternity’s objectives, it is essential that systems are instituted that effectively embody “Culture For Service and Service For Humanity” and promote brotherhood To optimize Phi Beta Sigma’s effectiveness, the Fraternity will: • Strengthen and serve proactively the brotherhood, as a supportive resource that positively impacts the Fraternity’s growth and financial solvency. • Reaffirm and maintain a strong commitment to brotherhood, • Ensure that the Fraternity programs are focused and committed to serving humanity. • Create an environment that respects the dignity and worth of each brother. • Exhibit integrity and ethical behavior in conducting the Fraternity’s business. serving as a model for all. • Maintain and improve the Fraternity’s technological literacy, in order to better service its members and the community at large. • Foster and nurture our constitutional bond with Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc. • Encourage a closer and mutually beneficial working relationship with fellow filippino organizations, other community service organizations, businesses and government. • Select leaders who are committed and have demonstrated their ability to lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What are your chapter letters for Phi Beta Sigma at Mindanao State?Naraht (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done There are no chapters in the Philippines that are recognized by Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. Per the directive of Phi Beta Sigma International President Jimmy Hammock, a cease and desist demand will be sent by The Fraternity's General Counsel John M. Turner.  Educatedblkman  1914 (user)(talk) 16:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've communicated with a number Pinoy (Filipino) Fraternities and the Fraternities using US images, badges and belief that they have a tie with the USA is truly scary. As far as I can tell, the only groups in the Philippines that have a recognized tie to a same named group in the US are Alpha Sigma Phi Social Fraternity and Alpha Phi Omega Service Fraternity. Other groups with *no* legal tie include Phi Beta Sigma, Alpha Tau Omega, Alpha Delta Phi, Phi Beta Kappa and Alpha Chi Omega. There are a few groups that have the same name, but don't claim any tie at all such as Sigma Alpha Epsilon (which in the Philippines came from "Society of Agricultural Engineers", sometimes individual brothers will use SAE-USA symbolism, but the National Organization has said that isn't proper.
I wish the Fraternity General Council luck. Phi Beta Kappa-USA has been trying to nail down Phi Beta Kappa Philippines for over two years. One advantage that Phi Beta Sigma *might* have is that it doesn't appear that Phi Beta Sigma in the Philippines has registered with the Philippine [[

Securities and Exchange Commission (Philippines)|

Security and Exchange Commission]] (

Image column in tables for Lists of members of United States student societies[edit]

What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean in the templates used to create some of the tables like List of Alpha Phi Alpha Brothers? Interesting idea. If so, I tend to oppose for a couple of reasons. First that it will tend to make very obvious those with pictures and without. Secondly concerns about images due to their copyright are only suitable for the page about the individual person. Thirdly, on some of the larger pages like the List of Alpha Phi Alpha Brothers, it would make the tables *much* longer.Naraht (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what templates you mean. I'm referring to list articles like List of Kappa Alpha Psi brothers and List of Sigma Kappa sisters.
Images for some would make others seem missing, but I'm not sure that's a huge deal. Food for thought.
Most images of people are from commons, and so they're okay to use in multiple articles.
I see your point about making some articles too long. But, many tables are not 100% wide because a wasted area at the right is used to add a few images. If that area is removed by moving the images into the table, that should result in only a slightly longer table, in most cases. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh right. I see the template now. Then yes, that's what I mean. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The whole thing sounds like a can of worms. I think I should just drop it. Thanks for the thoughtful reply, though. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

RS question...[edit] is used as a reference in the Pi Kappa Alpha article (p325). Any ideas on that book.

Peer Review Needed[edit]

I thought i would reach out to those who have the most interest in the topic. I'm looking to have a review done on the Phi Beta Sigma article in hopes to have it reassessed and upgraded from Start level to FA, GA, or A level in time for Phi Beta Sigma's centennial. The article has recieved extensive expansion and the major problems with it have been fixed. If anyone is interested in helping please contact me on my talk page.  Educatedblkman  1914 (user)(talk) 19:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I took a crack at it. Anyone else can feel free to chime in.-GrapedApe (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking for some input into Phi Alpha Delta[edit]

Hi all. I just gutted some fairly large swaths of what I believed to be cruft from Phi Alpha Delta's article. This professional fraternity is fairly ubiquitous around law schools, and has pretty clearly been around for a long time. Unfortunately, it looks like the article has stood fairly unchallenged by cleanup efforts for several years. Not being too familiar with fraternity and sorority articles around WP, I'm not entirely sure what belongs and what doesn't (e.g., a complete list of all "chapters", which is basically just a local student group at every American law school). There are some NPOV issues as well (the "A Fraternity of Firsts" section comes to mind). I think I've done all I can with it. Could someone more familiar with these issues take a look? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigma Phi Epsilon Chapters Missing[edit]

There are several missing Chapters in this page. I cross referenced a few state lists and in a matter of five minutes I had already found many missing chapters. Kansas is missing Pittsburg State, North Dakota is missing University of North Dakota, California is missing California State University at Fresno, Northridge, Sacramento and University of Southern California, University of California at Los Angeles, and Florida is missing Florida Atlantic University. Im sure there are several other missing chapters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnharrison1995 (talkcontribs) 08:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

  • You should feel free to Be Bold and add them yourself.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

List of chapters templates[edit]

Regarding the template for chapter lists, I feel it would be improved if the information under the location heading be separated into city and state so the two can be sorted separately. Also, the name of the state should probably be spelled out. Freddiem (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

People in a Fraternity Category[edit]

My rule of thumb for a person being in the Category:Rho Rho Rho is that the person either have been a founder of Rho Rho Rho or have been a National Officer for Rho Rho Rho. So for example, for Alpha Phi Omega, there are four people in the Category:Alpha Phi Omega. Frank Reed Horton, primary founder, Ray O. Wyland who was a founding advisor, Harold Roe Bartle who was the second National President, and Senator Mark Hatfield, who served as the National 3rd Vice President for a term. It does *not* include president Bill Clinton even though he was the most well known alumnus because he didn't hold an official position in the Fraternity. Does this rule of thumb sound reasonable?Naraht (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It does. IMHO, Hatfield probably shouldn't be in the APO category unless he did something significant while he was a national officer. The top-level category for a fraternity should be limited to founders and major national officers. If it's relevant to categorize alumni, then some kind of a members or alumni category should be used, such as Category:Rho Rho Rho members. —C.Fred (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I've gone back and forth about Hatfield a number of times and decided to include him only because he was elected by the entire national body. And I think the decision has been not to have any "Member" category for GLO or "alumni" category for schools. OTOH pages with lists of Notable members/Notable alumni are appropriate.Naraht (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Corps Altsachsen Dresden[edit]

Hello everyone,

Mühlberg - Säbelmensur.jpg

A while ago, I started reading about this Wikiproject and decided that we needed to add a few German Fraternities to the mix. Hence, I translated an article with some friends of mine from German to English and added it to WP a few days ago. As I'm not a native speaker (and only two of my friends are "half-natives"), I would love to have the article be checked by a native English speaker.
The article deals with a typical old-school European fraternity that is only somewhat similar to what people know in the US and Canada as student societies. Anything that you'd like to add to or improve in the article would be highly appreciated.

The review can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Corps Altsachsen Dresden/archive1
(and the article, obviously is Corps Altsachsen Dresden)

Thank you for your help :) Cheers, --WikimanGer  Talk  Mail   17:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

AfD for Sorority at University of Ottawa[edit]

This AfD for Sigma Beta Phi on grounds of notability is relevant to your WikiProject, if you'd like to participate in the discussion. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Alumni Associations - new page or not?[edit]

A new user recently added a (rather large) list of area Alumni Associations to List of Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia chapters. I'm thinking that this list should be on its own page; while there are multiple AAs across the country, they're affiliated with regions and not specific universities/chapters. I thought I'd get some opinions before proceeding. Cheers. Primefac (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd say that alumni associations should definitely not be given a new page. I'm ambivalent on whether they should be on the chapter list pages: that should be a content discussion for the talk page.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Psi Upsilon crest[edit]

Hey, does anybody have an image of the crest of the Psi Upsilon fraternity? I've realized that we are missing one and it would be very useful to put on the page. Vacationlandman (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Fraternities and Sororities at Wikimania 2014[edit]

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)