Talk:Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia

Revision Information

The recent change of information is incorrect in reference to the following:

• When referencing the specific organization, the first letter of "Fraternity" is capitalized.
• Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, though once known as a professional fraternity, has been in actuality a social fraternity since 1983 upon changing its constitution and receiving exemption from Title IX.

References for these are found at A Brief History of Sinfonia --Avery W. Krouse 06:58, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• While Resolution NCR51-12 adopted "Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia - Dedicated to instilling in all people an awareness of music's important role in the enrichment of the human spirit" as an official motto of the Fraternity (as reported in The Sinfonian reference cited), it did not replace "Once a Sinfonian, Always a Sinfonian, LLS!" as the primary motto of the Fraternity.

• The National Headquarters is located in Evansville, Indiana; not Indianapolis as I found it on the site.

Red links

Is there any point to having the chapters redlinked, if they are going to remain in the article? Except for maybe the Alpha chapter or something, it's unlikely that any of them are notable enough to have their own page. - Goodmanjaz 22:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Goddmanjaz. I nominated two individual chapter pages for deletion: one was a list of current members, the other (although it was well written) was a detailed chapter history that did not demonstrate the chapter's notability in a scope of outside their home university and surrounding community. Rackabello 20:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed the red links Rackabello 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved the chapter and colony lists to a sub-page Rackabello 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fraternity Colors

You guys have three out of the four colors, the order should be red, black, gold, white. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.39.46.204 (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

While the use of the color white is significant in many fraternity ceremonies, it is not and has never been an official color of Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia. This was confirmed by current National Vice President and former National Historian John Mongiovi when asked directly. The following information is taken from "Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia: A Centennial History", 2nd edition, by Dr. T. Jervis Underwood:

• The colors red and black were adopted by the Sinfonia Club on March 7, 1900 and were used as the color motif of the decorations of the first club room at the New England Conservatory (pages 1.7 and A.1).
• At the First National Convention held in Boston on April 16-20, 1901, red and black were chosen as the official colors of the Fraternity. Also selected were the chrysanthemum as the fraternity flower as well as the design of the official membership pin, which was the same as the modern pin design except that the Greek letters Φ, Μ, and Α were not present (pages 1.10 and A.1).
• The 1910 National Convention adopted the Coat of Arms which has remained unchanged since that time and which definitively established gold as the third color of the Fraternity. The Convention also adopted the modern pin design (with the Greek letters Φ, Μ, and Α) and the design of the membership shingle (pages 2.9, 2.17, and A.3).

--Michael07lu (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Professional Fraternities Box

How does one edit the template at the bottom of this page. I would like to add more professional fraternities to the list. Gatherton 21:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Phi Mu Alpha is not a professional fraternity, it has been a social fraternity since the 80s. See [1]. The Fraternity started as a social organization, but a change of emphasis to professionalism came in the early 1970s, and due to the passing of Title IX, the Fraternity was required to become co-ed. In 1985, membership was restricted to men again, as the Fraternity returned to social status, earning an exemption from Title IX. In 2003, the original Fraternity's Object was reinstated, completeing the change back to a social organization. Rackabello 14:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

While all of the information provided above is accurate, the fact remains that Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia is still a member of the Professional Fraternity Association (PFA).[2] In fact, Alan Adams was both the executive director of Phi Mu Alpha and the president of the Professional Interfraternity Conference (PIC) when the PIC merged with the Panhellenic Association in 1978, making Phi Mu Alpha a charter member of the PFA (Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia: A Centennial History, p. 6.4-5). I am currently a member of one of Phi Mu Alpha's national committees and I have heard no rumors that the organization is planning to leave the PFA. If such plans are in the works, they are certainly not public and have not been finalized, therefore making them inappropriate for consideration as a citation in this article. Thus, I recommend that the Professional Fraternities box remain on this page since it contains accurate information about Phi Mu Alpha's organizational affiliations. Of course, Social Fraternity should remain in the Type field of the Fraternity Infobox as that is also accurate. As a side note, I would also like to know how to edit the Professional Fraterities box so that Phi Mu Alpha can be removed if it does in fact leave the PFA. Michael07lu 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Effective August 13, 2007, Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia resigned from membership in the Professional Fraternity Association. See announcement at http://www.sinfonia.org/news/SN-2007-08-13.asp Michael07lu 22:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Motto

With the lack of a thoroughly researched section or sub-article dedicated solely to the many phrases that have been adopted as mottos by Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia over the years, I would propose that “Among Men Harmony” be the only phrase referred to as a fraternity motto on this page for the following reasons:

• A motto is defined as “a short sentence or phrase chosen as encapsulating the beliefs or ideals guiding an individual, family, or institution” (Mac OS X onboard dictionary), of which “Among Men Harmony” is a perfect example given its brevity and the background found at http://www.sinfonia.org/Resources/VSManual.pdf that relates the phrase to the fraternity’s ideals.

• A quick glance at the mottos of other fraternities at the List of fraternity and sorority mottos page will show that the phrase “Among Men Harmony” is similar to the vast majority of mottos listed with regards to its length and scope.

• While the phrase “Once A Sinfonian, Always a Sinfonian!” is identified in a handful of official fraternity documents as a motto of the fraternity, it is not identified in current recruitment materials as such. Furthermore, it fails to communicate any guiding principals other than loyalty to the organization itself. [Note that this argument does not support the elimination of the phrase “Once A Sinfonian, Always a Sinfonian!” from the article, but only advocates that it not be referred to as a motto.] Michael07lu (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

After discussing the issue of mottos with a current national officer, I received the following response:

It is very important to note that this [Once a Sinfonian, Always a Sinfonian] is not our only motto. There's also "The Manly Musician, and the Musicianly Man," "Once a Sinfonian, Always a Sinfonian," "On and ever Upward," "Work for Sinfonia, and Sinfonia will work for you," "Nothing mean or unmanly is of a Sinfonian," "To instill in all people an awareness of music's important role in the enrichment of the human spirit," and even the obscure "Absque labore nihil" ("Proving all things, hold fast that which is good" - thank you, Winthrop Sterling).

Furthermore, the officer confirmed that "Among Men Harmony" is not an official motto of the fraternity. Given the number of phrases that could be cited as a motto, I am revising my position to suggest that no singular statement be identified in the article as a motto. If a subsection on mottos were to be added to list many or all of these phrases, inline citations would need to be provided to verifiable sources listing the phrases as mottos of the fraternity. Michael07lu (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Once a Sinfonian, Always a Sinfonian" is on the National website, and a large chunk of recruitment and almuni materials. While not an official motto anymore, it does reflect the Fraternity's attitude towards almuni relations and the understanding that becoming a member ideally means involvement in some form or another for life. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the current use and meaning of the phrase, and as I stated before I don't believe that it should be banned from use in the article. My only concern is that referring to it as a motto of the Fraternity or, as has been previously stated in the article, THE motto of the Fraternity (emphasis added) creates confusion. In fairness, I will yield the point that "Among Men Harmony" has not been identified by the Fraternity or its National Executive Committee as a "motto" either; instead, it is referred to as a "positioning statement" when discussed as an element of the Fraternity's visual identity (see http://www.sinfonia.org/Resources/VSManual.pdf). Thus, there really is no singular statement that may be identified as THE motto of the Fraternity, but for the reasons I already outlined I feel that "Among Men Harmony" is the best candidate for such a designation in the article considering the strategic direction of the organization as outlined at http://www.sinfonia.org/strategicplan/v1-0.pdf Michael07lu (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The current revision does not cite OAS AAS as a moto. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there are several editors (or one persistent one editing from multiple IP addresses) that wants "Once a Sinfonian, Always a Sinfonian!" removed from the article. Despite the fact that those persons have not provided rationale for the edit on this talk page, I will go ahead and say that if people are going to make that big a deal about it, then just leave it out of the article. While it is used in the fraternity's recruitment materials, I don't feel that the phrase's inclusion in the article adds significantly to the content of the "Alumni" section, and conversely I don't feel that's its exclusion detracts from the section. Let's just leave this one alone.
--Michael07lu (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Social Status

See http://www.sinfonia.org/social/ for an article that thoroughly explains the fact that Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia is a social fraternity and is neither a professional nor general fraternity. I am also making this a citation in the main article. Michael07lu (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Secret Information

For discussion/comments specifically about the non-secret phrase, "Once a Sinfonian, Always a Sinfonian!", see the "Motto" section.
--Michael07lu (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This article, as well as editor comments made on the article's discussion page, has been subject to edit wars over the inclusion of supposedly secret fraternity information.

First of all, let me state that I am proud member of Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia. I am thoroughly versed in fraternity policy and am privy to the guidelines for protecting secret information. Members of the fraternity can find these guidelines in the Guide to Membership Development, access to which is restricted to fraternity members. Examples of innapropriate distribution of secret material are limited to:

1.) Revealing content of the Fraternity's "Initiation Ritual" in a context where it is clear that the source is the Ritual.

2.) Revealing secret words and symbols that are only known to initiated members in a manner that they can clearly be identified as being secret words and symbols (e.g., using a secret password or sign in public in a way that non-members would be able to discern how it is properly used among members).

To my knowledge, no such revelations have been made by any editor to this article who has access to secret information by virtue of being a member of the Fraternity. The Centennial History, which is heavily cited on this discussion page and in the main article, was written by a former National President in a manner that would not reveal secret information as defined above and is therefore not innaproriate for inclusion in a public encycolpedic article.

--Michael07lu (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But for what reason are we putting this stuff on wikipedia? It is no ones business when any colors were adopted and if a brother doesn't know this information then he needs to purchase a centennial book or ask an elder member oppose to referring to wikipedia....Regardless of what position is held there is still too much being put on this website. If you go to the pages of any other organizations in music you don't see these things being revealed...Truthfully19 (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Truthfully19, you are making an assumption that historical information about the Fraternity such as that contained in the Centennial History is secret information or else that non-members would have no interest in it. However, basic historical details about the Fraternity such as when the colors, flower, and coat of arms were adopted (none of which are secret symbols) is very appropriate for inclusion in a reference article and may be of public interest. You will note that I chose not to include this historical information in the main article because they would probably be deemed too trival. They are included on the discussion page so that future editors will understand why the article is the way it is (for example, why white has been added several times as an official color and why each time it has been deleted). Such historical details can be located publicly for many other fraternities, though you seem to have limited your comparison to other music fraternities.

Again, the purpose of the discussion page is to assist editors in reconciling conflicting points of view and to provide background information for factual statements beyond the citations in the main article. Previous discussion points should generally not be removed or altered unless they are vandalism or inflamatory. If you insist on repeatedly removing my previous comments, I will be forced to report you for vandalism.

Finally, you say that there is too much being put on this website. I would argue that the opposite is true. The current version of the article contains very little but mundane descriptions of the Fraternity, most of which are pulled directly off the national website. Critisicms of the article such as the Good Article Review on this disussion page here point out the flaws. I believe that someone with the time and resources to do so should attempt a complete overhaul of the article. I'm not suggesting that the article be a complete reprint of the Centennial History (that, by the way, would be a violation of copyright), but certainly the Centennial History can be used as a primary source. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to devote to such a project.

--Michael07lu (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• The years emblems and colors were adopted?

I can understand listing the colors but when they were adopted? why and for what reason...who's business is it outside of the fraternity's? there is no reason

• The Centennial Book

First we must figure out the purpose each bit of information serves when posted....It isn't a book for people outside of the fraternity so why put any info on its pages anywhere for someone outside of the fraternity to read?

Why do people/MEMBERS insist on listing so much?

Truthfully19 (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question: The years that the colors were adopted were included as evidence that they are indeed official colors. This is called a citation. I will attempt to at least cite the Centennial History as the source of the official colors in the main article, but as has been previously observed the main article does not presently have a good references/sources listing and I'm not sure that I have the time to fix that right now. I cannot of course cite a date to prove that white is not an official color since it was never adopted as such. As for the dates of adoption for the other emblems, I included them as additional information since those emblems are also stated in the main article.

Again, the Centennial History is not a secret document and it's contents are not limited to Fraternity members. However, there is a some information (for instance, the history of the Initiation Ritual) that while not technically secret because it doesn't reveal the kind of information that I described in my first posting to this topic, I would not feel comfortable posting on the interent. Nevertheless, if a non-member had a hard copy of the Centennial History, I wouldn't yank it out of their hands.

--Michael07lu (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you or anyone else is indeed a member you wouldn't be disputing whether or not white is an offical color because its common knowledge among Sinfonians that the colors are Red, Black, and Gold

The Centennial Book is a resource for members of Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia Music Fraternity of America not for any average joe walking around on the streets. There is enough information on the articleTruthfully19 (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Information

Many editors who are also members of Phi Mu Alpha attempt to remove information with a stated rationale that the information is inappropriate for public knowledge. Most recently, an anonymous editor removed almost all information from the "Membership" section. That argument fails on the basis that

• the information is not private (i.e., secret) based on the policies of the national organization and proven by the fact that much information that was included in the article, especially the membership information, is referenced to the fraternity's National Constitution which is freely available on its website; and
• given that the information is not private/secret, removal of the information jeopardizes neutral point of view and the comprehensiveness of the article.

An argument that may hold water is that the information is too detailed for the main article and should be moved to a sub-article. However, I do not personally feel that any of the subsections of this article as presently written have enough information to warrant their own page (excepting those where a sub-article already exists.) I do not believe it can be argued that information on membership eligibility and general information on the process by which one becomes and remains a member is insignificant to the topic of the article. Michael07lu (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Another rationale for removing information that is also flawed is that persons interested in the fraternity should consult a chapter or the national organization itself. I don't see how anyone, understanding that Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference designed with the goal of creating a comprehensive repository of information, can suggest that in good faith. Furthermore, Wikipedia's policies require that information be non-biased in its presentation, which is not neccessarily true of information coming directly from the fraternity. Michael07lu (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • I removed an expand tag from the section on the foundation as clearly there is a separate article on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

   • The lead does not sufficiently summarize the entire article. Most sections would deserve a mention in the lead which is not currently so. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • The vast majority of references are WP:SPS, in fact Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities appears to be the only independent source. This must be addressed. I would suggest that a minimum of 40% third party sources is required. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • as noted above most sources are SPS. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   • Not possible to determine at present. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Exceedingly thorough, but there is no independent comment on the organisation. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • Needs independent commentary on the organisation. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • OK, there are problems here in that all but one of the sources is related to the organisation. I will place on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
   • Follwing the comment below I shall close this nomination as not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

After consulting national officers and staff of the fraternity, it seems there is very little chance of finding sufficient independent references as sources for the information in the article. There are numerous university and local newspaper articles written about chapter events, but little in the way of general references that would be useful in this article. If such sources exist, it will likely require more research than can be completed during a hold period. As a result, I'm withdrawing the GA nomination for this article. Thanks for taking the time to review. Michael07lu (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Spot feedback

I was asked to take a look at this article's class rating. Some thoughts and suggestions follow. I agree it's above Start-class. In a broad sense, it's B-class. The lack of third-party sources hold it back nearer C-class though. This is common with greek articles; the featured fraternity articles tend to be NPHC, which has the benefit of a few third-party books. Beyond that, the article is strong, although there is frequent convoluted wording. Improving that aspect through copyediting would help the article. E.g.:

• "Once chartered, collegiate chapters have the authority to conduct activities in the name of the fraternity for the purpose of furthering its Object."
  • "the chapter's sheltering institution"; "its many communication vehicles"
• Generally, you've avoided succumbing to the tendency common with fraternity articles of slipping into non-encyclopedic tone or peacock wording. The last part of the sentence "The collegiate membership experience is where men build..." is somewhat peacocky.
• Google books may turn up useful material, perhaps on its historic influence on colleges, etc.
• "bringing prominent music performers and clinicians to their campuses" clinicians?
• Your first reference to the "Object" comes a section before you explain what that is.
• The full name is used each time. Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia ...hereafter Sinfonia? –Whitehorse1 17:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

New Section

While I am not opposed to the information found in the new section recently added to the page, I do have to wonder: is it necessary? Transgender issues are a hot-button topic in today's society, but so are a host of other issues. There's barely a one-sentence mention of female inclusion (however brief), so I feel like there is undue weight given to this. I'll leave it for now, but I am seriously considering reverting the recent additions (in good faith, of course). Primefac (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a big article, and the section in question is only two paragraphs. It's less than 4% of the total article length. If the article were a stub like most fraternity articles with that amount of text regarding their policy on trans members, it might be undue weight, but I don't see how it's undue weight in the context of this article. Sycamore (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)