There is no citation given for this highly contentious opinion. Almost all greek pottery renders figures as black on orange or orange on black, so pottery is a non starter for claims of a 'fair skinned' greek art. Greek marble tends to be of light colouring, but since these were probably painted and have lost pigment, that is not a strong indicator of 'fairness' either. Given that many 'greeks' were in north africa, there needs to be at least a proper academic citation for a general greek depiction of 'fair skin'.
There is no citation given for this highly contentious opinion. Almost all greek pottery renders figures as black on orange or orange on black, so pottery is a non starter for claims of a 'fair skinned' greek art. Greek marble tends to be of light colouring, but since these were probably painted and have lost pigment, that is not a strong indicator of 'fairness' either. Given that many 'greeks' were in north africa, there needs to be at least a proper academic citation for a general greek depiction of 'fair skin'.
== FAR needed ==
Citations are inconsistent, there are external jumps, grammatical issues, and missing "as of" dates. Is anyone able to tune up this article to avoid a [[WP:FAR|Featured article review]]? [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Alpha Phi Alpha 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.Fraternities and SororitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesTemplate:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesFraternities and Sororities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
I have added both years within the article until we can determine the exact year.
<li.>Charles Wesley states in the 1981 version of "The History of Alpha Phi Alpha", page 244, that the year of integration was 1945.
<li.>The Alpha Phi Alpha national website also indicates the year was 1945.
<li.>Skip Mason gives the exact date as June 21, 1946. While Mason is knoweledgable of the history, for citation purposes with wikipedia; I don't think his personal website trumps the national historian for 7 decades and the national organization. Again, he may be absolutely correct.
Both Mason and the national office can be contacted to resolve which year is correct. If Mason is correct, perhaps he will contact the national office to have its webmaster update the Alpha official website.--Ccson (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Details
The year of integration was indeed 1945; I am not disputing this. I am disputing the fact that you keep removing this brother's references to white brothers completely. Furthermore, you are removing the details of the integration:
<li.>Integration discussed and approved in 1940
<li.>Integration officially voted on in 1945
<li.>Bernard Levin initiated into Theta chapter 1946 (as detailed in the Oct. 1946 issue of Ebony)
<li.>Constitution officially amended in 1952
All of these points will be properly cited when included in the article..--TheTruth007 (talk) 8:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you concerned that the editor continues to rewrite the entire paragraph by removing content and replacing with his own? The details of each action between 1940-1952 aren't that important as even the national office only alludes to the year 1945. The specific chapter for Levin is not important to the reader and I would gather from his name Levin that he's Jewish, not white as the editor indicates. I didn't remove all references to white members since Youmans address in 1954 was included in my version. This article is already exceeding the size for a normal article and including all the gory details is just impractical. we just want to show when the group became interracial, not all the ranglings and politics that occured at conventions between 1940 and 1952. There are over 100 references in the article to accomdate inquiring readers who want to know/verify/explore the details of any text within the article. I'll change article to say Levin was inducted in 1946, see if this is satisfactory.
I'm sort of confused as to why "Jewish, not white" should be a concept. Just because someone is a jew doesn't mean that they aren't white. They certainly aren't a WASP, and some of the NIC Fraternities didn't allow Jews, but I'd be very surprised if the Alpha Phi Alpha by-laws distinguished among religions for those who aren't of African-American descent.Naraht (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naraht, Hello, long time no hear from, but I'm glad to see you;re still keeping me on my toes. The race/religion of the member is not important, but if you say first white or jew, then someone will include the first chinese, mexican, puerto rican, German, etc. The point of the text is to indicate when the first non-negro or non-black if you will, was initiated, and therefore the fraternity was integrated. In point of fact, the source which the editor sites says ' the first non-Black member of Alpha Phi Alpha", so unless he has another reference to ensure Levin was white, we should stick with the current source which I also believe is reliable. Also, my grandfather was half-jewish so what am I?--Ccson (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that there is likely to be a place for the Seven Architects on this page, but is this the poster that was actually producted on the issues of voting? If so, is there additional text missing that accompanied the poster?Naraht (talk) 18:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Kappa Nu was founded in 1903; however; the main reason its not listed as the first is because it never received a charter from Indiana University. Gamma Phi ostensibly has a charter, but we need to know if the March 1, 1905 date is when wilberforce recognized Gamma Phi as an official group or is this the date when Gamma Phi members first met to discuss becoming a chartered organization? School recognition is what should control in my opinion.--Ccson (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of inter collegiate is what is key here. I found a neutral link [8] which defines it as being
of, pertaining to, or representative of two or more colleges.
adj. Involving or representing two or more colleges.
Alpha Kappa Nu [9] wasn't an intercollegiate organization. It only had one chapter if you would call it a chapter. Thus it was only collegiate. The definition of intercollegiate is involving two or more colleges. It was not recognized so far as we know by the school as a fraternity, most likely just as a club.
Gamma Phi had multiple chapters which made it intercollegiate by definition.. Also Alpha Phi Alpha was first brought together in early 1906. I believe March, but finally became an established fraternity in Dec 1906. Thus it was founded on Dec 7, 1906. That is it's recognized founding date, Dec 1906. It was chartered in I believe 1907 (which is when the school recognized the fraternity), but I don't have any references on that. In terms of Gamma Phi, it was founded in March 1905. The Wilberforce school yearbook, The Forcean, as shown in Black Greek 101 states 1905. Which would show that the school officially recognized that the fraternity was founded in 1905. Thus establishing recognition. In all reality though I don't see the relation of having a charter to the argument. It doesn't take away from the date of when the Fraternity was founded in 1905 and the fact that it did have other chapters outside of Wilberforce University. Thus establishing intercollegiate. SexyNupe2000 (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basing off my interjection below. I believe the changing of first inter collegiate fraternity to "the oldest surviving" should be made being that new reliable data is available. QueDog (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though most sources indicate that Alpha Phi Alpha was the earliest national black fraternity. One of the sources provided in support of Gamma Phi's earlier claim status supports this claim, referring to Gamma Phi as among the predecessor attempts (previous to the later national fraternities), along with Alpha Kappa Nu.[10] It is correct, according to the vast majority of sources, to clearly state that Alpha Phi Alpha is the earliest national black fraternity. Conflicting claims to the status of the earliest intercollegiate or national fraternity of this sort should probably not be addressed in this article, considering the uniform support of Alpha Phi Alpha's status in most reliable sources. If a fair number of reputable references explicitly make claims to the contrary, a passing mention of this fact and the reasons those sources present would be appropriate. Otherwise, we should stick to the sources, which place Alpha Phi Alpha as the earliest of its particular kind. Vassyana (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question for the masses. I understand the issues surrounding the latest revert war, but if the material is cited, is there a reason it's not being added, or is it being removed mainly due to the user contributing? Not trying to pick a fight, but if this is verifiable content, doesn't it belong? Or is the content being added coming from an unreliable source? I'm certainly not familiar enough with the subject at hand to really offer an opinion either way, I'm more curious. The fact that it appears to be coming from the same editor doesn't lend much credence to it being valid, but it seems to be more than just vandalism to me. Justinm1978 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's most likely coming from a banned user (even the checkuser didn't confirm it, it certainly didn't deny it, either). Suppose somehow this wasn't coming from Mykungfu, but a real honest-to-goodness new user. Would that merit discussion on the talk page? I honestly don't know anything about APhiA's history other than what is on the article page, so when something like this comes forth, I become curious, especially because the history is given in such great detail on the article, and the new user's contributions are also quite detailed. I'm not lending validity to the contribution, but asking just how unreliable are the sources (ignoring who presented them) so if/when this becomes an issue again, other editors can have an understanding of where the reasoning for keeping it out comes from. Justinm1978 (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's him. We all know it's him. 1.) IPs match up for SN2000 2.) Sufficient knowledge of policy. 3.) Even though checkuser could not relate the IPs, he could be/is traveling and use different IPs to create accounts. miranda01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So does anybody know why he is so insistent on placing this information here? It's a lot of stuff and is supposedly cited (I haven't looked through much of it), and he keeps ban-evading to put it here. Putting aside who is putting it, does the information itself have any merit? I'm not saying to integrate it into the article, I'm just asking to satisfy my own curiosity. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure of the motivation, but I do see why these individuals might want to surpress this information. APHIA is a strong organization with great history. There did exist growing pains that might take aways from what they believe to its great history. That might be the reason. QueDog (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since MKF says he not really sure of his motivation, let me take a stab at it. IT IS A FRAT PRANK. MKF has stated that he is a member of Kappa Alpha Psi, a friendly "rival" frat to Alpha (not to be confused with Omega Psi Phi, or the "Quedogs" as implied by the sock above. Some Kappas claim (mistakenly, according to their history book) that Kappa was founded before Alpha, because at the school where they were founded, there had been a failed attempt to form a non-related organization, Alpha Kappa Nu, in 1903. MKF attempted to blanket this info into wiki articles related to Black organizations such as Alpha and Kappa, until he got pushback from wiki editors within his own claimed fraternity about trying to insert the claim into the Kappa Alpha Psi article. Sometime around this point he decided to try to insert pretty much anything he believed to be disparaging or embarrassing into the Alpha article. To his dismay, I suppose, editors such as CCson actually worked with him to edit "embarrassing" entries (such as hazing) while discrediting factually incorrect or suspect cites MKF tried to push (so-called "supression), until Alpha became a featured article. The reason MKF cites Walter Kimbrough and "www.TheKappaStore.com" (?) so heavily, is because other sources that mention "Gamma Phi," another early attempt, still recognize Alpha Phi Alpha as the first successful attempt at an intercollegiate African-American fraternal organization. keep in mind, even with some of the off-the-wall stuff, MKF has still been asked just to take it to the talk page and discuss it. the problem is, if he/she can't insert his POV into an article, he resorts to socks to circumvent polling, 3RR and bans. i could go on, but that is far more than enough than merits explaining in defending "suppression" accusations from a banned editor.-RoBoTamice14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same material has been discussed throughout several years and consensus has been gained on why some material was included and some was not included. This particular editor represents issues that he wasn't satified as being excluded such as C.C. Poindexter and this discussion is in one of the archived talk pages. He's refuting info in the Alpha history book because not everyone has a copy. The book is available in most public and college libraries for anyone who wants to verify the source. Regarding his claim of Kappa being he first interracial, their constitution never limited membership based on race, however; they never admitted anyone other than African Americans until Alpha became interracial, that's why Alpha says there're the first to actually have an interracial membership. The Alpha article admits membership was restricted to Negros and then they were the first to initiate a non-negro. Regarding Morton as a founder and being replaced with Jones, it's documented in the Founding section and the History 1950-1969 section of the article. The user also has claimed to be a member of Alpha. Regarding the first initiates, the history 1950-1969 section list Morton as one of the first initiates, which means he really wasn't a founder, Jones was also one of the first initiates as stipulated in the hisotry book. I don't have a problem with listing all four initiates, but the other two weren't relevant to the fraternity. My point is that this user is only searching for info which seems scandalous or nefarious, or that which seems the groups did something underhanded, or makes false claims. Again, we've had these discussions before and we shouldn't have to prove it to each new user (although he's the same user), they should just be pointed to the archived discussion.
Thanks for the information and background. This makes a lot more sense to me now, and while I understand that these discussions have taken place in the past, I think it's always good to occasionally bring them up, especially if perceptually new information has come to light. I've seen this stuff added to the article before, but previously it wasn't as well-cited. Now I understand a bit more of the history, and the fact that this is addressed elsewhere in the article helps too. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you are looking for some help on disputes on the case, and listed it at the mediation cabal. If you'd like, I'd be happy to help out. Let me know if you want me to help out, or if you'd rather have someone else to help you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the user who requested mediation has no contributions since he created the request, was only a wikipedian for 2 days, and he never attempted to resolve the issues on the talk page.--Ccson (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mediation has been requested, and I'm offering to help out as a mediator. If you believe the subject would be helped more if you further discuss it here first, or if you'd rather get a third opinion per WP:3O, that is fine as well. Just know that mediation is an option, even if not every step in the dispute resultion process is followed. Coming to an agreement is more important than following processes. Let me know here, or on my talkpage, which action you prefer. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ROF is now blocked. If MKF pops up with a new sock attacking me/harrassing me or others/POV pushing APA/filing SSP and checkusers, report to ANI please to block this user. miranda21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to remove date-autoformatting
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Disadvantages of date-autoformatting
(1) In-house only
(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
(4) Typos and misunderstood coding
(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
(5) Edit-mode clutter
(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
(6) Limited application
(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and I have no intention of arguing with people's feelings on the issue. Tony(talk)12:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this change, largely due to the first and third reasons mentioned above. I've always thought that date-autoformatting is merely an option, not a requirement. As such, I doubt you will meet much opposition. ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 17:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Herman "Skip" Mason is the General President-Elect of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. He officially takes office on January 1, 2009 with his inauguration is to be held the weekend of January 23 - 25, 2009 at the Atlanta Marquis Hotel in Atlanta, GA. --Mills (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To date there has been no official release noting the "General President-Elect" and "General President" distinctions. Having participated in the most recent General Convention, when the announcement was made, will contact the Corporate Office to obtain clarity on what publicly available documentation can be cited for these purposes. --Mills (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, until you have a publicly reliable source which substantiates what you have edited, please replace my original text in which I did provide a reliable and verfiable source. Again, this is a featured article (FA) and all information must be verifiable from the moment it is entered; otherwise, the FA status can be challenged. See Original research. thanks.
The official fraternity media release regarding the convention was released on the fraternity web site (see here for details). It outlines that Alpha Brother Herman "Skip" Mason will be the 33rd General President with his term beginning in January 2009. Also reported at THE BLACK COLLEGIAN Online and BlackNews.com (reprinted). -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to re-read the release, it names Bro. Skip Mason as "Genereal President-elect;" the Black Collegian article is based upon a release issued by Bro. Skip Mason's campaign team. There has been no official communique from the fraternity's corporate office, stating other than what's on the website. Having spoken with the appropriate leaders, it was noted an official release is forthcoming and will be distributed to all media networks, at the appropriate time. --Mills (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Symbols
While many often, loosely, use a pharoah's bust/head or the pyramids of Gaza as "symbols" of Alpha Phi Alpha, it should be noted the only recognized (and approved) fraternal "symbol" or emblem of the fraternity is the Sphinx of Gaza. Additionally, there is nothing within the Fraternity's history books, archives (located at Cornell University, Guide to the Alpha Phi Alpha Records, 1910-2006 and Howard University's Moorland-Spingarn_Research_Center) or ritualistic documents referring to Apes as "symbols" of the Fraternity, therefore, any references of such should be removed. --Mills (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see this article by Skip Mason which refers to Apes within the fraternity. [Apes]
I think you're right about the pyramids and pharoah, but even the official shield has the pyramids in the back, and the Great Sphinx if really a pharoah's head on the body of a lion. I'll get back to you on this.--Ccson (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess these are not official symbols so I will remove them from the info fraternity box. I don't agree with your term "loosely used" because the Pyramids are on the shield and again my reference to the article by Mason regarding "ape". The text within the section Egyptian symbolism will remain.--Ccson (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, if you re-read Skip's article it does not refer to apes as a "symbol" of the fraternity, but as a stage of development.
Furthermore, following the line of reasoning you use one would presume that because there's a knight's helmet, an escheteon, a wreath of colors, a torch, mantling, fess, and torches, that these elements should also be considered fraternal symbols, correct? In other words, because an organization's shield or coat-of-arms contains multiple elements or symbols, it is unfair designate those as "symbols."
The more appropriate action would be to use the official symbol as designated by the Fraternity.
As one of the Brothers who teaches the organization's "Ritual" workshop, the accurate statement would be to say that the Sphinx of Gaza (or Sphinx for short) is our emblem.
Finally, the term "loosely" was not an indictment of you, but more of the fact that often times anything representing Egyptian antiquity is associated with Alpha. While this is admirable, it is historicallyl innacurate. Please forgive the offense.
NOTE: After reviewing the fraternity's Consitution & By-Laws (2007, p. 5), wanted to note a correction. According to this document, the symbols are "...the Greek letters: ALPHA PHI ALPHA." --Mills (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How long have you been teaching the organization's "Ritual Workshop"? See footnotes 2 and 3 and the paragrpahs where they are quoted. The text for footnote 2 says the group would be known by the Greek Leters Alpha Phi Alpha, (a reader may interpreted this as symbols and where the info was taken from and recorded in the constitution which says they are symbosl which you have cited. The text for footnote 3 indicates the fraternity was organized with the Great Sphix of Giza as their symbol. I guess there are at least 2 symbols, and someone else may point us to yet another document which list another icon.--Ccson (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your point is partially why the earlier comments were made. If we go by the "literal" statement, then the only symbols that should be used are the greek letters for Alpha Phi Alpha. Even the "Sphinx of Giza" is only listed as our "emblem." Agree?
After having sat under Bro. Ryle Bell's (Eastern Region) tuteledge for a few years, I've begun teaching and updating the the ritual workshop information. Would love to converse with you "off-line." Mentioned to Bro. Matthew and Bro. Hall last night that you all were doing a yoeman's job maintaing the "Alpha-related" pages. --Mills (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
founding
when a fraternity is founded before others wouldn't it be considered to be the first?
Phi Betta Kappa is generally recognized as the first fraternity, everything else follows; however, some groups have qualified "first" with jewish, social, founded at a HBCU, etc, which may be true. If your question is to Phi Beta Kappa, the answer is "yes", Did you want to qualify your question?--Ccson (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with File:JesseOwens 1936Olympics.jpg
The image File:JesseOwens 1936Olympics.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
I have updated the founding of Alpha Phi Alpha to provide more of a holistic story of the founding of Alpha Phi Alpha. My sources are derived from Cornell University itself where I studied as an undergrad. I am also a brother in the fraternity and used Dr. Wesley's book to back up my claims. The information, perhaps not often seen comes from our open archives in the Kroch Library at Cornell University.
When I first posted the change, it was removed due to it not being neutral. I have since changed the founding to be more of a neutral stance on the founding of Alpha Phi Alpha. I actually include more of the history of Cornell University —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.94.121 (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Justinm1978, the history of Cornell as it relates to Alpha Phi Alpha belongs here, this expounds on the early history of black cornellians at Cornell. This is important. These edits are not peakcockish. Are you are brother? I will replace them and continue to make edits. They do not present a non neutral stance.
I also changed the order of the colors, its old gold and black not vice versa. Also on the picture the society was Alpha Phi Alpha society until 1906 when it became Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. In addition, APA was found in Ithaca, not on the 'campus' of cornell university. Blacks could not live on the campus nor convene on the campus of Cornell university at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexboy1 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not I am a brother of APA has nothing to do with this. Your comment on that it was founded in Ithaca and not at Cornell is directly contrary to what the national website says on that matter. You are free to continue to make edits, but be aware that you are not the only one who can edit, and as this is a feature article, any and all edits will get scrutinized (not just yours, mine included). Justinm1978 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I know that I am not the only one that can make edits. I will continue to refine this article, per what some of my brothers have stated. I will be having some leadership in Alpha look at this page and offer some critique. All I ask is that you please refrain from changing it back so that these brothers can see these changes and we can tone it down from there. Thanks for keeping an eye out on this page, but I would be more comfortable knowing that you were a fellow brother making these changes and not just someone trying to police wikipedia.
Alpha was founded in Ithaca by Cornell students. By virtue it was in fact found at Cornell University. Yet 411 E. State St. is not Cornell property or was affiliated with the University at any time in its history. We give Cornell University that right because Alpha Phi Alpha was found for college men on college campuses, so it makes sense to say that Alpha Phi Alpha was found at Cornell. I will NEVER deny that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexboy1 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Phi Alpha does not own this article, and neither do you. Your comfort level with another editor making changes here has no bearing at all in what the content of this article contain. Your request to have me refrain from editing so someone else can review your changes is not appropriate. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything with Alpha Phi Alpha on it, as it is shown to the rest of the world is our business. While we may not own this article we certainly have every right to make sure it is the best it can be. If anyone can put slander, insulting comments and inaccurate information up on this site then what credibility does this lend to wikipedia? If you are not a brother then by all means please refrain from changing this page to reflect some ideal notion of how wikipedia is suppose to be. Why do you have such a profound interest in policing this page? Again, thanks for the comments but I will continue to update said page.Blexboy1 (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexboy1 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Blexboy1 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying that you can update the page, I am telling you that per Wikipedia policy, you have zero right to tell me that I can or can not update this page. This is not a place for APA to advertise itself. You can't restrict editing of a page only to members, that is a direct conflict of interest. What this page says about APA is not APA's business, it is Wikipedia's. Justinm1978 (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blexboy1: Pretty much what Justinm1978 said. Much of your edits—both in the content you are adding and its style of phrasing—are unsuitable. Additionally, often the wording is not only over-elaborate, but is very dated in style; it doesn't necessarily show plagiarism, but makes us think; just saying. I'm happy to give you a few examples, at your request, using the wording you added. Wikipedia core content policies require all content is written from a neutral point of view, and is verifiable to a reliable source; the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. By looking at the article a reader should not be able to tell if the contributors were 'sympathetic' or in 'opposition' to the fraternity—or what the contributors thought at all. –Whitehorse121:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By updating what was INACCURATE information I am not advertising APA, I am simply updating, going with the times, or what ever catch phrase makes sense here. This page is not for recruiting purposes, but as wikipedia's says for "information purposes". One would assume that the information here would be up to date. No I cannot stop you from changing anything on this page that you would like, but as good stewards of information I would hope that you would yield the updating of this page to someone who has a vested interest in this fraternity and has the accurate information to update it. What this page says about APA is APA's business because we will make sure it remains accurate updated information. Wikipedia, is made of people seeking to create a medium by which information can be shared and easily available, wikipedia is not you or me its all of us willing to share information. So when you say this page is wikipedia's business alone that is legally incorrect....I wont go into the legalities but any information that is posted about an IRS affiliate, 501c group, legal entity on an open network becomes the business of that group. If this were not the case then anyone could slander APA's name and potentially harm its rep. I'm glad that copyright, internet laws exist or else you would actually make sense with your claims.71.178.145.62 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to go into legalities either, but realize that you're not exactly correct in this regard. It is not APA's place to "make sure that this information is correct", since that can lead to censorship. The fact that you have a vested interest is a direct conflict of interest and is reason enough why you shouldn't be editing this article as much as you are. Also, do note that this is a neutral article, and removing of information that paints APA in a bad light (such as the removal of the "Hell Week" citation) is not keeping with that spirit of neutrality. Actions like that can make one question your motives in contributing to this article. I'm not making any accusations, I'm just saying what it can look like. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the hell week citation because according to the fraternity aim and missions, and you have cited the national headquarter's website often, hell week and such are not sanctioned by the fraternity. I have every right as a user of this site to keep BS, slander etc off this page. I would not be a good steward of information if I did not. If anyone is fervently committed to a topic it is not wrong to update, and/or advocate for this topic. By me updating this as I am, does not bias this article or myself. Thanks for this convo71.178.145.62 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they don't endorse it now doesn't mean it didn't happen THEN. This is white-washing bias, and is unacceptable. I'm going to be removing your edits and restoring the article back to how it was a couple of days ago, since your cited source fails WP:V. Justinm1978 (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was added back in good-faith by another editor. Whether hell week and such are/were sanctioned by the fraternity is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you don't "like" that a particular thing happened or don't "want" it included in the article. What matters, is whether a reliable source states that it happened. In this case, I looked at the online source and it did not appear to back up the sentence in the article. So, I removed it and explained why in my edit summary. (The source, a then-archivist, had interviewed a DST alumna, discussing her experiences in that org.) If my good-faith belief turns out to be incorrect, another editor may re-add it. That is how it works here. –Whitehorse122:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have alerted other brothers about the content of this page. They will be looking for corrections and critique just as I have. But anything in the article that cannot be backed by a quality source I will remove every time I see it. There are no points that need to be proven by adding certain things back in to this article. Just as was said earlier, no one owns this article so expect more changes in the coming days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.145.62 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the part about Alpha Kappa Nu at University of Indiana, because the ref failed. I saw two conflicting stories so I thought it best to remove it.
I added back in the founding section because that analysis was not biased and was backed by two diff sources.
I took out the "hell week" comment because I could not find where this ref came from. I researched the link but was unable to substantiate this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.4.123 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the essay since it is not published online for verification and backed up with an online source. Also see early black cornellians.68.34.4.123 (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. I have requested page protection. The vast majority of this stuff is trivial, and the stuff that isn't trivial belongs in the Cornell article. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've opposed it. From what I can see, we now have IP-editors—like the one immediately above— making careful, measured and good-faith attempts to understand verification/reliable-sourcing importance, and work within 'pedia community norms & policies. I'm very reluctant to disallow editing like that. –Whitehorse123:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Justinnm1978 you are taking this personal. I think it would be best if you moved on and stop over concerning yourself with this article. You care a lot about APhiO and you take a vested interest in updating that site, per wikipedia's rules that is out of line as well.
"This period is the time the pledge learns of the organization's history, principles and tenacity of brotherhood. For more than nine decades an Alpha Phi Alpha Pledge was initially referred to as a "Sphinxman", and later an "Ape" during "Hell Week" when pledges were submitted to compounded endurances.[1]"
The information above is not accurate. I re-checked this ref and it FAILS! This article says nothing like it is written. I am going to report your neglect to wikipedia. I have taken all the above critique well and have began to re-do and adhere to the rules for wikipedia. Now you are taking this personal. Thank you whitehorse1, I am seriously going in and checking all of the references to make sure that this information can be backed up.
I agree with Justinm. The information on Cornell University, the beliefs of Ezra Cornell, or the use/purpose of Annie Singleton have no critical basis on how Alpha was founded. Any reader of this article certainly can click on the link for Cornell University if they want detailed info on the school and its founder.--Ccson (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Ccson but you are wrong. The very development of Alpha Phi Alpha hinged from the foundation and development of Cornell. While I agree that folks who want to know more about cornell can visit the page, please do not think that Alpha Phi Alpha and the history of Cornell do not go hand in hand. Please do your research, and if you are a brother do more than read Wesley, actually visit Cornell and read the archives hand written by the founders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.144.247 (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. It might go hand-in-hand if the founders decided to apply to cornell because of its background and thought we might create a society that mimics cornell, yet there is no history to show they knew each other before attending cornell and/or that Alpha could not have been founded at other historically white institutions of its day, particulary other ivy leagues schools such as cornell. The history states they wanted to mimic white fraternities on campus, not the founding of cornell, and of course white fraternities existed at many other white institutions.--Ccson (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, who do you think Wesley spoke with regarding the founding of Alpha, probably the founders and they either omitted what you want to add, their views on the founding changed over the years, and/or Wesley simply thought it was relevant to the founding of Alpha which is why it hasn't been included in over the many editons he made to the fraternity's history book because surely Wesley had read what you say is currently available at cornell.--Ccson (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but you make very loose claims about the history. I argue simply, that the founders did know stuff about Cornell's legacy and willingness to accept students of color. In addition, they knew of the programs Cornell offered its students (engineering, architecture etc). Perhaps the Jewels did not know each other before going to Cornell, and I never make that claim, it is nebulous to think that they did not research Cornell before hand and come to a valued conclusion. Furthermore, Cornell had and still has the third largest Inter-fraternity Council in the country. During that time White Fraternities were large and influential. No other College around NY has that in depth of an IFC. Yes they were at other schools, but history books will tell you that many of them at other schools were somewhat sacrosanct in their doings, whereas at Cornell this was not the case.
Many of the jewels lived around NY and had ties to upstate. Their hearing of the Niagara movement, early blacks in Ithaca, and the suitable programs at Cornell led the jewels to Cornell. Cornell, having been founded by progressive NY state senators availed itself to negro advancement. Where there were still acts of racism and hatred Blacks were able to study there and progress, unlike other schools. Alpha Phi Alpha was a result of these happenings which I also argue are divine. Be rest assured that Cornell was chosen divinely as the place for the birth of Alpha Phi Alpha, the most sweeping and influential group of men of African descent in this world. I will not yield on that one.
Perhaps you should read beyond Wesley. And for your information, archives at Cornell did not come until after the first edition of the history book was published. Brothers in Alpha Chapter with Cornell aggressively acquired the archives we see today. I spent four years at Cornell looking into early blacks at Cornell. I will leave the conversation there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.144.122 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you have stated could be the story of every minority student on any predominantly white campus in the early 1900s, and even today on some campuses. Whether the archivies were available before/after first history book, they were avaialable before Wesely died and he could surely have updated the information in the more than 10 editions he authored. Wesley didn't need the archives because had access to the the Jewels and could cite them first hand if they had told him of Alpha's divine founding at Cornell; surely they knew what led them to found Alpha. I'm not saying the founders didn't share this with Wesely, but that Wesley (a noted historian on more than Alpha) did not find this information vital to include in over 400 pages of the history book, and I and other editors don't believe it vital in this abbreviated encyclopedia form on Alpha. You don't have to yield to your personal opinions; however, you must gain consensus from other editors if you believe that God "divinely" chose Cornell and placed all the jewels there for the intended purpose of the creation of Alpha. There are over 100 references in this article and most of the are NOT from Wesley. Finally, your 4 years of research is simply that, original research.--Ccson (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have further question regarding this article or general help/questions with wikipedia--Ccson (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bro. Channing H. Tobias and Bro. George W. Gore
Channing H. Tobias was initiated into Eta Chapter - in the Alpha Phi Alpha page the chapter was listed as unknown. (Wesley, 247).
George W. Gore was initiated into Tau Lambda Chapter - in the Alpha Phi Alpha page the chapter this was also listed as unknown, (Wesley, 246).
Source
Wesley, Charles H., (1929). The History of Alpha Phi Alpha: A Development in College Life (eleventh edition). Foundation Publishers.
Chicago, IL. (1969). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juju1906 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
each newly elected president is automatically considered one of the "100 most influential Black Americans."<ref name=alphavideo>{{cite video |people=Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity |title=Alpha Phi Alpha Men: "A Century of Leadership'' |medium=Video |publisher=Rubicon Productions |date=2005}}</ref>
Something like this needs an independent printed source. (For one thing, videos don't make assertions. Rather, nameable people talking within videos tend to do so.) And who thus considers him? -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this fact comes from Ebony magazine's annual (est 1963) "The Most Influential Black Americans," they now call it the Ebony Power 150. In fact, a number of presidents of the nine Black Greek orgnizations are automatically listed. Here are links for 2003 and 2004 when Harry Johnson was listed and in 2008 when the president of Alpha Kappa Alpha was listed. Darryl Matthes listed in 2008 (PDF).
The president of AKA is also on the 2003 and 2004 list. There are 46 issues, probably not all available online.
Thank you for the thoughtful and helpful reply. How about:
From 1963, see Ebony's annual "The Most Influential Black Americans" (recently retitled "Ebony Power 150").
Of course this would be rather unusual as a Wikipedia footnote, but there's no rule mandating one drily formatted source per note. -- Hoary (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Legal (or not) mumbojumbo
We're told:
The Secretary of State of New York accepted the incorporation of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity on January 29, 1908.
Within this pair of edits, I removed three (or more) incidents of "official".
It seems to me that if an organization has a crest, magazine, journal, or whatever, this can be presumed to be official unless stated otherwise.
For all I know, there may also be a magazine that one could call an "unofficial AΦA magazine". But it's unlikely that anyone knowledgable would call that "AΦA's magazine". So "official" hardly serves to distinguish from unofficial, and the word thus strikes me as superfluous.
there are some "unofficial" publicatons from chapters, regions, etc., but that's not important--your point is well taken. thanksCcson (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
technical restructure
I am considering restructuring the page a bit to help with the overload of graphics and quotes. basically this would involve moving a number of the images to a gallery at the end of the document, and reorganizing the remaining graphics and quotes to fit better on the page (I'm also considering rebuilding the infobox fraternity template, but that's a secondary concern). would there be any objection s to that? --Ludwigs204:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The box that lists the national programs of the fraternity needs to be cleaned up. We only have 3 national programs. There are partnerships with March of Dimes/Babies, Boy Scouts of America, Big Brother/ Big Sister, etc., but currently we only have 3 national programs. Thanks.[2]PhrozenAPE06 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Alpha Phi Alpha conventions almost ready for mainspace.
I've been working on User:Naraht/apac for a week or so and it has gotten fairly extension. Before it gets moved into mainspace, I'd like to have an intro paragraph. It doesn't need to be as extensive as the one for List of Phi Beta Sigma conclaves, but I wouldn't mind if it was. :) Also a similar paragraph can be added to the Alpha Phi Alpha page and the convention page could be added there with {{main| or it could be under a see also. I'm open to ideas!Naraht (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Martin Luther King, Jr Memorial at Dusk.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Martin Luther King, Jr Memorial at Dusk.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
I want to call attention to this particular section. Besides the misspelling of the section's name, I'm not sure that this should be a separate section at all. Perhaps it could be merged with Section 3.1: Membership Intake? The links are also inconsistent with the linking schema of the rest of this article.
Also, should the the actual membership fees be listed at all? I ask on the grounds that a) no other organizations list their membership fees on their respective pages; and b) these fees change from one year to the next.
The following statement is in the article: "the activities for the fraternity are oversaw by..." and should be stated "the activities of the fraternity are overseen by..." 76.166.131.37 (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Dr.H. Barnes[reply]
There is no citation given for this highly contentious opinion. Almost all greek pottery renders figures as black on orange or orange on black, so pottery is a non starter for claims of a 'fair skinned' greek art. Greek marble tends to be of light colouring, but since these were probably painted and have lost pigment, that is not a strong indicator of 'fairness' either. Given that many 'greeks' were in north africa, there needs to be at least a proper academic citation for a general greek depiction of 'fair skin'.
Done My pleasure to help keep a Featured Article in tip-top shape! Boogerpatrol (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
