Talk:Alpha Phi Omega

Archive 1: 2005 | 2006

Australia?

This page shows an APO chapter at a university in Australia. If legit, the article should be expanded to cover. Someone should probably contact National or International and ask. If not legit, I'm sure they'll take proper steps. GRBerry 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is legit, the APO-Phil Alumni groups in Australia have been trying for quote some times. While we haven't had the type of coverage in the T&T that APO-Phil has had. I think they are officially an observer to ICAPO, along with the Organization that runs the APO-Phil alumni groups in North America. I think I'll write the member of the Board for International Relations. Naraht 11:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Diversity

We now support diversity per the 2006 national convention. Woot!! 129.2.175.110 06:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Staff Listings?

Should the national director, board members, and region directors be included in the article? They play a large part in the fraternity and it could expand the information available on wikipedia. I am personally partial to Mike "Spreeeeeeeee" Haber, Region 2 director, and would like to see him and other region directors listed on the article. 72.226.238.186 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Matthew Mosesohn, Xi Zeta chapter, 26 Feb 07

this is information that can easily be obtained from out National website. Why put it here? --emb021 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.182.158.137 (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Longest continually active chapter

Gamma (Cornell) and Delta (Auburn) have gone back and forth for years about which one has been active longer. (Alpha is currently inactive and Beta was inactive for many years). I'm just not sure that fact is significant enough for the Wikipedia page. Note that the person who added the fact that Gamma was the longest continually active chapter came from an IP address at Cornell. Naraht 11:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Judy Mitchell can settle this one for us? I mean, seriously, who's going to go against her word? Dr. Cash 16:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I count her as having better things to do. Besides, Delta hasn't *really* been active since founding. The October 1934 Lightbearer, Vol 9, No. 2 has an article on page 6 about the reorganization of Delta chapter including the sentence: "Delta chapter had been inactive for the last two years, and it is largely through the efforts of Professor A. L. Thomas, Professor Joe Barrett and Professor H. M. Martin that this unit of the fraternity has been established." So the brother (presumably) from Gamma is probably correct, but it isn't relevant to the article. Gamma actually initiated brothers each of the Calendar years during WWII which was when many chapters went into de facto (but normally not de jure) inactivity. Probably had to do with the fact that it was selected as one of the A-12 & V-12 program colleges and APO chapters were allowed by Dept. of War and Dept. of the Navy to pledge soldiers on campus for those programs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. Hats off to them for keeping their chapter going, but it really has no relevance to the article and adds no real value. Justinm1978 15:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I've nominated this article for good article status, based on Justinm1978's recommendations (see history of this page). Wish it luck! Dr. Cash 17:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has now been listed as a good article. Congrats to all of the other editors working on the page! Also, the related page, List of notable Alpha Phi Omega members, has been nominated for Featured List status (owing primarily to Naraht's tireless hours of finding famous alums and references for them! Wish it luck! Dr. Cash 22:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

GA status-refs

If you want to keep GA status, find more inline citations (refs), otherwise I can almost guarantee one day someone will come along and submit it to WP:GA/R. Rlevse 10:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This artilce is listed now for a GA Review. The refs are not sufficient for a GA article. Also review article for further improvement, like linked solo years.Sumoeagle179 21:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of APO abbreviation in the article.

Should we use the APO abbreviation at all in the article (other than explaining that it is a common abbreviation)? Naraht 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Trefoil as a symbol of scouting?

Does anyone have access to the isse of "Torch & Trefoil" mentioned as a source?

The trefoil is not a symbol of scouting, but of guiding. The Girl Guides are a sister movement to the Scouts, even though in many countries scouting is now coed, in some others scout and guide associations merged.. and in some countries (such as the USA) the local guiding association calls themselves "Girl Scouts".

Therefore, the origin of the Trefoil might be something else...

--Lou Crazy 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do have access to it. Volume 10, No. 1 (May 1935).Page 3 Column 3

Title: Debut of the Torch and Trefoil

With this edition the magazine of Alpha Phi Omega takes its new name, "Torch and Trefoil." This new name for our publication was derived by the Fifth Biennial National Convention with the belief that it carries much more signficance than did our former name, the "Lightbearer". The "Torch" is the emblem of Education; the "Trefoil" is the emblem of Scouting. Alpha Phi Omega brings together Education and Scouting, hence the significance of this new name for our magazine.

(There is a second paragraph in that article, but not relevant to the source of the name.) Naraht 12:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Current Numbers

Number of active chapters 371. School (Region/Section)

Petition Groups:7

• Emporia State University (VIII/34)
• Interamerican University of Puerto Rico, Metropolitan Campus (IV/98)
• New Jersey Institute of Technology (I/99)
• Saint Anselm College (I/94)
• Tarrant County College -Southeast (VII/41)
• University of Illinois at Springfield (VI/47)
• Western Washington University (XI/8)

Interest Groups: 9

• Centenary College of New Jersey (I/99)
• Northwestern Michigan College (VI/53)
• Penn State Altoona (II/90)
• San Diego State University (X/2)
• University of Miami (IV/74)
• University of Redlands (X/2)
• University of Texas at Tyler (VII/41)
• Wagner College (I/97)
• Wayland Baptist University (VII/40)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 16:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Changes as of August 7, 2007

Active chapters 361 (-10 from before)

For Petitioning Groups - Now 9 (+2) add

• San Diego State University (X/2)
• Wagner College (I/97)

For Interest Groups - Now 9 (0) Delete the two that became Petitioning Groups and add

• Midwestern State University (VII/41)
• Our Lady of Holy Cross College (VII/45)

Naraht 12:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review results

The article was delisted, see the article history template for a link to the discussion. Quadzilla99 17:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody else besides me see a lack of good faith on this review? How is it possible to have accurate references outside of APO about APO? Justinm1978 01:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes for article improvement

A note was left on my talk page requesting further comment on this article's recent delisting, especially with regards to its level of referencing. Also, the above comment by Justinm1978 disturbs me. I made the comment requesting external sources, and am requesting a retraction of the above accuation. I made the comment in good faith in the interest of seeing this article improved to the point where it CAN be a good article. Blatant accusations of bad faith, where there is no evidence to support it, should not be leveled. Please stop with that. One of the central tenets of Wikipedia is the neutral point of view. Another important tenet is reliability of sources. When you put these two ideas together, there is a key importance that the information in an article is referenced to independant references. References FROM the subject of an organization are a useful and important part of building an article, but where an article lacks ANY independant sources, it can hardly be neutral. Please consider the following quotes from wikipedia guidelines and policies:

• WP:WIAGA (the Good Article criteria) requires that the policies and guidelines of Verifiability and Reliable Sources are followed in articles seeking GA status.
• From WP:V (Verifiability policy):
  • "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (emphasis mine). This article does not rely on third-party sources. All sources are published by APO directly.
  • "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." When APO publishes information about APO, it is a self-published source. It should not be used exclusively in an article. While this policy states that such sources "may be used in articles about themselves" it is clear that these should not be the ONLY sources...
• From WP:RS (Reliable Sources guideline): "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."
  • An organizations own self-published material hardly goes through any editorial process, and thus could hardly count as reliable. While I make no statements about whether or not such sources are actually fair and balanced in their coverage, there is no way to ensure that they are and thus should be used sparingly, such as for non-controversial material such as membership numbers, mission statements, and organizational leadership and activities.
• From WP:OR (policy against Original Research):
  • "Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable" Again, articles should not rely on self-published sources.
• WP:WIAGA also requires that an article is "Broad in coverage" such that it "addresses the major aspects of the topic". If there is NO external references, then we have NO broadness. If we have no information on the impact of this organization on its community, especially when it claims to be an organization built on community involvement, is spurious. If they are truly so involved, where is the third-party evidence of such? Surely SOME independant news source has reported on their work? They are on hundreds of college campuses, has NO college newspaper, or any other third-party source, EVER done a story on them?
• WP:N (Notability Guidelines):
  • "Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the topic, reliable, and attributable." (emphasis mine) While I am certain that APO is a notable organization by this definition, the article presents no coverage by such independant sources and thus makes no assertions of its own notability.
  • ""Independent" excludes works produced by those affilliated with the topic including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc" Again, we have a requirement that SOME attention is given to indepenant sources. This article gives NONE.
  • "In order to have an attributable article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources. " (emphasis mine) Again, we have a requirement that an article's subject have information in independant reliable sources. I see no evidence in this article that it does. Again, while I trust that such sources DO exist, this article makes no attempt to provide information as provided by those sources, and thus cannot be comprehensive, neutral, or well-referenced.
• WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View policy):
  • "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." We have NO significant views of this organization from outside of the organization. The article cannot be said to present a neutral treatment of the organization without such.
  • "it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence"(emphasis in original policy page) How can we assure intellectual indepenance on this subject when all of the information on the article is NOT independant of the subject?

These concerns I expressed in the Good Article Review were based on policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and out of a genuine concern that I want this article to be a Good Article some day However, it is clearly NOT THERE YET. Do NOT bandy about accusations of bad faith, especially where none exists.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Two good places that reference APO from the outside are from BSA and the Lafayette Archives. I've added a reference from BSA and some from the Lafayette Archives (and will try to add more). Oddly enough, in terms of external sources, I believe that if an external location like a University lists something about Alpha Phi Omega in a student handbook, *even though that information may have been given to them by the chapter*, it counts as an external resource. So in that regard, since Wayne State University includes the fact that Alpha Phi Omega has 350,000 members it is good to include that as an external reference.Naraht 12:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

national convention lists

I see that lists of APO-USA and APO-PHIL national conventions have recently appeared in the article. This is actually good, but I'm not sure it should go exactly IN this article. Since they're mainly just lists, I think it might be better to add them to a separate, linked page. Perhaps, we might also want to add a short paragraph or so into a section in this article, telling people about the significance of national conventions to the fraternity, since non-members reading this will probably not know what their significance is; then, this new section could link to the separate page with the lists of conventions.

I'm also thinking that we might want to put the lists of national presidents on a separate page as well; the templates at the bottom are a bit awkward to read, and could probably be better organized as a sequential list on another page. Dr. Cash 19:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Both of the concepts were from other pages: The national presidents were an idea copied from Alpha Phi Alpha, the Conventions were from Alpha Kappa Alpha. Wish I had more info on the APO-Phil conventions. Naraht 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I went in and added links for all the convention cities for every year. I realize that there was one link present in the list for each city, but I thought it looked uneven and weird. Henrymrx 18:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Color samples from National Office

The secretary at the APO National Office said that the colors were pms 286 and pms 1253 and included the RGB values.Naraht 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of this as well. While it will help in color schemes and matching, I don't think it's necessarily all that important or notable to actually include the information in the wiki article; though we can use it to make sure we get colors right for images, logos, and things of that nature. Dr. Cash 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the information on the pms values should go in the article, I was just sort of providing more information on where I got it (mostly because I couldn't find a way I liked to do a reference. I just wanted to make the colors for the color blocks next to "blue and gold" correct. I'm thinking of redoing it with a border (like Langston University), but I'm not sure.Naraht 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. The way you've done it in the infobox is fine. Dr. Cash 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

unsourced info added to the 'gender' section

I removed the following information recently added to the 'gender' section:

In 1970, Zeta Chapter (Stanford) caused an uproar by proposing that women be allowed full membership. The following year Section Four retaliated by having a "door prize" at "The Chicken Ranch" for the chapter with the most deligates. In 1972, Zeta initiated the first female member to national (B Hesselmyer) (Beth). This was done with the full knowledge of the Regional Director and later National President Earl Herbert.

Other than the first sentence, I fail to see either (a) it's significance, or (b) exactly what it has to do with the topic. Plus, it has no source.

Not sure who added it; arin.net whois lookup indicates that 24.159.34.136 is a subscriber of Charter Communications somewhere in Tennessee. Dr. Cash 06:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This was put in from an alumni. In the 70's and later (to present time). The addition of women of women was a large fight. After Zeta's proposal (came shortly after Zeta's proposal that the fraternity actively oppose the Viet Nam War) for women, Zeta was the first and only chapter to have a motion to have them removed from the fraternity proposed. Luckily, most chapters realized that the fraternity had to have women members to survive. The chicken ranch doorprize was a not "uncommon" event for the MEN (sic) of the fraternity at that time. Several years ago, Zeta and alumni threatened to the Board to have the tax status of the fraternity removed if coed was not made mandatory. They were reasoned with to wait several years as it would naturally happen. It appears that this is now true. Thus the significance is that the "fraternity" fought the coed issue for many years. Beth should be recognized as being the first member and of having being threatened to be removed from the convention is she appeared. For ref, cf some of Earl's letters.Jrhmdtraum 19:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite interesting. Sheds some light on a rather interesting time in APO's history. I am confused though - above, you state that Zeta was the first and only chapter to propose a motion to have women removed from membership, and then state that Zeta & alumni fought to have APO's tax status removed if co-ed was not made mandatory? This seems to be contradicting itself?

Also, could you provide more information on the "chicken ranch" door prize? I am not seeing how this fits into the whole picture here,...

On another note, I can confirm that 'Beth Hesselmyer' is a member of Alpha Phi Omega. The national database has her listed as being initiated in 1975, not 1972 (specific month & day not available - it just says January 1). It also lists her graduation date as 1975. I suspect that the discrepancy in the national records is likely due to her membership not being accepted by the national office until 1975. The convention would have been in Atlanta in December 1974, so this makes sense. It does list her as 'Beth Hesselmyer', not 'B. Hesselmyer', although I suppose that the database record could have been updated at some point - someone at the national office could always pull the paper record if need be. Dr. Cash 19:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

CASH, I note that you are from Tucson. Interesting. That is where I came from. I remember it as a town of 50,000 and when Sears (Wilmont) was on a dirt road way past "the edge of town". You are correct about Beth. She pledged in 1972 as "B" which was approved by Earle Herbert. I would assume that National made her "official" in '75 as Beth. I was gone by then (undergrad and #1 at Zeta -- we did not use president, etc). Ref "http://www.apo.org/site/site_files/clearinghouse/misc_2004_zukowski_womeninAPO.pdf", however, Zeta's records show her date of pledge (and $ being accepted by National) as before that of Judy Mitchell and Maryilyn Tschinski) As noted, in '70 we (Larry Quan) introduced a motion that The Fraternity sign an anti-Vietnam statement. That raised the ire of "the fraternity" against those liberal Californians. Then when we made the motion in '72 for coed, a sizable number of the fraternity (led as you can guess by Texas) tried to get Zeta expelled. In 74" women were allowed as associate members and in '76 as full members with the "gentleman's agreement" (it was actually part of the vote) that only NEW chapters HAD to be coed. Title 9 was used as reasoning, but was vague enough that it did not force the chapter rights. About 10 years ago, Zeta alumni who were involved in the previous fight with Zeta tried to get the Board of Directors to use their power to "override" the National and force the issue. Tax attorneys were consulted by both us and the BOD (this will be in National's minutes). The agreement was to give it several more years to work itself out and if it did not, the Board would act -- which as you know they did several years ago.

The chicked ranch as I am sure you are aware is a famous whore house in Vegas. There was a regional meeting there in 72 or 73 where the door prize was a visit there. This was specifically done by UC Davis against Zeta. It was condoned by the National when Zeta complained.

All of this is relevant to the history as many feel that the coed issue was not hard. Many chapters threatened to form another fraternity in '76 if the agreement had not been made. They still felt that way in the early 2000s. Several female members were not allowed to join new chapters when they transferred schools. I feel that the work the Zeta and others did to fight this and make it the great fraternity it is today (with obvious continued fighting the traditions of a few) should be known.Jrhmdtraum 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

While I find this story interesting, it's not really encyclopedic and would need to be cleaned up an sourced very well before any of it finds its way into the main article, IMO. Wikipedia articles should read like actual informational articles, not like "storytime with the alumni". Justinm1978 01:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The vandilism by Justinm and Nat need to STOP. You are young members who don't know the whole history of the fraternity. It is a great organization and I was life member way before you and advisor, etc. HOWEVER< the bad history of the fraternity also needs to be told. The fact that several chapters still refuse to go coed (I think that you might have been one?) and that chapters used whore houses as Door Prizes needs to be told. Do not neglect the past as it might happen in the future. Ref can be to the National or Zeta history or Earles notes.Jrhmdtraum 01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced material again. It is not vandalism to remove unsourced material. (see WP:Vandalism and WP:Citing sources). If this information is verifiable and you want it added then it is YOUR responsibility to find a source for it. You have pointed out that we are younger than you in the fraternity and have less experience. It appears that you need to learn the policies of Wikipedia, as we have more experience in this area. I do think that this information should be recorded somewhere, but this may not be the place. Henrymrx 02:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is quite fascinating information, and I'm certainly not one to discredit it. I'm not sure of the best way to verify this, other than by a personal account. Maybe the national history book mentions this (though I don't have a copy personally, it is certainly a reliable source). If Zeta chapter's history were online and we could check it, it would certainly be verifiable (though the Zeta chapter website, as linked to from www.apo.org, is a 404 not found). Some information on women in APO is available at this reference, in the Leadership Resources Clearinghouse (as the clearinghouse is part of apo.org, it meets the WP:RS guidelines, IMHO. Though that document doesn't really talk specifically about Zeta chapter, it does mention that women were initiated "illegally" in the early years.

This debated information does seem to focus more on Zeta chapter than the fraternity as a whole, so I'm not sure how important it would be. I think, for one, if we do mention it, certainly we should be able to find information about other chapters that were involved in this process (Zeta is only one chapter among many). But I don't think we should just write the issue off; if this really is a truly NPOV encyclopedia, we should be focused on improving the article from ALL points of view, and talk pages are meant for research and discussing issues with the article. Dr. Cash 03:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that this may be a valid story. I am not questioning the good faith of the author. However, memory is not wholly reliable. I myself have been absolutely certain of the details of events I witnessed in my own chapter's history and then been proven wrong when confronted with documentation. We need a citation for this.

Furthermore, I don't want to start an editing war about which chapter was the first to initiate a Brother "illegally." There are a number of chapters that make this claim, some claiming it as early as the 1950s. None of those claims should go up here without a citation.

I completely agree that sourced statements about the fraternity's internal conflicts about gender belong in this article. Let's just not lose sight of our goal to get this article up to Good and eventually Featured status. Henrymrx 06:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations are interesting. T&T which is used alot here would not be allowed as a "scientific" verification as it is usually just one reporter's writing. The true value of kikipedia for "living" organizations is that "living" members can add to it as the source. Cash wonders about Zeta/ As #1 (president for the rest of you) of Zeta during this time period, I can tell you that while a number of chapters suppported us at the National, no other chapter came out with the proposal or had other chapters threaten them. As to B Hesselmyer, my source is past National president Earle Herbert. Yes there might have been previous "illegals", but to his and my knowledge, she was the first that the national accepted moneys from. The initial was looked at because of this sex issue. With Earles help and that of other past national presidents from zeta, we got it by. I have not gone to a National for awhile, but the last ones in the late 90s were strife with the coed issue. I believe that others need to know this history of our fraternity and know that there are still a sizable number of "brothers" who feel that chapters should have the right to do as they believe.

As for sources if "personal communication" is not good enough for you (it is for scientific articles), the national archives should have most of the notes on the above.Jrhmdtraum 10:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not your source is good enough for a scientific article is not relevant. It needs to conform to Wikipedia's policies. Another example of violating this site's policies would be a statement like "This resolution was done by the Board in its power to "supersede" the National convention as the adament all-male chapters still refused to let women join." That would violate WP:NPOV, as would "It has been a long road" after the mention of Maggie becoming the first female National President.

You really need to provide a source for this and it cannot violate WP:OR. Telling us where to find a source is fine, but don't expect your revisions to stay up until that source is checked out. I would love to be able to verify your story with Earle, but as he has been dead since 1994, that is not possible.

I am also beginning to think that you're not reading the policies that we cite here since you keep violating them. Please read the policies we cite. There is no cabal here. No one is trying to keep aspects of the fraternity's history secret. On the other hand, this is not a suitable place to use as a soapbox. Please see Wikipedia:Words of wisdom. Henrymrx 12:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Jrhmdtraum is actually correct regarding the "personal communication" issue; it is acceptable, both in the scientific community and wikipedia. Caution should still be exercised, because no self-respecting scientific journal would accept a paper containing nothing but "personal communication" references, but they are used and accepted. The Notable Alpha Phi Omega members article currently has three "personal communications" being used (citations #44, 110, & 201, attributing communications with Jamie Conover, Leo Baltazar, and Kim Francis). Of course, adding something to wikipedia and not putting in an inline citation that it is a "personal communication" is still considered, "unsourced". Dr. Cash 18:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, why would Board superseding the National convention violate WP as would "long road"? Both are true and correct. National refused to force the issue until the Board forced the issue. We will not mention the legal reasons nor Stanford's Law Professors willingness to help force the issue nor National's lawyers telling them that it had to be done for Title IX reasons among any others. The fact remains that it has been "a long road" and that the Board did supersede National in using its powers.

The Wiki policy of "ref" material is correct when you are writing about Dead issues, eg The War of Northern Aggression. However, for live material "personal communication" is also correct. Using the T&T as a ref when there is no basis for its writing is not correct and newspaper articles without ref are not WA correct either. We are using wiki to write textbooks of surgery based on writers experiance. It is great. As is this section. T&T is not a "verified" source as defined by WA - yet you all continue to use it???Jrhmdtraum 14:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It violates policy because it is weasel-worded and not NEUTRAL. I agree that the information needs to be shared, and I find it very interesting, but without some kind actual citation, it's not encyclopedic and doesn't belong here. It doesn't contribute to the article as it is written. Justinm1978 16:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Torch & Trefoil is considered a reliable source, because it is an official publication of Alpha Phi Omega, under the editorial control of the National Executive Director. www.apo.org also falls under this category as well, as it is also an official "publication" of the fraternity (under the control of the NED), though many may still not consider a website to be a "publication" in the same sense as a journal or book. Not all websites are considered "reliable" though; blogs and message boards are generally unacceptable as sources, primarily because there is no editorial control - any 6th grader and up may post anything they want to a blog or forum. Dr. Cash 18:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That may be, but it's still weasel-worded, not neutral and doesn't improve the article the way it is written. I don't mind the article including less than glamorous aspects of the fraternity's history, as any real good article should. One of the things that drives me nuts about other GLO articles is how they blatantly gloss over or blatantly ignore a lot of the less-than-positive aspects of their history and present it as everything being rainbows, candy canes and gumdrops since their founding. I don't mind the facts being there, but a stupid joke played by one chapter against another (re: Chicken Shack door prize) crosses the line into trivial when taken in context of the greater scope of the article.

Zeta is not the only chapter that was pushing for co-ed APO back then, and the way this contribution is written makes it sound as if it was Zeta vs 200+ chapters, which certainly isn't the way my chapter (Alpha Alpha) remembers it happening, being that they were initiating women in the early 1970's too. I'm not looking for my chapter to be listed and given credit for something that many chapters of that time were actively doing, though. The information is good to share with members of the fraternity, but I don't see it being particularly helpful or all that germane to the article when there is a much more non-POV section already written. Justinm1978 18:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki guidelines are that material must yield to consensus. This is vague definition as it can relate to "the truth" of the article or "the relevance". From reading the above comments, it is my opinion that most of the disagreement comes from the wording. I have thus reworded by comments and edited some already written. As to referance, I have used "personal communication" which is a valid ref foe peer reviewed scientific journals which the Kikipedia guidelines rate as the best type of ref. In disagreement with Derek, The T&T is not really a "reliable source" as the articles within are not peer reviewed nor referenced. ALL jounals are "edited". The articles are simply that of the author based on information she/he obtained.

Justinm, I hear your comment. Based on information that I was given by Earle, Beth was the first female whom the fraternity "collected" money from. Due to the boxes of "cuss mail" that I and Larry Quan received after we proposed in '70 that the fraternity go coed and oppose the Viet Nam war and the motion at National that Zeta be withdrawn from the fraternity, I THINK that we were the first. HOWEVER, as we were not voted out and as the following years the motion did partially carry, their must have been other chapters who felt the same - perhaps just not so out-spoken. Thus, I believe my current comments related to that. Whether the Chicken Shak was a "prank"? U Davis knew we had female members coming to the meeting and we took it as an insult and did not go. However, you are correct, it belongs here in the discussion and not on the page Jrhmdtraum 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have revised your edit, but I'm not all that happy with it. It's still got a lot of conjecture and "old alumni war story" feel, and I hope we can get more corroborating stuff to it. Justinm1978 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Justinm. Nice edit. Good compromising. However, I added back the threat of law suit. Readers need to know that the National Conferences would not have gone coed for quite awhile due to the threats of succession. If you have been to a National, then you will know exactly what I am talking about. The threat of suit was by myself, Stanford University and others. Title IX forbids the use of federal moneyes (ie any building on any university) for organization who are not "open". In addition, the tax-exempt status of the fraternity would be lost. cf Bylaws: There shall be a National Board of Directors which shall be the governing body of the Fraternity between National Conventions, with power to act on all matters for the best interests of the Fraternity, consistent with the provisions of these Bylaws. For further referance, you can ask for copies of the minutes of the pertinent Board meetings. I am a life member and value the fraternity. However, I believe that future members need to know the history and that it was not "all gold". I also think someone (perhaps you if you are interested in history) should look up the problems some of the southern chapters had with black members. I cannot add this as it would only be heremsay for me. However, it is my understanding that blacks were excluded early on, too. Jrhmdtraum 11:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)•

Jumping in with both feet here. (I've been in a situation where I was able to read the comments, but not edit there) There may be enough information here for a Women in Alpha Phi Omega article. This could start with the current entries in the Pledge Manual and the National History book.

Having read through Title IX and some of its case law, I fail to see how Stanford University has standing (in a legal sense) in such a lawsuit. The university has a much simpler way to eliminate its own exposure to violating Title IX (if it thought it was doing so), by denying recognition to Zeta chapter. If the University as a legal entity threatened a legal suit, this should be in the minutes of the Board of Directors. As a brother of the Fraternity, yes, you do have standing.

As for the possibility of losing its tax exempt status, I have never heard of that. Given that most of the single-gendered Social Fraternities and Sororities are just as tax-exempt as Alpha Phi Omega, I'm not sure how that would have been an effect. Most other greek letter organizations (both co-ed and single gender social) are 501(c)7 (Social Clubs). Alpha Phi Omega is 501(c)3 (charitable organization), but this has to do with our historical tie to the Boy Scouts of America. (We received 501(c)3 standing back in the 1930s, when were close to a de facto BSA subsidiary)

The National History book does mention that an effort to add Women as auxiliary members failed in 1972 (it got a majority, but not the needed two-thirds.) That should probably be included.

As for blacks, consider the following. Did Alpha Phi Omega have chapters at schools that did not allow blacks, most certainly, my completely off the cuff guess is 30-40. Did Alpha Phi Omega have chapters at Negro (and I use that term as relevant for the time) schools, yes.

The fraternity had only two chapters in the South (Auburn & UVA) when Harold Roe Bartle became National President. Given his opinion on the Klan (as referenced in his Wikipedia article), I doubt that his beliefs went in the direction of white supremacy. Delta Phi @ Johnson C. Smith University chartered in 1946(7?) (I have an electronic copy of the T&T announcing their chartering at work). Given that this was *years* before the large majority of the NIC Social Fraternities did so, I'll at least give Alpha Phi Omega, some credit.

Jrhmdtraum: Yes, as far as I can tell, you became a brother prior to anyone else who has posted here, but the brothers posting are not all wide-eyed undergraduates who believe that Alpha Phi Omega's history consists exactly of what is mentioned in what you seem to believe is a completely white-washed version of the National Pledge Manual. I pledged in 1986 at a chapter (Kappa @ Carnegie-Mellon) that allowed Female brothers prior to 1974 and during my entire time as an undergraduate refused to work with the all-male chapter (Pi Chi @ Duquesne) in our city. I have been a fraternity staffer for all but 4 months that I have been an alumnus and have been on National History and Archives Committee for the last four years. (To give you an idea of lack of wide-eyedness, I consider the first sentence of the "Story behind the Founding" to be true only on a technicality)

An in regard to the personal communication entries in the Notable, would you cease to attempt to add unverifiable content if those were removed?Naraht 03:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the relevant paragraph to make it a bit more non-controversial in its content. This is definitely a very important part of our organization's history, and should NOT be left out. But it is also very important that we find some verifiable references. Memory of the brothers at the time, accurate though it may be, unfortunately does not fall into that category.

Also, with regard to the "It's been a long road." Unless that is part of the title of the publication, it does not belong in the article. Let alone the list of references. Bornyesterday 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As a female at Mu Alpha, I too, have heard of the threatened lawsuits. I believe it should stay. It is verifiable by minutes of the the past BOD minutes for the past 10 years. (or a simple phone call)MUGIRL 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the word "Lawsuit" in the online minutes of the last 5 years of board meetings. Perhaps someone else will have better luck looking through them for a synonym like "legal action". (http://www.apo.org/pages/show/About_Us/Board_of_Directors/Minutes)Naraht 14:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if Board meeting minutes would help much here. I suspect the really "juicy" stuff that we'd be looking for would've been covered in executive session, and wouldn't be included in publicly-available minutes. Notably, the BOD meeting where they finally brought down the proverbial axe on the all-male chapters not too long ago, was the result of executive session discussion. Dr. Cash 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets follow logic. The only reason that the Board CAN defy the National in between national conferances is for a major problem. I think that we will all agree that the "gentleman's agreement" was done to keep some of the chapters from leaving. I think that we will all agree that following conventions did not remove that for the same reasoning. It was voted down again in 2004. Thus, there had to be a good reason for the Board to go against the National in 2006. I would propose that personal communication be used as a source and the site NOT be changed unless someone can find evidence AGAINST the prosposed change. The fact that you have never heard of it and one brother states that he was involved and knows it to be fact makes we weigh for the brother that states it as a fact and not against it just because I never heard of it.MUGIRL 19:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

MUGIRL, I'm sorry but the answer to your proposal is NO. It is not the responsibility of the person or persons AGAINST the change to find evidence. It is the responsibility of the person or persons who are IN FAVOR of it to find a source. Please see WP:Cite and Burden of evidence. The material has been challenged. You now need to find a source. Henrymrx 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Some believe you are wrong. As others have stated, a personal communication which jrh.. gave is an acceptable WP source. If you are going to challenge it, you thus need to find another source. If JRH... states that he was part of the process, than we should assume that is correct. Unless you are a Delta or ..Theta from Cremson and want to push the other side. As a woman I am proud of this organization and appreciate the fight that others have done. I am however, embarrassed that there are those who still want to keep it an ole boys club. You Henry have the burden against you. As noted, the source is acceptable to WP and it should stand. If not, then I for one do not want to have anything more to do with your "ole boys" site.MUGIRL 02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

MUGIRL, please note that we are trying to get consensus here and are not attacking any ideas because we disagree with them. Consensus does not mean maintain the status quo, nor does it mean accept all of these changes. We're trying to have the most factually correct and neutral article that we can here, and I'm sorry but this contribution is not neutral and unable to be verified other than word of mouth. I trust you've been in APO long enough to know how well our members can churn the rumor mill :)

JRH can say a lot of things, but if we don't have any kind of evidence to really back it up, then it's [WP:OR|original research]], and needs to be verified. As Henrymrx has said, the burden of proof lies with the person who wants this added to the article, in this case it is you and JRH. Thus far, all I've seen is conjecture, heresay and assumptions about what the board may or may not have discussed in closed session. The official release says that the 2005 Resolution came after discussion with legal council about how we are not enforcing that section of our bylaws and that can leave us open to problems. It doesn't say anything about cases currently filed or threats of lawsuits. It says that the board has decided to enforce the bylaws, which they are charged by the National Convention to carry out in their stead. It's not a usurption of the students or circumvention of the Convention; rather, it is the board deciding to follow the rules the students have given them. That rule was "Membership in Alpha Phi Omega shall be open to all." Justinm1978 03:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We want you to come back with some verifiable research, and we'll all (including you) be happy to work it into the article in the most neutral of ways. As a personal aside, I most certainly support the decision of the students that was made in Louisville. But that's really an aside, as an alumni volunteer and chapter advisor, I support the students to make what they think is the best decision whether or not I agree with it. In this case, I happen to agree with their choice. Justinm1978 03:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's please not try to take these things personally, that's not going to help anyone. I don't think any of the editors here are very strongly on one side of the other in the whole gender debate (if anything, I think they support the current status quo, as well as the recent decision by the active members of the 2006 convention regarding the matter, but I don't want to speak for anyone). I think we're more concerned with making sure that the fraternity's history is recorded in an accurate and unbiased manner, taking into account as many credible sources as we can. We're not advocating complete removal of anything -- we're just doing the research. That's what talk pages are for, so it's nothing personal whatsoever. Dr. Cash 02:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Stanford law profs volunteered as I knew them and asked them. While Zeta was coed, the National was defacto not and this could have been argued that they could not meet on areas that received federal money. 2) Sorry, it is not conjecture as "I was there". Therefore "personal communication" is a valid footnote. I have emailed Roger Sherwood for his "pc" too. 3) The vote that changed the bylaws had the provison that current chapters did not have to change. However, I did argue to the Board that "as written", the ByLaws stated differently. This was brought to National several times and "did not fly". The Board doed have the power to make changes (forget the exact wording) when the bylaws, etc deviate from University, State or Federal Laws. 4) I am putting the comment back in. Unless you have some ref to negate my response, by Wiki protocal, you are guilty of Vandelism if you remove it and will so be reported to Wiki and your rights to post removed. Even Cash (and I believe he may be the best "expert") that "pc" is allowable when it is the only source. Jrhmdtraum 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum. I need help. I cannot figure out how to "add a reference". I know I did it wrong. Thanks. As per [WP:PSTS] I was an eyewitness to the event and thus can be used as a personal communication. As noted, the only other verification will be other "PC" and I will try to obtain that. But, unless some verifiction to the contrary is suggested, it meets WP rules and regs.(also WP: COS). ThanksJrhmdtraum 21:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't agree with this interpretation of WP:PSTS, so I have removed it. At this point, I suggest this goes to a vote for consensus on the interpretation because we're not agreeing here. I find the contribution to be POV and not contributing to the article as written, and certainly will not get this article to GA or FA status, which I'm pretty sure is a goal here. Justinm1978 23:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Justinm, you have been reported to wiki for vandelism. Do NOT reverse it again. To be honest, I really don't care about YOUR interpretation of WP:PSTS; the definition is as an eyewitness which I was. I don't know about you, but I joined APO after being an Eagle and having a full Eagle Scout scholarship to Stanford for 4 years. My word still means something and I don't appreciate your challenge. (Yes I am taking it personally). If you can find some evidence to refute my memory, please try to do so; until then it meets verification and LEAVE IT ALONE>Jrhmdtraum 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way, but this is a collaborative effort, and the only one really making a case for this change is you. I have said many times before I don't want a rosy interpretation of fraternity history, but I do want a neutral one, and what you are putting is not neutral. It's poorly worded and since you have not attended every National Convention since 1976 (by your own admission), you are unable to provide frame of reference for what came forth at every convention since then. Being that I attended the 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 conventions (both as active, alumni and reference committee advisor), and the only convention of those that this issue was brought to the floor was in 2006, to my recollection. It appears that my recollection differs from yours. This is why we use consensus to settle conflicts like this.

Also, since we're quoting Wikipolicy here, you're dangerously close to violating WP:3RR with your reverts as well as being disruptive Justinm1978 01:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Jrhmdtraum, please read the Vandalism page again. What Justinm has done falls into *none* of the categories of what is considered. The only category it does seem to fall into is stubbornness, which is *not* vandalism.Naraht 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is has he has been "warned" to be neutral and not to continue to refuse that the fraternity's history is other than roses. It is refusing to follow verifiable source work and thus if falls under vandilism. Jrhmdtraum 01:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Who has "warned" him? I don't see any information on his Talk Page in regards to this discussion or this Alpha Phi Omega web page dispute from any administrator. And regardless of whether you think it is Vandalism or not, Wikipedia has a definition of what is Vandalism and that definition applies here.

And (at least according to his user page) Justinm1978 is also an Eagle Scout and a member of Order of the Arrow. I'm also fascinated as to why you think that exactly how your time at Stanford was paid for makes a difference as to what this Wikipedia page should look like.Naraht 01:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot the Level 2 OA. How it got paid makes no diff, what does is the challenge to the verification.--- which he also did to mugirle Jrhmdtraum 02:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why mention it? Also, reading back through the postings here, no one challenged that Mugirl had heard of lawsuits. She seemed to believe that we couldn't possibly hold our positions unless we were brothers of one of the all-male chapters. As far as I know, none of the contributors to this discussion are from a chapter that was all-male when they pledged. My chapter (Kappa) also apparently sent in membership applications for female brothers under first initials. However, I don't have any verifiable proof for that yet.Naraht 03:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I did not state they were. However, How did they vote?Jrhmdtraum 11:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Then in what way do you think he challenged mugirl? How did who vote? Naraht 12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The 1/4 chapters who did not vote to force the coed issue (to leave "chapter rights") were as "prejudiced" as those who wanted to keep all-male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrhmdtraum (talk • contribs) 13:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't bite on this, but I can't let this comment stand. This is by far, the most non-neutral, POV, un-brotherly statement I have seen yet on this talk page. Making accusations of prejudice and sexism against alumni and students whom you have never met is the height of disgusting, and immediately evaporates any ability you had in my mind to be a reputable personal source for your addition. Justinm1978 13:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Justine, your repeated undo shows that you are not "neutral". My question is to why? My comment re: "no one is from an "all-male" chapter" statement from Naraht is my belief that not fighting predudice is the same as having it. You remind me of some of the comments of Neurenburg trials of "we did not support killing of jews". You will recall that the Courts response was " you did not stop it either". If you went to any of the National Conventions with the discussions on women, you would have known that comments were much more caustis than mine.Jrhmdtraum 14:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed verifiable sources for the gender information.

At this point, I see the following as verifiable primary sources for the issues of Gender in the Fraternity.

• The National History book, specifically page 28 which contains the second half of the History of the Fraternity in the 1970s.
• The National Pledge manual, specifically pages 9 & 10. (http://www.apo.org/site/site_files/pledgemanual.pdf)
• Torch and Trefoils (Note, I don't have them all online and am missing most of 1969 to 1977, but anything I do include, I'll be happy to forward the electronic copies)
• National Board minutes. (http://www.apo.org/pages/show/About_Us/Board_of_Directors/Minutes)

As an additional note, Board meeting minutes older than 1996 are listed and linked, but don't seem to be available. I'll have to look into this. Dr. Cash 18:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Older Board meeting minutes are available through archive.org's copies of the National Website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As Secondary sources (to be used if they do not conflict with primary)

• The National History book, chapter histories (pages 206-224, note Zeta is one of them and Beth Hesselmeyer is mentioned.)
• Women in APO- Speaker's notes (http://www.apo.org/site/site_files/clearinghouse/misc_2004_zukowski_womeninAPO.pdf) Naraht 14:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition (Gender)

I'd like to propose the following addition/change to the gender section. In place of

In the early 1970's, co-ed membership was proposed by several chapters but failed to reach the two-thirds majority support at the National Conventions which was required to alter the organization's bylaws.

it is proposed.

At the 1972 Convention, delegates for the first time considered a proposal to admit women to the Fraternity as affiliate members. While this amendment was supported by a majority of the delegates, it did not receive the three quarters necessary to pass. A resolution was passed to encourage and expedite the involvement of women in Fraternity affairs. <ref>Alpha Phi Omega History Book (1925-1993) p.28</ref>. Earlier that year, the National Board of Directors had taken action "[u]nanimously recommending a serious consideration of the participation and status of women in the work of the Fraternity, both as members and advisors."<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20040529180920/www.apo.org/organization/nation/board/minutes/19720225.shtml Alpha Phi Omega Board Meeting Minutes 25-26 February 1972]</ref>

I don't know why it said two thirds was said before, but we current require three quarters to amend and the history book says three quarters was also true then.Naraht 12:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought the first proposal from the board to admit women was in the late 1960s. I'll see if I can find that somewhere. I'm also fairly sure that unless the organization's bylaws say otherwise, 3/4 is standard to amend bylaws per RRO. So, I think we'll need to find an old copy of the NBL to backup saying it required 2/3. Henrymrx 13:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The 2/3 comes from BornYesterday's attempt to clear up something that jdhmdtraum wrote. My guess is that he just didn't remember our NBL correctly. BornYesterday, please let us know.Naraht 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It did not pass - whether 2/3 or 3/4. Jrhmdtraum 20:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I took the 2/3ds from what was previously in the article (or maybe from the discussions here. If it's in error, then I'm not putting up a fight over something that minor. And I like Naraht's re-writing, pending date verification. Bornyesterday 00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank You. What specifically would you like verified? The 1972 date for the Convention comes from the History book (Those sentences have been changed just enough to not cause trouble) and I can scan that in and email it. The Minutes are online.Naraht20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It went to the "floor" at most of these. About 4 - 6 years ago, there was a major discussion of the topic. YOU need to look at some data —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.122.232 (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that you're telling, um... someone, not sure who, that they need to look at the facts again, but you're not able to cite the specific Convention you mean. "About 4 - 6 years ago..." is not sufficient evidence and even if it was it certainly does not support the statement "At almost every National Convenmtion..." It is the responsibility of those who want something added to make their case. The burden of proof is not on the challengers. Challengers who, by the way, have attended most of the National Conventions in question. Henrymrx 17:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Conduct

Jrhmdtraum, your behavior on this page continues to be unacceptable.

You have made accusations of vandalism without basis. None of the edits or reverts that you state are “vandalism” violate WP:Vandalism as they are good faith edits.

You have continuously failed to provide sources. WP:V states that “...any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source...”, yet you have failed to provide a source when the material was removed and you simply readded it, unsourced.

You have repeatedly raised irrelevant points. Whether something would be acceptable in another format (such as a scientific journal) has no bearing here. We must follow Wikipedia’s policies. Also, your accomplishments or experience (noble and commendable as they are) are not relevant and do not serve to elevate your opinion above anyone else’s. I could cite to you a litany of APO positions, accolades, awards and honors that have been heaped upon several of the editors here, but it wouldn’t be relevant to the discussion.

You have incorrectly cited Wikipedia policies. You have made a number of claims about Wikipedia’s policies that are simply not correct. For example, you stated that “...per WP:PSTS I was an eyewitness to the event and thus can be used as a personal communication.” This is not correct. You read the part about the eyewitness accounts but then you ignored the part where it says “Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used...” and also “Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources.” Your account would be fine if it was published somewhere. If it was, please cite it. You also use WP:COS to justify citing yourself, but again this refers to citing published sources; furthermore, it specifically forbids editors “drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources.”

You have not assumed good faith. You have accused a number of editors here of trying to hide or cover up the fraternity’s history. This violates WP:AGF. No one here wants to whitewash anything. That being said, we need to find a way to document this chapter of Alpha Phi Omega’s history using cited sources. I think many people here are still willing to work with you, but your unproductive behavior has to stop.

You have violated the three revert rule at least twice. This alone is enough to get your account temporarily blocked. You have been tolerated here to the extent that you have been because you claim to be a Brother and we, in good faith, without any verification, believe you. And that brings me to my final point.

Your behavior is un-Brotherly. Your accusations, your belligerance, your ignoring of our legitimate points and your refusal to assume good faith are all, in this Brother’s opinion, behavior which is not fitting of a Brother of Alpha Phi Omega. This is made especially more grievous since your behavior has been directed at fellow Brothers. I realize that this isn’t totally relevant, as this is not APO’s site, but I think it needed to be said.

Henrymrx 09:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hen: you need to reread the wiki documents. Eyewitness does NOT have to be published. It can be verified by other sources (others on the Board at that time). Personal communication meets the WT:PSTS and COS policy. Even Cass believes so. It has also been confirmed by another brother (MUGirl). Yes I believe that a number of editors are trying to whitewash the history. As mine has been been verified by Wiki standards, Just has violoated the three reverts as he has no claims to back him up except his beliefs. The only reasons that I can explain is his lack of good faith Jrhmdtraum 11:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have listed this with the administrators for violation of WP:3RR. Reverting a change that someone made without proper discussion on the talk page (as I have been doing) is not a violation of 3RR. I've also submitted a WP:CHECKUSER because I'm not convinced that MUGIRL and Jrhmdtraum are not the same person, since both users have had all of their edits related to APO and this particular subject. I find Jrhmdtraum actions most unwelcome to the collaboration that is trying to go on here, disruptive to the page, and will be listing this page for protection if it continues.

Furthermore, I am personally insulted that Jrhmdtraum has not only not assumed good faith, but blatantly accused me of trying to cover up and "whitewash" parts of the fraternity's history. The fact that he is an Eagle Scout and a "Level 2" (I'm assuming that means Brotherhood) OA Member does not make his contributions more valid than mine. This article, to my knowledge, is striving to be a good article, possibly even a featured article. Having eyewitness accounts that are not only biased, but also fail WP:COS and WP:PSTS will not get this article promoted Nobody is "whitewashing" anything. What Jrhmdtraum is adding does not appear to be with the best interests of the article at heart, but rather to continue to grind an axe he's apparently carried since the early 1970's.

At this point, I'm done assuming good faith. Not only are Jrhmdtraum's actions incredibly unbrotherly, but they've entered into the realm of disruptive. Since the article must yield to consensus, I'm asking again that we take a vote on this addition. If it fails to get a reasonable amount of support, then it is safe to say that it doesn't get added because it fails consensus. Justinm1978 13:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to go to mediation as your actions to me and others do show that you only wish "happy days" to show. Your undo are also very disruptive as you do not "own" this page. Jrhmdtraum 14:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A vote would apparently not be acceptable to Jrhmdtraum because there have only been two users who support his changes: himself and mugirl. At minimum, Justinm1978, Henrymrx, Dr. Cash (Derek Cashman), Bornyesterday and myself(Naraht) have found many of his proposed changes to be inappropriate in some (or many) ways.Naraht 14:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are NOT trying to white wash the bad part of the fraternity's history, then I suggest instead of "deleting", you make some suggestions how to record the fact that just about every National Convention voted down changes in the bylaws forcing mandatory equality until the Board forced the issue. I agreed to some compromises by Justin and Cash. I do not agree to removing this part of the history.Jrhmdtraum 14:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would say that one reason that we don't support the statement that "just about every National Convention voted down changes in the bylaws forcing mandatory equality until the Board forced the issue." is because it is NOT TRUE. Some of us here also have "eyewitness accounts" as many of us have been to most of the National Conventions over the last 15-20 years and we've sat on the floor participating or sat in the gallery and watched the entire two days of legislative session. What you are claiming is simply FALSE. Henrymrx 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a *perfect* example of the type of unproved "fact"/exageration you've made. There were 14 National Conventions between 1976 and 2006 (not including the ends). I'll take "almost every" of 14 conventions as being 11,12 or 13 of the 14 (between 79 and 93%). So to prove this, you would need the proposed by-law amendments from at least 12 conventions, 11 that included it and 1 that didn't. Do you have any possibilty at all of verifying this? The National Office doesn't even have them all available. In addition, I feel that the concept of a legislative body voting something down implies that the body as a whole had a chance to vote on it. For Alpha Phi Omega conventions, I find it probable that this motion would have died in committee several times.Naraht 15:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry, If you were there, you do know that it was discussed on the floor at most of these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrhmdtraum (talk • contribs) 17:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What was discussed? What exactly do you mean? Your statement that there were proposals to force the all-male chapters to become co-ed is FALSE. If you mean other gender issues, such as the Toast Song, then you might be closer to correct. Henrymrx 17:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean exactly that the issue to change the bylaws to ALL chapters was discussed. If you had attended more than one of the conventions in the past 20 years, you would also be able to verify it yourself.Jrhmdtraum 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't say it was "discussed," you said it was "proposed." And yes, I have been to more than one (more than five, really) of the conventions of the last 20 years and I am flat out telling you that you are WRONG. Saying it was "discussed" MIGHT be true, as someone could mention it in a debate on a related topic, but that information isn't recorded. Only actions taken by the Convention are and I doubt you could find anything in the minutes to back you up on this. I could dig out my materials from past conventions, but I don't have to. The burden of proof is on YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrymrx (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverts by unlogged in users.

Lets see. The edit of the article by 172.164.122.232 just happens to be someone who continues the argument on jdhmdtraum's side without missing a beat. The edit from 66.168.81.139 is from Charter Communications KNGPT-TN-66-168-80, which happens to be the same company and city where the original edit that started this entire things is from.Naraht 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit of 66... is me, sorry I forgot to sign in. I would argue that Naraht and Justin have said the exact same thing with almost same semtax???? Jrhmdtraum 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, he made a funny. I'm in Maryland, he is in Illinois. Declaring someone as a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet tends not to work very well when both have more than 6 months of edits. Take a look at our list of contributions. (If you need help, here are mine and his. Is there overlap in the articles we've worked on, absolutely. Both of us were heavily involved in the effort to have the page for Alpha Phi Alpha listed as a social fraternity. Naraht 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

About as funny as my being in DC and TennJrhmdtraum 18:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

The page has been protected, in lieu of blocking nearly everyone involved. This is not an endorsement of the current version. Work out your differences on the talk page, and don't edit war. --Haemo 19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, let's get to work on coming up with consensus. I, for one, really object to the way that sentence is written because it blatantly contradicts with my "Personal Witnessing" at the last four national conventions, where I was either on the floor as a voting delegate, a reference committee advisor, working floor services, or just in the peanut gallery. Prior to 2006, isn't the last time this even came up 1998? That's what I remember reading when the board resolution came out along with their justification. Justinm1978 20:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll add my recollections as well. We are talking about the co-ed/all-male chapter issue here, just to clarify. I sat in the gallery for almost all of the session during 1992 and the issue did not come up. I was a Voting Delegate in 1994 and it did not come up then. It was discussed in 1996 and 1998, that I am sure of. I was a Section Chair on the floor in 2000 and it did not come up then. I was present in 2002, but did not see much of the floor discussion. I am almost certain it did not come up then. I was not at the convention in 2004. It was discussed in 2006, that is not disputed. Henrymrx 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My wife was a Regional Alumni Voting Delegate, and it was not discussed then either (we talked about this last night :). So it looks like we can account for 1992, 1994, 2000, 2002, and 2004 as conventions where this was not discussed on the floor. That certainly does not lend support to "almost every convention", being that it has largely been an ignored issue for 5 out of the past 8 conventions. Justinm1978 21:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that one year it did not get out of committee. But it was still voted down.Jrhmdtraum 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC) The point is it was discussed at somewhere between the majority and most and voted down at all. Some it did not get out of committee because of the bitterness of the debate. If you or your wife were there in '98 (which I think was one of the real bitter debates, you will remember. Jrhmdtraum 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, had to correct something I wrote. Henrymrx 20:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Haemo. I was at or was involved with chapter discussions re proposals at 78, 80 84 86, 88, 90, 92, 96, 2002, 2004 and their was heavy discussion re it. Some might not have made it out of committee (which legislatively is the same as not being passed). The reasoning for all was the heavy thoughts of the all - male and their threat to succeed. At least 10 of 16 conventions and I am pretty sure it was proposed for the remainder. It did make the floor in the late 90s and as Henry will attest (I think) there was much bitter debate.

Something not coming out of committee is not the same as it not being passed. It is legislatively the same as never being considered. Unless you were somehow a reference committee advisor to each of the Nat-Org Reference Committees that discussed this issue and opted not to report it out, you really don't have the personal first-hand knowledge of what the reference committee discussed, as items that are not reported out do not get much explanation. Also, being that I was very aware of the legislation in 2002 and 2004 (I was running for section chair both of those years, and I still have all the proposed legislation from 2004 at home, thanks to my wife and I not knowing how to throw things away) I don't recall this subject ever coming up. In fact, when I get home tonight, I'm going to pull out the 2004 Convention Binder and confirm this first-hand. Justinm1978 21:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(PS: the term is "secede", which means to withdraw their association, not "succeed" which means to continue to thrive.) Thanks Justin. They threated to secede so that they could succeed. (Sort of like the war of Northern Agreesion) Jrhmdtraum 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Justin, you seem to have the Board justification, post it.

The only justification I have was what the board put out in their letter regarding open membership to chapters. I have one somewhere in my stack o' crap I get from the national office (being an Advisory Chair apparently means I get copied on every piece of mail that the chapter gets). I'll see if I can locate it, or I'm willing to bet that it's online somewhere. Justinm1978 21:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have written to several past and present members of the board for verification (or not). I cannot find the legal advisor's email address. Does anyone know it?Jrhmdtraum

Contact Bob London, the current NED: executive.director@apo.org, or just give him a call at the office. I've found him to be most helpful in answering questions and pointing me in the right direction. Justinm1978 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As I noted, I have no problems with "better editing" if you wish. What I do have problems with the the pollyanna approach that the bitter debates never happened. Jrhmdtraum 20:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC) It would also be interesting to have one of you history buffs research the colored issue. Earle was my mentor and we discussed the coed issue repeately with his thoughts that 'like the colored issue before, the fraternity would grow out of this problem'. He did turn out to be correct. Jrhmdtraum 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Colored" issue? Are you referring to chapters at HBCUs? A big chunk of the gender issue is tied to these chapters. Justinm1978 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How about: At the 1976 National Convention, women were allowed in the fraternity in all new chapters with the agreement that current chapters, that wished, could stay all-male. This vote is widely thought to have saved the fraternity. This "gentleman's agreement" was made to keep these chapters from seceding. This topic was brought up at multiple future conventions with bitter debate and all propositions again defeated. Finally, in 2006, the Board of Directors used their emergency powers to override the gentleman's agreement of 1976 to force all chapters to go coed. This was done as not only was it "correct" but there was also fear of violating Title IX. Jrhmdtraum 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Things I don't agree with:

- "This vote is widely thought to have saved the fraternity" -- depends on your perspective, if you're an all-male chapter, this vote is widely thought to have destroyed the fraternity. See what the chapters at HBCU's and other ones that go by Aye-Phi-Que think about what this did to APO. This statement is too POV to not have a primary source behind it.

By the Fraternity, one means the National Organization. While not in the majority (at least in 76) I for one think we would be better off wtihout HBCU,etc. Prejudice in any form should never be tolerated! (ref Joe Scanlon)Jrhmdtraum 10:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

   Also from personal communication Roger Sherwood:  John,

I agree that the change was much slower than many of us would have liked. However, I am convinced the move to becoming co-ed insured the survival of the fraternityJrhmdtraum 19:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

- "Finally, in 2006, the Board of Directors used their emergency powers to override the gentleman's agreement of 1976 to force all chapters to go coed." -- It was 2005, the Board used no emergency powers, rather they decided to start enforcing that section of the bylaws. There was no overriding of the "gentlemans agreement" because legally it didn't exist, and we were opening ourselves up to litigation. That was the board's determination and in the rationale.

     Justin, See below.  The "gentleman's agreement was voted on by National Convention and thus part of bylaws and was thus was overruled by the Board.Jrhmdtraum 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

- "This was done as not only was it "correct" but there was also fear of violating Title IX." -- this entire sentence is POV. I believe it was the right thing to do, so do most people, but it's far from neutral and it's unencyclopedic. The fear of violating Title IX was not the reason, I believe. Justinm1978 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all can everyone please stop adding comments in the middle of sections without indenting them? It makes the threads hard to follow. Let me clarify. I'm not just saying that there was no floor discussion about this in 1992, 1994 and 2000. I am saying there was no proposal whatsoever, not even in committee. It is possible that something got proposed in New Business after I left the Convention in 1992, but that would have been immediately ruled out of order due to the 90 days notice rule. Such an incident would probably not even make the minutes. Henrymrx 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok: 1) I just received the following from Roger Sherwood by email (is that personal communication ok) ." What we did in 1976 was to change the bylaws to make it possible for chapters to admit women as members. What may be referred to as the agreement was that the amendment did not require chapters to admit women, so those who wanted to remain all male could do so without violating the bylaws. We very carefully pointed that out, and those who wanted to remain all male did so until the forces of change caught up with them. Per Roger Sherwood 9/12/07. 2) Per the T&T: Winter 97 Board minutes: “appointed a committee to weigh the costs and benefits of allowing all-male chapters at co-ed institutions to remain all-male and, based on the committee findings, submit the relevant legislation to the 1998 National Convention. T&T Spring 97

July 98 Board meeting: Determined to encourage all chapters to make membership ..available to all students regardless of gender on their campuses. T&T Fall ‘98

Convention minutes 1998: The fraternity continues to encourage all Chapters and petitioning groups to open their membership to all students. All Chapters..have the right to choose their own members using …policies that are consistent with the Fraternity’s governing documents, the rules of the host institutions that they serve and the traditions of that Chapter. Single-gender Chapters chartered before the 1976 National Convention may remain single-gender unless they become inactive or coeducational. All Petitioning Groups seeking to charter or re-charter will be and remain co-educational. T&T Winter/spring 1999

Note that the "Gentleman's Agreement" was solidified at this convention. It is my memory that it was in '76, but I gave you Roger Sherwood's account above.Jrhmdtraum 02:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  '   'Boy Justin, you are hard headed.  Look at the T&T that I referanced above.  In the printed minutes of the '98 convention, it states xtSingle-gender Chapters chartered before the 1976 National Convention may remain single-gender unless they become inactive or coeducational.  All Petitioning Groups seeking to charter or re-charter will be and remain co-educational.    T&T Winter/spring 1999.  That is the gentleman's agreement. [[Jrhmdtraum 20:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
(UTC)

Show me one copy of the bylaws that states anything close to the "gentleman's agreement". I'm not looking for personal accounts, board minutes, I'm looking for an honest-to-goodness actual sentence in the Membership section of the national bylaws. To my knowledge, though, there is nothing written in that codifies it. Now, agreeing to look the other way when it comes to the all-male chapters not in compliance is more what this sounds like. That's what a "gentleman's agreement" is, taking someone at their word without having to write anything into law.

Roger Sherwood can have all the accounts he wants, but any decent parliamentarian knows that once something is passed into the bylaws, the rationale does not follow it there. Again I ask to produce a copy of the bylaws that explicitly states this practice. That's what the issue was about at 2006 Convention....we were not practicing what our bylaws said. Justinm1978 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

July 2005 Board: …The actions of the 1976 and 1998 National Conventions have attempted to clarify the Fraternity’s open membership policy…The National Board is charged with…enforcing the membership policies of the Fraternity as well as ensuring compliance with applicable laws…UPON ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, all chapters must practice open membership without regard of gender…T$T fall 2005

July 2006 Board: Board of Directors proposed a Diversity Resolution to the 2006 National Convention. 2006 Convention adopts and will have transition committee make recommendations

From pledge manual: In 1972, the United States Congress passed the Title IX Federal Higher Education Act, which denies federal funding support to institutions that allow organizations with restricted membership. Many campuses felt that service organizations like the all-male Alpha Phi Omega and all-female Gamma Sigma Sigma were in violation of Title IX; Chapters located on these colleges and universities were in danger of losing their recognition if they did not become coeducational….

Note the "per legal advice" and title IX confirmation of my statements.

3) In regards to "saving the fraternity": Our most recent 25 years. 75th Anniversary Countdown by Wilfred M. Krenek, 75th Anniversary Chair. The Fraternity was going through turmoil…declining membership. However a major decision by the voting delegates to the 1976 National Convention was going to radically change that. Full membership for women “become” (sic) a reality, which began a growth cycle for the Fraternity. T&T Fall 2000

In 1976…women became full members in the Fraternity. In the next 10 year period, the number of pledges increased by 86% and active members by 32% with the number of Chapters decreased by 14% T&T Winter ’95. A message from the National President, Wilfred Krenek.

Of course a grown cycle commenced. When you double the number of students you are trying to attract, you experience growth. But it didn't "save the fraternity", it just made it larger. Membership numbers ebb and flow all the time. Justinm1978 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

From Pledge manual: Chapters were granted the right to admit women as full members at the 1976 National Convention; the choice whether or not to admit women was left to the discretion of each individual Chapter. In 1977, membership was up by 21%, and by 1978, 40% of the Chapters in the United States registered women as official members.

Thus most agree that membership was rapidly declining and had the Fraternity NOT been opened, it would have died. 4)

Further, for your information from the pledge manual: Joseph Scanlon, then National Executive Director, wrote an editorial in a 1970 Torch & Trefoil, entitled "Why Discriminate Because of Sex?" In this editorial, Brother Scanlon wrote, "Forty-five years ago Alpha Phi Omega dared to differ with the times. It set out to prove an organization committed to Service, opposed to membership discrimination because of race, creed, color, economic status or national origin, could exist on college campuses. … From the beginning, the Fraternity insisted that membership must be inclusive and it is, but not totally so. Women are excluded from active membership. This exclusion based on sex is justly questioned. … Con[vention] '70 delegates have the power to change all this." But, the amendment to the National Bylaws that would open membership to women did not pass at the 1970 National Convention. And at the 1972 National Convention, even affiliate membership for women was defeated, despite the recommendation by the National Board of Directors that women be allowed full member-ship. Women were allowed to be associate members if they were advisors to a Chapter, but they were not allowed to undergo the membership rituals, and undergraduate students were not allowed to be advisors. It was not until 1974 that affiliate membership for women was approved by the National Convention. Chapters were granted the right to admit women as full members at the 1976 National Convention; the choice whether or not to admit women was left to the discretion of each individual Chapter Jrhmdtraum 02:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

These are wonderful sources. However, while talking about a membership downturn is fine, phrases like "saved the fraternity" are not "encyclopedic" in the way in which it is expressed. Something like "Membership was in decline for the 5 years prior to the 1976 convention. However after that convention,..." is much more encyclopedic.Naraht 02:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Not going co-ed would not have put an end to Alpha Phi Omega. It would certainly look a heck of a lot different today, but APO would certainly have still continued on. Justinm1978 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

       Justine and Naracht:  I quote Roger Sherwood who was executive director;  "I agree that the change was much slower than many of us would have liked. However, I am convinced the move to becoming co-ed insured the survival of the fraternity"   I don't know how much more of an "expert opinion" you want.    The history shows that membership was drastically dropping.  It SAVED THE FRATERNITY.[[[User:Jrhmdtraum|Jrhmdtraum]] 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

ps Justin: If your wife is a brother as it sounds -- then maybe you should thank some of us old farts that fought to allow her to be a brother so that you could meet so that marriage.... Jrhmdtraum 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal opinion. His wife probably has the opportunity to be a brother even without that level of fighting for her. (I'm assuming here that his wife isn't that much older than he is and I think he is younger than I.) By 1980, I believe that even without the fighting that Zeta chapter would have been able to admit women as brothers. It may however have been written in the National Bylaws in the same way as Graduate students are (A chapter may determine the level of activity), making the ability for chapters to remain all-male explicit.

Kappa Kappa Psi, which is a professional band fraternity with considerably less internal pressure went co-ed in 1978. They had been at the time (and still are) legally affiliated with Tau Beta Sigma professional band sorority, so they had a more significant "safety valve" for women who wanted to be involved than Alpha Phi Omega did. (Yes I know there are many more active GSS chapters in 1972 than today, but it wasn't at the same level as Tau Beta Sigma.)

    Prior to 1974, affiliate membership was NOT allowed, in fact it was voted down in 1972[[[User:Jrhmdtraum|Jrhmdtraum]] 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

By 1972, half of the delegates were willing to have women in some sort of membership in the Fraternity. Once the camel's nose is under the tent... And by 1980, the chapters in favor of going co-ed will have the "home field advantage" again. While I'm not familiar with what cities bid in 1978 in Nashville for the right to host the 1980 convention, since Denver had had the 1972 convention, it almost *had* to be in (old) Region X (I don't know what the largest city is (or was) in the Western Convention region that isn't in old Region X (=New Mexico, Colorado & Wyoming) other than Denver (Flagstaff?, Colorado Springs?)

     In 1972, less than half voted for women.  Affiliate membership was voted down.  Jrhmdtraum 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

By 1981, University of Miami was willing to throw off its own local honorary society, Iron Arrow, for not being willing to admit women. Would it have done any less for Alpha Pi chapter? And personally, I don't count University of Miami as being the most liberal school in the Fraternity. I think more and more chapters would have been caught, like UCLA's Chi chapter, between an administration enforcing Title IX and National Fraternity which did not allow women as full brothers.

Yes, the heavy fighting did make it possible for my co-worker to be initiated (She was in the Spring 1977 pledge class at Mu Alpha chapter at Georgetown), but my wife pledged in 1993 (No idea when Justin's wife pledged), and I (who pledged in 1986) for one am convinced that your fighting wasn't necessary for the Fraternity to have admitted women before 1993.Naraht 02:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

     That is my whole point for the additions Naraht.  You younger guys see women membership as a "done" deal.  It was not and the fights in the 70s were HUGE.   If you made the '98 convention, you saw some of it for total coed.   I think that this history needs to be told [[[User:Jrhmdtraum|Jrhmdtraum]] 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I pledged in Spring 2000 (last semester of undergrad), and my wife pledged Spring 2001 (also last semester of her undergrad). I thank no old fart for fighting to allow my wife to pledge, as my chapter had already been pledging women for almost 30 years. Had convention done with women what was done with grad students, we still would have met. Justinm1978 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, on a slightly different note, does anyone have any verifiable information on when Chartering groups had to be co-ed? I think it was about 1986, since I've heard that the rechartering of Zeta Phi in 1986 included only men?Naraht 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was 1986, at least according to this source: [1]. It's from a guy who strongly supports all-male chapters, so take some of the content with a grain of salt. Justinm1978 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

JBSkeet is also known as Jaybee. His actual name is Jesse Bridges. Saying that he strongly supports all-male chapters is an understatement. He has been President of "Men of the Rising Sun" an all-male alumni group in Atlanta and has proposed bylaw amendments at at least three conventions that I can remember to attempt to allow the chartering and rechartering of all-male chapters. I've had discussions with him for years. If the all-male HBCU chapters break away from the National Fraternity in the next year, he'd probably end up as National President of the splinter group. He is heavily involved in the 25/52 family (Alpha Phi Omega Brothers and Gamma Sigma Sigma sisters) including their weekend picnic event in Atlanta each year.

In short, Jaybee is probably farther away from me (albeit in the other direction) than jdhmdtraum is on the issue of women in the fraternity. However I have found him to be a fairly good source of knowledge on things which directly affect all-male chapters. And if by any chance, Jaybee and jdhmdtraum should ever end up in a boxing ring, I'll be there having bought a ticket even if requires a second mortgage on the house.(note no smiley)Naraht 04:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Edits for "Gender"

Ok, some quick guidelines for this discussion to help it stay clear. If you are responding to someone, please indent your paragraphs by using the colon (:)character at the beginning of each paragraph. 1 colon per level of indentation. Please just append your response to the end of the section with the proper number of indentations so that the discussion doesn't get jumbled. And try to remember to sign your comments with four tildas (~).

Below is the current text of the section, with my thoughts inserted in bold, and changes in italics.

The Fraternity was opened fully to women in 1976. (needs a reference - The '76 convention minutes/T&T should suffice) All members are called "Brothers", regardless of gender. The Fraternity views "Brothers" as a gender-neutral term. (needs reference) Before women were allowed to join Alpha Phi Omega, several sororities, parallel in ideals but independent in structure, were formed for women who had been Camp Fire Girls or Girl Scouts. These include Gamma Sigma Sigma and Omega Phi Alpha. Also, several chapters had "little sister" groups, some of which (like the Jewels of Tau) formed separate organizations. (Seems ok to me)

In some chapters prior to 1976, women were allowed to pledge (needs reference) and their membership was reported to the national organization using only the womens' first initial to hide their gender. These were later changed to full names after 1976. [citation needed] (If the information about Beth Hesselmeyer being the first can be verified, that might be worth including. I am hesitant to only name Zeta as being behind the efforts as I'm sure there were many other chapters doing the illegal initiations as well)

In 1972, co-ed membership was proposed by several chapters but failed to reach the two-thirds majority support at the National Conventions which was required to alter the organization's bylaws. In February, 1972, the National Board of Directors had issued a statement "[u]nanimously recommending a serious consideration of the participation and status of women in the work of the Fraternity, both as members and advisors.". At the National Convention later that year, delegates considered for the first time a proposal to admit women to the Fraternity as affiliate members. While this amendment was supported by a majority of the delegates, it did not receive the three quarters necessary to pass. However, a resolution was passed to encourage and expedite the involvement of women in Fraternity affairs. . (adapted from User:Naraht) At the Alpha Phi Omega (redundant) 1974 National Convention, the Fraternity passed a similar resolution which (to add continuity) allowed chapters to have admit (language) women as affiliate members of the fraternity. (needs reference - again, the minutes should work) Two years later, (more flow) at the Alpha Phi Omega (redundant, again) the 1976 National Convention in Atlanta, Georgia, (irrelevant) the decision was made to formally welcome females as allow women to become (formally welcome feels POV) full members of the fraternity. As with many major changes, this one caused a great deal of consternation, especially among several long-established chapters. (very POV) Many of these Some chapters threatened to disassociate with the national fraternity if they were forced to become co-ed. (needs reference - hopefully one that can clarify the accuracy of many vs some) In order to preserve the unity of the fraternity as a whole, a "gentleman's agreement" was crafted during the 1976 National C (redundant) convention that formally allowed chapters that were all-male prior to the 1976 National Convention to remain all-male as long as their current charters remained (tense agreement) in effect and they don't did not (tense again) go inactive. (needs reference - and clarification as to the nature of the agreement with respect to the actual legislation) It was felt that with the course of time, all would go coed. (feelings are POV and unverifiable)

Part of Jrhmdtraum's comments suggest that there was a coed proposal in 1970, and possibly before that. If that is verifiable, it would be worth including at the beginning of the prior paragraph.

In the 1980s and 1990s the question of mandatory conversion of all-male chapters was again raised and various proposals were sent to National Conventions for consideration. (really need a reference of the existence of legislative proposals from prior to the mid-90s) In late 1997, the National Board of Directors "appointed a committee to weigh the costs and benefits of allowing all-male chapters at co-ed institutions to remain all-male and, based on the committee findings, submit the relevant legislation to the 1998 National Convention," (needs reference - winter 97 T&T I believe) As a result of the proposals to that convention the Fraternity decided that "All Chapters ... have the right to choose their own members using ... policies that are consistent with the Fraternity’s governing documents, the rules of the host institutions that they serve and the traditions of that Chapter. Single-gender Chapters chartered before the 1976 National Convention may remain single-gender unless they become inactive or coeducational. All Petitioning Groups seeking to charter or re-charter will be and remain co-educational." (needs ref - T&T Winter/spring 1999)

The above paragraph was primarily taken from Jrhmdtraum's comments

At the July 2005 National Board of Directors meeting, a resolution was passed that ruled that Chapters must practice membership policies without regard to gender. The resolution called for the formation of a committee to assist the current all-male chapters (on co-educational campuses) in their transition to co-ed status. A decision by the 2006 National Convention on December 30, 2006, has essentially upheld the Board's previous resolution, adding additional clarifications to the transitional process for the all-male chapters, including a timeline for completion of their transition to co-educational status by the 2008 National Convention, and the establishment of a committee consisting of active members and alumni to assist with the process.[12] (I think if we could provide some of the rationale for the BoD's decision, as well as the NatCon's, that might be helpful)

Ok, I hope that is readable. I hope that serves as a strong starting point for us. While I find Jhrmdtraum's information about the role Zeta played in the 1907s valuable, unless we can get more verifiable information other than his own word on the matter (which I do take in good faith), AND unless we can find out what role other chapters may have played in those, and similar, events, it would be egregious on our part to present a distorted/unbalanced picture which makes it seem like Zeta was the only chapter promoting the change to coed status.

In LF&S Bornyesterday 02:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, couple of comments.

• In regards to a Zeta specific mention, the only chapters mentioned specifically in the article are Alpha of the USA in regards to the found of the fraternity and Alpha of the RP in regards to them starting. Naraht 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• For opened fully to women in 1976, I think either the Pledge manual or the History book are good enough sources. Naraht 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• For brothers being a gender neutral term, the closest I can get to a source from this is from Article III, section I of the National bylaws: "Without gender implication, all initiated Members of the organization are known nationally as Brothers of the Fraternity."Naraht 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• For prior to 1972, see the pledge manual. According to that, there were efforts to admit women to affiliate status in 1968 and to admit women in general in 1970. in 1972 affiliation proposal got a majority (that from the History book).Naraht 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Not naming just zeta [[[User:Jrhmdtraum|Jrhmdtraum]] 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if it was "supported by the majority" My memory is that it was "overwhelming" defeated. I do know we got lots of "you communist love mail" -- although some of that was due to our motion for a resolution condemning the Viet Nam warJrhmdtraum 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would go by the pledge manual: "But, the amendment to the National Bylaws that would open membership to women did not pass at the 1970 National Convention. And at the 1972 National Convention, even affiliate membership for women was defeated, despite the recommendation by the National Board of Directors that women be allowed full member-ship. Women were allowed to be associate members if they were advisors to a Chapter, but they were not allowed to undergo the membership rituals, and undergraduate students were not allowed to be advisors. It was not until 1974 that affiliate membership for women was approved by the National Convention. Chapters were granted the right to admit women as full members at the 1976 National Convention; the choice whether or not to admit women was left to the discretion of each individual Chapter" and maybe add Joe Scanlan's note as above. Jrhmdtraum 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

While some of you argue "the saving of the fraternity", I believe that the Roger Sherwood's (as executive director at the time) is valid Jrhmdtraum 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As noted, I also agree that it is hard to prove that Zeta was the only chapter. I believe that there are noted other chapters who did 'sisters' at the same time. It is my recollection that we were the first, but we may have only been the most outspoken (which is quite likely). "Several chapters started initiating women illegally...."

I also think the comments I referanced to above about Title ix are enough and adequate verification. At the least would be "upon's lawyer's advice" to note that the Board did force the issue.

As noted, the "gentleman's agreement" was in the printed minutes of the bylaw changes of the 98 convention. I believe it was also in the bylaws from 1976, but I have no way to verify it.

As to the splitting off, I think you all noted that in the APQs

Thanks for working this out. As noted above, with some of you thinking that it would have happened. Of course it would have, maybe (note it still has not "happened" in all coed. Jrhmdtraum 21:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Conventions

I should have the remainder of the Themes up within the next couple of days. Both the 75th anniversary CD and the National History book have most of them post WWII —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in Opinions on what I've done with the Conventions, putting them into Sortable Tables (well, I've got the Dates properly sorting, I just have to figure out how to *not* have 10th occur between 1st and 2nd). I've actually gone farther on the APO-Phil table because it take *more* research. Between the APO-USA National History Book and the 75th Anniversary CD, I have the actual dates (not just the year) for everything from 3rd convention on. I wish I knew what the date of the actual meeting for the 2nd National Convention, but I don't have access to the November 1928 Lightbearer.Naraht 13:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Image of crest deleted

It looks like the image of the APO crest was deleted by a copyright nazi, claiming that there was no copyright information on it. This should be addressed. While it is definitely copyrighted, I don't think the national office would have a problem with using the crest on the wikipedia page,... It should also be noted that it was speedily deleted by ElinorD without posting any type of comment to the talk page or nominating it for deletion, which I find to be a rather bold and unacceptable move considering that the image has been on the page for a long time. Usually, wikipedia etiquette calls for information editors on the talk page prior to deleting an image, particularly one that has been posted on a page for a long time - this gives ample time to find the correct copyright tag or permissions. Dr. Cash 03:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw that as well, and noted on his talk page that he did not follow the policy stated in the reason he deleted the picture. I'm assuming you'll repost it and give it the citation he wants, even though it falls into fair use. Justinm1978 03:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to the talk page, as well as posted a report of the incident to the administrators' noticeboard regarding this "rogue" administrator. Dr. Cash 05:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

need counselling

http://www.gmanews. tv/video/ 11505

Hazing of APO Mu Delta Chapter or TIP QC, apparently one of their sis who is a researcher of GMA News approached her brods and asked if she can have an interview with their brods about thier initiation rites. (GMA is doing documentaries about fraternity hazing as an offshoot of the recent death by a neophite of the sigma rho fraternity in U.P.) In the course of the interview, their asked permission to take video shots with the agreement that nothing will be aired on TV. apparently it was shown last saturday in Jessica Sojo Reports and then again the following day in GMA's early evening news 24 Oras.

TIP QC have expelled 23 residents of APO in connection to the incident.