This is an archive of past discussions about Alpha Phi Alpha. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I know for a fact that fraternity hazes it's members during the pledging process. If anybody of significance reads this, I would suggest investigating them. Paddling, underage alcohol, and strippers are among the known events which have happened.
This is not the place for conjecture. If your assertation has merit, please submit third-party sources (newspaper, university, etc.) and they can be worked into the article. If you are looking to lodge a complaint, this is definitely not the correct location for that. Justinm197819:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
There was a a round logo that was used all over the 2006 convention it was like a stamp with a sphinx on it. I really like it because the words fit the fraternity so well. " A Century of Leadership and Service"
My questions where did it come from and where did it go?
CC Poindexter
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It seems that the dispute over CC Poindexter as founder should be mentioned at the article. E.g., "CC Poindexter is considered by some historians to have been among the founders..."
--Kevin Murray21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Picture of Founding House
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
On Firefox browsers, the founding house appears to be overlapping over one of the founder's pictures. That's why I decided to place the image to the left rather than have it overlapping. Real9619:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You didn't just move it to the left, you moved it into the middle of a paragraph above, which broke up the paragraph and that made the article choppy are flow difficult to follow and read. Thanks for the attempt, however; It would be impossible to create an article that satisfies all browsers.--Ccson20:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The Alpha Phi Alpha page is false about Fort Des Moines the information is about the Omega Psi Phi Fraternity see the book " American Negro in the World War" here a link to the e-version
The reference regarding Fort Des Moines is provided in the article as footnote 13.
Jeese E. Moorland is clearly listed as a member of Alpha Phi Alpha's Beta chapter in the 1982 copyright version of the history book. see page 110.
I don't see the names Spingarn, Curtis et. al. in the article. Where is the editor getting these other names? Can the paragraph where the other names appear be provided?--Ccson17:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago28 comments7 people in discussion
Since discussion is deadlocked on the NPHC Talk Page, I'm bringing this here for a vote on what the classification for Alpha Phi Alpha is: "Social (General) Fraternity" or "Service Fraternity". Please see the discussion on the NPHC Talk Page for additional "backstory" and reference. Remember that this is not a question on personal opinion or activities, but rather what the legal definition of this organization is. Please vote social or service, and feel free to add supporting opinion. Justinm197816:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
social - Organization is exempt from Title IX requirements. In order to be a true service fraternity, they would have to be a co-ed organization on the national level. No legal document has defined them as a service fraternity other than the opinions and statements of members, and while they do a good amount of community service, this does not make them a service fraternity. Justinm197816:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Justinm1978, you're going on the assumption that the classification must be in line with Title IX, and not the actions of the group. Your POV was stated on the NPHC page, but after repeated requests, no one would show me wikipeida's policy on deciding the status. How should foreign Greek fraternal groups be classified in wikipedia that are not subject to Title IX?--Ccson05:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Social: the article cited by ccson states "Although the enhancement of Black men has always been the goal of the fraternity" and "And that continuing commitment perhaps will eventually change the minds of observers who believe that fraternities and sororities are only social organizations." The first sentence cited is NOT "service," and the second implies that all fraternities are social and something else. Additionally, it may indeed not be allowed legally to classify itself as a "service" fraternity. HOWEVER, this is NOT TO SAY that service is not important, as said in the second paragraph of the cited letter.
That being said, this vote really is absurd. How can we decide what Alpha Phi Alpha is? All we can do is say "classify it as ___ here because those are the only categories we have." As a member of Sigma Chi, I know that I belong to a social fraternity. This is so, even if we have a vision to be the "preeminent college leadership development organization [2], or if our fundamental purpose is the cultivation maintenance and accomplishment of the ideals of friendship, justice and learning. [3]. Our categorization system does not allow for dual-registration, so it can only be listed under one, and that should be "social." —ScouterSig18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Scoutersig, i like your thoughts, however, the purpose of the article is stated in the first sentence of the second paragraph. You've gone all the way to the end for your sentence and that's the very perception that the General President was attempting to thwart. I guess he was unsuccessfully since that article appeared almost 20 years ago and APA is summarily being classified in some circles as merely social.--Ccson05:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Even though message boards are not reliable sources, I found this from an Alpha member on Greek Chat, seen here, specifically here. He says that the fraternity is social. But, I do see your point. Service fraternities must be co-ed, under Title IX. Miranda19:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Naraht call the APA office to get their input on whether the fraternity was social or service. The national office told him to simply put his question in an email and they would reply. He either has not contacted them in writing or hasn't posted the reply, but he has found the time to post and respond on chat boards.--Ccson05:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I'm not disagreeing with the absurdity of the vote, but with three users in a project who are having a minor edit war on the project's only Featured Article, I would rather see this go to a vote and get consensus from the group rather than have someone from outside put it up for review and lose it's Featured Article status. Justinm197819:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Better yet, if you want to get an outside opinion, file a RFC. In my opinion, this is a social fraternity which does service projects. Everyone just needs to be careful of not trying to do this. Miranda19:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Social - Alpha Phi Alpha has never claimed to be anything except a general fraternity. It's membership in the NPC requires that it be a general fraternity. No changes to the organization occured when Title IX passed.Naraht19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused why Naraht says APA has only claimed be a general fraternity, quite the opposite. The article referenced (footnote 16) by CCSON states in the second paragraph, By providing scholarships for needy students (male and female) and initiating various other charitable and service projects, members says the fraternity continues to demonstrate that it is primarily a communicty service organization, not a social one. I'm not sure how the fraternity's thoughts can be clearer. I agree with Miranda.--Ccson04:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
comment - Until Alpha Phi Alpha comes forth with changes to their bylaws, articles of incorporation and membership policies to be in Title IX compliance, they are a social fraternity that has a strong emphasis on community service. As far as the footnote 16 reference, honestly, members of groups say a lot of things about their group (I can find several Alphas who will attest that they are in a social frat that volunteers a lot), and an article in a magazine about how APA does a lot of service hardly constitutes a clear policy shift and fundamental change to the fraternity. Also, most, if not all, GLO's have significant national philanthropy programs and are a central focus of their fraternity/sorority, but they are still general/social. I fail to see how APA is so different from all the other social GLO's that have volunteerism and community service as part of their program. Justinm197805:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
As you stated, different people can say different things on the same subject, but that's just individual POV. The author the article indicates that the comments were obtained from "Officials" of APA, plus, there's a quote from Henry Ponder, the then General President of APA. These are not just random pollings of people one knows personally, the comments are from the national office. We can quote people in wikipedia as long as we say they said it and can provide a copy of the source. Again, APA invited Narahat to email them for a definitive answer, you can at wdlyle@apa1906.net--Ccson05:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
comment - Letter was written today to both the communications director and APA's executive director, no response received as of yet. Again, this is still about the classification, not about the work that they do. Nobody has said because they're classified as social that they aren't strong community activists and volunteers. Why are you so against changing this to be in line with the legal and factual definion? Why are you not so adamantly contesting the proper classification of the rest of the fraternities and sororities that were changed from service to social? What makes Alpha Phi Alpha so different than the dozens of other GLO's that volunteer a significant amount? Justinm197801:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
comment - Here is my letter, sent to the Executive Director and Communications Director for Alpha Phi Alpha. No response has been received as of this posting.
I am doing some research on the Greek Lettered Organizations, and was referred to this address for questions relating to Alpha Phi Alpha. I know that the members of APA do a tremendous amount of volunteer work and community service, and I am quite impressed by that and everything the fraternity has done to advance the civil rights movement. I was wondering in the grand scheme of how fraternities operate, are allowed to select their membership based on gender, and with respect to the Title IX regulations regarding collegiate organizations, what type of fraternity is Alpha Phi Alpha? Would it be a safe assumption that APA is a social/general fraternity with a very strong emphasis on community service, or would it be considered an actual "service fraternity". If the latter, how do you address concerns about Title IX and the prohibition of gender discrimination in non-social/general fraternities? I am also asking this question of all fraternities and sororities that have strong service programs so I can better understand the many aspects of the greek system, and any help you can provide me would be most appreciated.
Can you paste of a copy of the email here so all can see the manner in which you framed the question? I think you've proved it's not a service group based on title ix, so that should not have been the question. I hope it was "Are you a Service or Social fraternity, and upon what basis to you make this claim"? Are you prepared to accept the response from the national office regarding classfication whether its a "Yes" or "No'?
Justin, go work on another article for a while and come back to this discussion in a week or two. Seriously. Your point discussions on Alpha Phi Alpha being a service/social fraternity is kind of getting old and is on the borderline of being disruptive. It is already established that the fraternity is a social fraternity which performs service projects. Leave it at that for now. Miranda01:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I respecfully disagree on the disruptive part, because I believe my questions are valid for the editor. I'm glad you agree with me that it is social, and would certainly agree that it is established as such. I've been trying to leave it at that. Would you say that consensus has been reached? Justinm197802:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Miranda, you are a very prudent editor. I left the discussion on the NPHC talk page for a few weeks because each time I proved to Narahat that his POV was either biased or not a wikipedia policy, he would invent another test. Now, Justinm1978 is rehashing the same argument regrding title ix that Narahat conceded. it's never going to end. I felt the discussion would never end because he had a POV. The final discussion taken from the NPHC page appears below where Narahat reluctantly admits APA is a service organization, but not a fraternity, then, it's a fraternity, but find me the words "service" and "fraternity" contiguously together?
“
OK, fair enough, we can describe Alpha Phi Alpha as a service organization as long as we stop refering to it as a Fraternity. Naraht 11:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
APA is referred to as fraternity, group, organization interchangeably throughout the article. It's most definitely a fraternity as evidenced by its member in the NPHC and the NIC. Plus, this sentence and linked source is taken from the article; The Fraternity was again incorporated as a national organization on April 9, 1911, under the laws of Congress within the District of Columbia, under the name and title of The Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity.[Ccson]
OK, it's a fraternity. :) I did have better luck with the North-American Interfraternity Council. I talked to the Executive Vice President of the NIC. He said that other than the groups which were grandfathered in when the NIC was formed in 1932, all groups which have been admitted since are general fraternities. Can you find the two words "Service Fraternity" together in that order in *any* document produced by Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. Corporation Headquarters? Naraht 17:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It's Naraht, not Narahat. And the "OK, it's a fraternity" had a smiley on it. I have no doubt that Alpha Phi Alpha is a fraternity that performs service. That describes each and every member of the NIC and the Fraternities in the NPHC. They are also a fraternity that has social events. That also describes every member of the NIC and the Fraternities in the NIC. Being a Fraternity which does service is however, different than it being a "Service Fraternity".
The* Reference work for Fraternities since the 1870's has been Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities. Baird's since almost the beginning has separated Fraternities and Sororities into four categories:
General Fraternities and Sororities
Professional Fraternities and Sororities
Honorary Fraternities (also called Honor Societies) and
Recognition Fraternities and Sororities. Service Fraternities are a subsection of Recognition Fraternities and Sororities.
The Most recent Baird's included four groups in the Service Fraternity and Sorority Subsection: Alpha Phi Omega, Gamma Sigma Sigma, Intercollegiate Knights and Spurs. Alpha Phi Alpha is in the General Fraternities section. Naraht02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, your comments pasted above show you had some doubt it was a fraternity when you reqeusted it not be listed as one. Then when the NIC informed you it was a fraternity, you had to admit it throught smiling teeth. This agains just illustrates you are trying to .prove a point by disruptive behavior, and no matter who you speak with or what manuals you consult, you're only going to give credence to the one that supports your own POV. For the last time, I hope, There is nothing that says the "type" in the infobox is or has to based on Title IX. Again, Fraternities of all types existed before Title IX and it's not prudent to think legislation should solely determine what type of organization a group purports to be.--Ccson12:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for questioning whether or not it is a Fraternity, that was done in haste and in anger. I agree that when Alpha Phi Alpha (and indeed most other members of the NIC) was formed, the US Government didn't care whether a group called itself a Social Fraternity, a Service Fraternity or a Fruit Loops Fraternity. Now it does.
As a comparison: I believe that 150 years ago the Government (of US States) didn't care whether someone called themselves a doctor of medicine. Now if someone today calls themselves a doctor of medicine and they have neither graduated from Medical School nor passed the State Medical Boards, they can be prosecuted for fraud for making that claim. If someone's entry on Wikipedia claimed that they were a doctor *after* the state that they were in changed their law, which would determine whether their wikipedia entry said they were a doctor, their claim or the state law?Naraht15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, all the energy thrown into this discussion would be better served in modifying the fraternity/sorority infobox to reflect both type & legal status, which I have proposed on the infobox talkpage. We certainly wouldn't want this discussion to sink into the realm of trying to prove a point.-Robotam14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This might work. Another option is to change the Service fraternities and sororities article to show the historical context of these groups, then show how title IX only changed the legal status, but that some groups chose not to become coed, and although their purpose never changed, their legal status did change. This seems more in-line with what an encyclopedia's function should be. I think its also important to note that the Service article is not about title IX, title ix is just one component. Service Fraternities existed before Title IX and therefore this Title does not define these groups, just the legal status. If Title IX summarily defined Service Groups, then we should merge the Title IX and Service articles if they're one-and-the same.--Ccson02:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Title IX doesn't even mention Service Fraternities or Sororities. It mentions *Social Fraternities and Sororities* as what receives an exemption. In that respect it legally defines Social Fraternities and Sororities.
Another characteristic where Alpha Phi Alpha matches with General/Social Fraternities and not Service Fraternities, membership requirements being affected by membership in other Groups. Alpha Phi Alpha, like Sigma Nu, Delta Delta Delta, Delta Sigma Theta and all other social fraternities and societies limit the ability for people to belong to more than one Social Fraternity/Sorority. If an Omega Psi Phi brother wanted to join Alpha Phi Alpha, Alpha Phi Alpha's bylaws would not allow it. Service Fraternities and Sororities have no such limitation. A single person could be a Brother of Alpha Phi Omega, a Sister of Gamma Sigma Sigma, a member of Intercollegiate Knights and also a member of the Social Fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon.Naraht02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I've lost all credibility in what you say and that you'll accept the otucome if proven wrong, but I'll humor you; Where is it written that a requirement to be a service fraternity means you can't limit members from joining other service fraternities? I'm not saying that's not the case, just where did you come up with that? Is there a ruputable and verifiable source where you got this litmus test, or are you just once again putting up hoops for those who disagree with you to jump through? Hopefully you saw this online, but if not, I'm prepared to visit the nearest library to verify the infor and source.--Ccson12:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't represent a deciding factor, but rather stands as part of preponderance of evidence. The Litmus test that does exist that you won't accept is Alpha Phi Alpha's membership in the NIC and what is in the NIC bylaws. NIC Bylaws Section 1a3. It says that "Be mutually exclusive of and in competition with other general fraternities..." This means that members of the NIC *are* general fraternities, and thus so is Alpha Phi Alpha. Are you challenging List of social fraternities and sororities with its definition of General and Social Fraternities being the same thing? Naraht15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
let's wait to see if Justinm1978 gets a response from the APA national office. It looks like Justinm1978 doesn't like Robotam's compromise, so while we're waiting, I'll try to think of something else. It's not that I mind APA being listed as social because our works speak for themselves. Justin response to Robotam on another tlak page was that readers would glean from the article whether the frat was social or service. I belive that readers of the APA article will glean its about service, no matter what the final classification outcome. I just think we need to have a reputable and verifiable source that states how this class is identified, and unfortunately, you and Justin have not proved that to me. Really now "service fraternity" side by side? Since you state Title IX does not address Service frats, that really can't be the deciding factor. Again, i'll ponder and see what I can come up with.
No response has been received yet to my inquiry to either the communications person or the executive director of Alpha Phi Alpha. This discussion was started on June 8, and I'm gonna say that a strong consensus was reached on this, being that 4 out of 5 editors voted for social/general. Justinm197813:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You can have a POV and consensus that APA is social frat, but if you haven't definitively defined "type", then this debate has not ended, even if you haven't had a response from the APA national office. Based on your summary line response "lets kick this around a bit . . .", on the Fraternity Infobox page where you reverted the comment I entered based upon the consensus by other editors, I'm putting APA back to Social or Service. I'm in agreement that we must define type on the template before you apply POVs to a single group. I think the debate needs to move to Fraternity infobox template since the decision will affect all groups. I hope you understand.--Ccson14:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Alpha List of Brothers
On the "Heads of State" section you listed Alpha's three governors. Governors of the United States Virgin Islands are not "Heads of State". The U.S. Virgin Islands is a U.S. territory. Therefore, the president of the United State is the "Head of State". A governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, or American Somoa are not Heads of State. The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands is no more a Head of State than the governor of New York is a Head of State. A Head of State is the chief executive of a country. U.S. Virgin Islands is not a country, it is a part of the United States of America.
Wasn't Charles Diggs mentioned as an Alpha in the video? How come his name is no longer listed on the Alpha page?
Geographic coordinates
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Could someone clearly explain why Cornell's geographic coordinates were listed here? This is an article about Alpha Phi Alpha, not Cornell. This is irrelevant to this article. If you want to include the coordinates, you need to include them at every mention of a location referenced in the article. This is inconsistent with other articles concerning greek-letter organizations.
--Kontar23:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Alpha Phi Alpha is the only GLO that has earned a Featured Article status and should set the standard for the other groups to follow; (see Phi Iota Alpha). The geographic coordinates are for the site where Alpha Phi Alpha was founded, which happens to be the same exact coordinates for Cornell University. The coordinates also are the location of a type of marker honoring the founding of Alpha Phi Alpha--and this is mentioned in the Centennial Celebration section of the article. Regarding standards, can you clearly point to where it's stated as you mentioned above "If you want to include the coordinates, you need to include them at every mention of a location referenced in the article"? Following this "guideline", one could ask why is Ithaca, New York mentioned as the location for Cornell, and argue that if any other college/univerisites are mentioned in the article, one must mention the city/state of their location, etc. etc.--Ccson15:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your POV, but the bottom-line is that this is inconsistent with other articles concerning greek-letter organizations. This discussion is not concerning A Phi A's status as a featured article. It is the irrelevance to casual readers as to the geographic coordinates. This is only important to those who are familiar with the practice and is not in line with the rest of wikipedia's articles on greek-letter organizations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia designed to be accessible to all, and not a fan-page. What IS relevant to casual readers is Alpha Phi Alpha's origins at Cornell, or possibly including the actual address of first meeting. A Phi A is not a place or location (like Cornell University is) for which longitude and latitude or an address would be relevant. It is a fraternity. Listing longitude and latitude, is a confusing and unnecessary exposition to those who are non-Alpha's. Please see WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Thank you. Kontar21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That's your POV as to what casual readers need to know, but an encyclopedia's main audience is not the casual tourist, its for the learned and those who want to greatly expand their knowledge of a subject. Plus there's nothing that says all GLO articles need to be in lock step with each other. Some use the info fraternity box, and some groups have created their own, but the simalarity between liked groups should remain in the info boxes WHEN the utilized but there's not on wikipedia that indicates the use or even having a box is mandatory. The secton you mention mentions nothing about omitting coordinates. This is such a minor issue and i'm really amazed at your tenacity in trying to remove the coordinates. There are so many (in fact, most) GLO articles that need a lot of attention, I don't see you putting in nearly amount of time and research if you main goal is the improvement of GLO articles. I gave you examples above of other groups which utilize the coordinates, yet you haven't attempted to change the articles, it seems you're obsessed with Alpha Phi Alpha and want to nit pick and your efforts are not consistent with like groups.--Ccson15:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It is rationale like that above which keeps Wikipedia from being an academically useful resource. When something as "minor" as this cannot be compromised upon, or left to consensus, then why bother trying to tackle more substantial issues? All you get is an edit war like you have promoted. You have still not rectified the fact that A Phi A is NOT A LOCATION OR A PLACE, where geographic coordinates would be relevant and useful. IT IS A FRATERNITY. Obviously pointing out Wiki policy doesn't deter your wish to promote your position. You are correct in that I have not bothered with Phi Iota Alpha. Like most editors, we only follow those article that we have experience with or care about. The same principle of uselessness and violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL applies to that article as well. Thank you for pointing that out. What is truly amazing that you believe a casual reader cares about geographic coordinates or even knows how to use them. This is fan-page argumentation, much like who is a better team, the White Sox or the Cubs. Although you have violated another wiki policy, the 3 revert rule WP:3RR, I will not change it back, and violate wiki policy like you have done. This issue should be left to CONSENSUS. Kontar02:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
A couple things, plus a possible compromise.
1) I wasn't saying casual readers need to know the coordinates. I meant that this is a featured article and with all that's involved, its content should be geared toward those who want a complete history of information on the topic. The article isn't about cornell, but this is the birthplace of the group and those really interested in more than a casual view might want to see the location without having to link to cornell to have access to the coordinates. I also believe that wikilinks are a great way to show readers all that wikipedia has to offer, and it's only a click away.
2) I wasn't saying that the coordinates are a minor violation of policy, because I don't think its against policy. Your rule cites address and phone number. The minor part i was referring to is in a FA, the only thing objectional is making use of a wikipedia template. Are you saying that the only time a coordinate can be used is at the top specific article (i.e. Cornell Univeristy). Is there policy on using coordinates? When would be an acceptable use of coordinates outside of the article for that location?
3) i appreciate all interest in APA, but you initially based your removal because it didn't conform to other GLOs, not because of wikipedia policy Your efforts seems like you were targeting this article since you weren't concerned with other GLOS, like PIA, Alpha Kappa Alpha, and others who make use of coordinates.
4) There's nothing in this discussion that shows your attempt at a consensus or compromise. You asked why the coordinates were applicable, I responded, then sometime later you made another statement about policy and updated the article accordingly.
5) Compromise, since you're concerned about the casual reader, why not agree to remove the coordinates from the intro paragraph since this is probably all casual readers will view, and move the coordinates within the article for those who desire a more in-depth knowledge?--Ccson19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Linking articles
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
My only concern about the Prominent Members section is that it may become very long if we try to include each individual Alpha man's page (much like the African American topics template. If we keep it general (List of Brothers, Alpha Firsts, etc) it should remain compact and okay.
I didn't mean to include individual members and I wanted you to use the presidents template instead of the list of 32 names you have listed. I have updated the draft for what i envisioned. Instead of making this an article, I also think you should consider making this a template that can be imbedded into articles.--Ccson03:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed this sentence today, and I'm questioning the source's validity as it pertains to the article:
The history books of Kappa Alpha Psi, Omega Psi Phi and Phi Beta Sigma omit the fraternity's place and contribution to the college Negro fraternal movement. Historian and Alpha archivist Herman Mason has stated, "As a historian who recognizes that laying a foundation for any period of history, I find their omission inexcusable and without merit."
DISCLAIMER: This page is not affiliated with the National Organization. I am not the Historian of the fraternity, just a brother who is and has always been thirsty for more knowledge on this organization. The information provided has been thoroughly researched and documented and is brought to you with all the fraternal love and spirit I possess. Sources are available upon request.
I do not think this can be considered reliable source, especially since the content is not affiliated with the national organization, and the author is not the org's historian. I'm also questioning what benefit it provides to the article. I'm not looking for a conflict, I just don't find this particular to be all that helpful to the article, in fact I find it to be derisive to the other organizations listed. Some thoughts on this? Ccson, I'm assuming you have several :)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Mason own website would be a reliable source for his comments. Concerning your thoughts on the national office, you know very well that if sources were limited to the national office, an article would lose all credibility and its status (see discussion). Yes, it's ostensible you're not a member of a NPHC group, you're affiliated with Alpha Phi Omega, however; your interest in "augmenting" Alpha Phi Alpha and other NPHC orgs is well documented here and here.--Ccson13:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
HISTORY—There were big discussion in Fall 2005 and Fall 2006 contesting APA being the first black GLO, so I guess its time for an anniversary in Fall 2007. The entire paragraph which contains the questionable sentence was added based on that discussion to substantiate that APA was the first. You will not find a similar paragraph concerning BGLOs in the other NPHC articles, and I really don't care if this entire paragraph is removed from the APA article; I just don't want to have that discission again. The comments from Mason and Wesley were added to support the claim. In fact, only a few days ago, another user added text to contest this, see APA. Since Black Greek Letter Organizations is the last paragraph, I hope you enjoyed reading about APA, please continue to keep the regular APA editors on our toes because that's one way to ensure the article continues to be one of the best wikipedia has to offer.--Ccson13:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not looking to contest APA's standing as the oldest BGLO, you and other editors have done a remarkable job with clarifying its place in history. I guess I just don't like seeing GLOs taking stabs at other GLOs. I don't think it is appropriate for this article's to criticize what someone else does or does not have in their history books. I'm not disputing it, I just don't see the value it adds. Since you said you wouldn't object to the paragraph being removed, I'm going to do so. My aim isn't to cover up any history here. I have enjoyed reading about APA, and again hats off to what you've accomplished with this article thus far. Justinm197817:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not really what I said–is it? I was referring to the Black Greek letter Organizations paragraph within the article. You simply removed the "sentence" you found objectionable, not the paragraph I stipulated was only in 1 of the 9 NPHC Black Greek letter organizations. I know you weren't disputing, I was simply providing the basis of why the section was even included and that all text was agreed to as a compromise and hope you would understand why the sentence needed to remain in the article as long as the section Black Greet letter Organizations remained in the article. Why don't you add your revised section to all the NPHC articles?--Ccson21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Monkey phi monkey
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
this looks like some sort of abuse. Alpha phi alpha is the official name, I know at times they are known as Apes but monkey is an odd and in an odd place, the founding of monkey phi monkey? odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.116.147 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I have added both years within the article until we can determine the exact year.
<li.>Charles Wesley states in the 1981 version of "The History of Alpha Phi Alpha", page 244, that the year of integration was 1945.
<li.>The Alpha Phi Alpha national website also indicates the year was 1945.
<li.>Skip Mason gives the exact date as June 21, 1946. While Mason is knoweledgable of the history, for citation purposes with wikipedia; I don't think his personal website trumps the national historian for 7 decades and the national organization. Again, he may be absolutely correct.
Both Mason and the national office can be contacted to resolve which year is correct. If Mason is correct, perhaps he will contact the national office to have its webmaster update the Alpha official website.--Ccson (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Details
The year of integration was indeed 1945; I am not disputing this. I am disputing the fact that you keep removing this brother's references to white brothers completely. Furthermore, you are removing the details of the integration:
<li.>Integration discussed and approved in 1940
<li.>Integration officially voted on in 1945
<li.>Bernard Levin initiated into Theta chapter 1946 (as detailed in the Oct. 1946 issue of Ebony)
<li.>Constitution officially amended in 1952
All of these points will be properly cited when included in the article..--TheTruth007 (talk) 8:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you concerned that the editor continues to rewrite the entire paragraph by removing content and replacing with his own? The details of each action between 1940-1952 aren't that important as even the national office only alludes to the year 1945. The specific chapter for Levin is not important to the reader and I would gather from his name Levin that he's Jewish, not white as the editor indicates. I didn't remove all references to white members since Youmans address in 1954 was included in my version. This article is already exceeding the size for a normal article and including all the gory details is just impractical. we just want to show when the group became interracial, not all the ranglings and politics that occured at conventions between 1940 and 1952. There are over 100 references in the article to accomdate inquiring readers who want to know/verify/explore the details of any text within the article. I'll change article to say Levin was inducted in 1946, see if this is satisfactory.
I'm sort of confused as to why "Jewish, not white" should be a concept. Just because someone is a jew doesn't mean that they aren't white. They certainly aren't a WASP, and some of the NIC Fraternities didn't allow Jews, but I'd be very surprised if the Alpha Phi Alpha by-laws distinguished among religions for those who aren't of African-American descent.Naraht (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Naraht, Hello, long time no hear from, but I'm glad to see you;re still keeping me on my toes. The race/religion of the member is not important, but if you say first white or jew, then someone will include the first chinese, mexican, puerto rican, German, etc. The point of the text is to indicate when the first non-negro or non-black if you will, was initiated, and therefore the fraternity was integrated. In point of fact, the source which the editor sites says ' the first non-Black member of Alpha Phi Alpha", so unless he has another reference to ensure Levin was white, we should stick with the current source which I also believe is reliable. Also, my grandfather was half-jewish so what am I?--Ccson (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Cite #103
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't dispute that there is likely to be a place for the Seven Architects on this page, but is this the poster that was actually producted on the issues of voting? If so, is there additional text missing that accompanied the poster?Naraht (talk) 18:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
First or Oldest?
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion
Alpha Kappa Nu was founded in 1903; however; the main reason its not listed as the first is because it never received a charter from Indiana University. Gamma Phi ostensibly has a charter, but we need to know if the March 1, 1905 date is when wilberforce recognized Gamma Phi as an official group or is this the date when Gamma Phi members first met to discuss becoming a chartered organization? School recognition is what should control in my opinion.--Ccson (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The definition of inter collegiate is what is key here. I found a neutral link [11] which defines it as being
of, pertaining to, or representative of two or more colleges.
adj. Involving or representing two or more colleges.
Alpha Kappa Nu [12] wasn't an intercollegiate organization. It only had one chapter if you would call it a chapter. Thus it was only collegiate. The definition of intercollegiate is involving two or more colleges. It was not recognized so far as we know by the school as a fraternity, most likely just as a club.
Gamma Phi had multiple chapters which made it intercollegiate by definition.. Also Alpha Phi Alpha was first brought together in early 1906. I believe March, but finally became an established fraternity in Dec 1906. Thus it was founded on Dec 7, 1906. That is it's recognized founding date, Dec 1906. It was chartered in I believe 1907 (which is when the school recognized the fraternity), but I don't have any references on that. In terms of Gamma Phi, it was founded in March 1905. The Wilberforce school yearbook, The Forcean, as shown in Black Greek 101 states 1905. Which would show that the school officially recognized that the fraternity was founded in 1905. Thus establishing recognition. In all reality though I don't see the relation of having a charter to the argument. It doesn't take away from the date of when the Fraternity was founded in 1905 and the fact that it did have other chapters outside of Wilberforce University. Thus establishing intercollegiate. SexyNupe2000 (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Basing off my interjection below. I believe the changing of first inter collegiate fraternity to "the oldest surviving" should be made being that new reliable data is available. QueDog (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems as though most sources indicate that Alpha Phi Alpha was the earliest national black fraternity. One of the sources provided in support of Gamma Phi's earlier claim status supports this claim, referring to Gamma Phi as among the predecessor attempts (previous to the later national fraternities), along with Alpha Kappa Nu.[13] It is correct, according to the vast majority of sources, to clearly state that Alpha Phi Alpha is the earliest national black fraternity. Conflicting claims to the status of the earliest intercollegiate or national fraternity of this sort should probably not be addressed in this article, considering the uniform support of Alpha Phi Alpha's status in most reliable sources. If a fair number of reputable references explicitly make claims to the contrary, a passing mention of this fact and the reasons those sources present would be appropriate. Otherwise, we should stick to the sources, which place Alpha Phi Alpha as the earliest of its particular kind. Vassyana (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Question for the masses. I understand the issues surrounding the latest revert war, but if the material is cited, is there a reason it's not being added, or is it being removed mainly due to the user contributing? Not trying to pick a fight, but if this is verifiable content, doesn't it belong? Or is the content being added coming from an unreliable source? I'm certainly not familiar enough with the subject at hand to really offer an opinion either way, I'm more curious. The fact that it appears to be coming from the same editor doesn't lend much credence to it being valid, but it seems to be more than just vandalism to me. Justinm1978 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it's most likely coming from a banned user (even the checkuser didn't confirm it, it certainly didn't deny it, either). Suppose somehow this wasn't coming from Mykungfu, but a real honest-to-goodness new user. Would that merit discussion on the talk page? I honestly don't know anything about APhiA's history other than what is on the article page, so when something like this comes forth, I become curious, especially because the history is given in such great detail on the article, and the new user's contributions are also quite detailed. I'm not lending validity to the contribution, but asking just how unreliable are the sources (ignoring who presented them) so if/when this becomes an issue again, other editors can have an understanding of where the reasoning for keeping it out comes from. Justinm1978 (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it's him. We all know it's him. 1.) IPs match up for SN2000 2.) Sufficient knowledge of policy. 3.) Even though checkuser could not relate the IPs, he could be/is traveling and use different IPs to create accounts. miranda01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
So does anybody know why he is so insistent on placing this information here? It's a lot of stuff and is supposedly cited (I haven't looked through much of it), and he keeps ban-evading to put it here. Putting aside who is putting it, does the information itself have any merit? I'm not saying to integrate it into the article, I'm just asking to satisfy my own curiosity. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure of the motivation, but I do see why these individuals might want to surpress this information. APHIA is a strong organization with great history. There did exist growing pains that might take aways from what they believe to its great history. That might be the reason. QueDog (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Since MKF says he not really sure of his motivation, let me take a stab at it. IT IS A FRAT PRANK. MKF has stated that he is a member of Kappa Alpha Psi, a friendly "rival" frat to Alpha (not to be confused with Omega Psi Phi, or the "Quedogs" as implied by the sock above. Some Kappas claim (mistakenly, according to their history book) that Kappa was founded before Alpha, because at the school where they were founded, there had been a failed attempt to form a non-related organization, Alpha Kappa Nu, in 1903. MKF attempted to blanket this info into wiki articles related to Black organizations such as Alpha and Kappa, until he got pushback from wiki editors within his own claimed fraternity about trying to insert the claim into the Kappa Alpha Psi article. Sometime around this point he decided to try to insert pretty much anything he believed to be disparaging or embarrassing into the Alpha article. To his dismay, I suppose, editors such as CCson actually worked with him to edit "embarrassing" entries (such as hazing) while discrediting factually incorrect or suspect cites MKF tried to push (so-called "supression), until Alpha became a featured article. The reason MKF cites Walter Kimbrough and "www.TheKappaStore.com" (?) so heavily, is because other sources that mention "Gamma Phi," another early attempt, still recognize Alpha Phi Alpha as the first successful attempt at an intercollegiate African-American fraternal organization. keep in mind, even with some of the off-the-wall stuff, MKF has still been asked just to take it to the talk page and discuss it. the problem is, if he/she can't insert his POV into an article, he resorts to socks to circumvent polling, 3RR and bans. i could go on, but that is far more than enough than merits explaining in defending "suppression" accusations from a banned editor.-RoBoTamice14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The same material has been discussed throughout several years and consensus has been gained on why some material was included and some was not included. This particular editor represents issues that he wasn't satified as being excluded such as C.C. Poindexter and this discussion is in one of the archived talk pages. He's refuting info in the Alpha history book because not everyone has a copy. The book is available in most public and college libraries for anyone who wants to verify the source. Regarding his claim of Kappa being he first interracial, their constitution never limited membership based on race, however; they never admitted anyone other than African Americans until Alpha became interracial, that's why Alpha says there're the first to actually have an interracial membership. The Alpha article admits membership was restricted to Negros and then they were the first to initiate a non-negro. Regarding Morton as a founder and being replaced with Jones, it's documented in the Founding section and the History 1950-1969 section of the article. The user also has claimed to be a member of Alpha. Regarding the first initiates, the history 1950-1969 section list Morton as one of the first initiates, which means he really wasn't a founder, Jones was also one of the first initiates as stipulated in the hisotry book. I don't have a problem with listing all four initiates, but the other two weren't relevant to the fraternity. My point is that this user is only searching for info which seems scandalous or nefarious, or that which seems the groups did something underhanded, or makes false claims. Again, we've had these discussions before and we shouldn't have to prove it to each new user (although he's the same user), they should just be pointed to the archived discussion.
Thanks for the information and background. This makes a lot more sense to me now, and while I understand that these discussions have taken place in the past, I think it's always good to occasionally bring them up, especially if perceptually new information has come to light. I've seen this stuff added to the article before, but previously it wasn't as well-cited. Now I understand a bit more of the history, and the fact that this is addressed elsewhere in the article helps too. Justinm1978 (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Hi, I noticed you are looking for some help on disputes on the case, and listed it at the mediation cabal. If you'd like, I'd be happy to help out. Let me know if you want me to help out, or if you'd rather have someone else to help you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
the user who requested mediation has no contributions since he created the request, was only a wikipedian for 2 days, and he never attempted to resolve the issues on the talk page.--Ccson (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The mediation has been requested, and I'm offering to help out as a mediator. If you believe the subject would be helped more if you further discuss it here first, or if you'd rather get a third opinion per WP:3O, that is fine as well. Just know that mediation is an option, even if not every step in the dispute resultion process is followed. Coming to an agreement is more important than following processes. Let me know here, or on my talkpage, which action you prefer. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
ROF is now blocked. If MKF pops up with a new sock attacking me/harrassing me or others/POV pushing APA/filing SSP and checkusers, report to ANI please to block this user. miranda21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to remove date-autoformatting
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Disadvantages of date-autoformatting
(1) In-house only
(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
(4) Typos and misunderstood coding
(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
(5) Edit-mode clutter
(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
(6) Limited application
(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and I have no intention of arguing with people's feelings on the issue. Tony(talk)12:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I would support this change, largely due to the first and third reasons mentioned above. I've always thought that date-autoformatting is merely an option, not a requirement. As such, I doubt you will meet much opposition. ŁittleÄlien¹8² (talk\contribs) 17:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Skip Mason as the next installed president.
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
NOTE: Herman "Skip" Mason is the General President-Elect of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. He officially takes office on January 1, 2009 with his inauguration is to be held the weekend of January 23 - 25, 2009 at the Atlanta Marquis Hotel in Atlanta, GA. --Mills (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
To date there has been no official release noting the "General President-Elect" and "General President" distinctions. Having participated in the most recent General Convention, when the announcement was made, will contact the Corporate Office to obtain clarity on what publicly available documentation can be cited for these purposes. --Mills (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, until you have a publicly reliable source which substantiates what you have edited, please replace my original text in which I did provide a reliable and verfiable source. Again, this is a featured article (FA) and all information must be verifiable from the moment it is entered; otherwise, the FA status can be challenged. See Original research. thanks.
The official fraternity media release regarding the convention was released on the fraternity web site (see here for details). It outlines that Alpha Brother Herman "Skip" Mason will be the 33rd General President with his term beginning in January 2009. Also reported at THE BLACK COLLEGIAN Online and BlackNews.com (reprinted). -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to re-read the release, it names Bro. Skip Mason as "Genereal President-elect;" the Black Collegian article is based upon a release issued by Bro. Skip Mason's campaign team. There has been no official communique from the fraternity's corporate office, stating other than what's on the website. Having spoken with the appropriate leaders, it was noted an official release is forthcoming and will be distributed to all media networks, at the appropriate time. --Mills (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Symbols
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
While many often, loosely, use a pharoah's bust/head or the pyramids of Gaza as "symbols" of Alpha Phi Alpha, it should be noted the only recognized (and approved) fraternal "symbol" or emblem of the fraternity is the Sphinx of Gaza. Additionally, there is nothing within the Fraternity's history books, archives (located at Cornell University, Guide to the Alpha Phi Alpha Records, 1910-2006 and Howard University's Moorland-Spingarn_Research_Center) or ritualistic documents referring to Apes as "symbols" of the Fraternity, therefore, any references of such should be removed. --Mills (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
see this article by Skip Mason which refers to Apes within the fraternity. [Apes]
I think you're right about the pyramids and pharoah, but even the official shield has the pyramids in the back, and the Great Sphinx if really a pharoah's head on the body of a lion. I'll get back to you on this.--Ccson (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess these are not official symbols so I will remove them from the info fraternity box. I don't agree with your term "loosely used" because the Pyramids are on the shield and again my reference to the article by Mason regarding "ape". The text within the section Egyptian symbolism will remain.--Ccson (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In all fairness, if you re-read Skip's article it does not refer to apes as a "symbol" of the fraternity, but as a stage of development.
Furthermore, following the line of reasoning you use one would presume that because there's a knight's helmet, an escheteon, a wreath of colors, a torch, mantling, fess, and torches, that these elements should also be considered fraternal symbols, correct? In other words, because an organization's shield or coat-of-arms contains multiple elements or symbols, it is unfair designate those as "symbols."
The more appropriate action would be to use the official symbol as designated by the Fraternity.
As one of the Brothers who teaches the organization's "Ritual" workshop, the accurate statement would be to say that the Sphinx of Gaza (or Sphinx for short) is our emblem.
Finally, the term "loosely" was not an indictment of you, but more of the fact that often times anything representing Egyptian antiquity is associated with Alpha. While this is admirable, it is historicallyl innacurate. Please forgive the offense.
NOTE: After reviewing the fraternity's Consitution & By-Laws (2007, p. 5), wanted to note a correction. According to this document, the symbols are "...the Greek letters: ALPHA PHI ALPHA." --Mills (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
How long have you been teaching the organization's "Ritual Workshop"? See footnotes 2 and 3 and the paragrpahs where they are quoted. The text for footnote 2 says the group would be known by the Greek Leters Alpha Phi Alpha, (a reader may interpreted this as symbols and where the info was taken from and recorded in the constitution which says they are symbosl which you have cited. The text for footnote 3 indicates the fraternity was organized with the Great Sphix of Giza as their symbol. I guess there are at least 2 symbols, and someone else may point us to yet another document which list another icon.--Ccson (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, your point is partially why the earlier comments were made. If we go by the "literal" statement, then the only symbols that should be used are the greek letters for Alpha Phi Alpha. Even the "Sphinx of Giza" is only listed as our "emblem." Agree?
After having sat under Bro. Ryle Bell's (Eastern Region) tuteledge for a few years, I've begun teaching and updating the the ritual workshop information. Would love to converse with you "off-line." Mentioned to Bro. Matthew and Bro. Hall last night that you all were doing a yoeman's job maintaing the "Alpha-related" pages. --Mills (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
founding
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
when a fraternity is founded before others wouldn't it be considered to be the first?
Phi Betta Kappa is generally recognized as the first fraternity, everything else follows; however, some groups have qualified "first" with jewish, social, founded at a HBCU, etc, which may be true. If your question is to Phi Beta Kappa, the answer is "yes", Did you want to qualify your question?--Ccson (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:JesseOwens 1936Olympics.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The image File:JesseOwens 1936Olympics.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Latest comment: 15 years ago27 comments10 people in discussion
All,
I have updated the founding of Alpha Phi Alpha to provide more of a holistic story of the founding of Alpha Phi Alpha. My sources are derived from Cornell University itself where I studied as an undergrad. I am also a brother in the fraternity and used Dr. Wesley's book to back up my claims. The information, perhaps not often seen comes from our open archives in the Kroch Library at Cornell University.
When I first posted the change, it was removed due to it not being neutral. I have since changed the founding to be more of a neutral stance on the founding of Alpha Phi Alpha. I actually include more of the history of Cornell University —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.94.121 (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Justinm1978, the history of Cornell as it relates to Alpha Phi Alpha belongs here, this expounds on the early history of black cornellians at Cornell. This is important. These edits are not peakcockish. Are you are brother? I will replace them and continue to make edits. They do not present a non neutral stance.
I also changed the order of the colors, its old gold and black not vice versa. Also on the picture the society was Alpha Phi Alpha society until 1906 when it became Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. In addition, APA was found in Ithaca, not on the 'campus' of cornell university. Blacks could not live on the campus nor convene on the campus of Cornell university at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexboy1 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not I am a brother of APA has nothing to do with this. Your comment on that it was founded in Ithaca and not at Cornell is directly contrary to what the national website says on that matter. You are free to continue to make edits, but be aware that you are not the only one who can edit, and as this is a feature article, any and all edits will get scrutinized (not just yours, mine included). Justinm1978 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I know that I am not the only one that can make edits. I will continue to refine this article, per what some of my brothers have stated. I will be having some leadership in Alpha look at this page and offer some critique. All I ask is that you please refrain from changing it back so that these brothers can see these changes and we can tone it down from there. Thanks for keeping an eye out on this page, but I would be more comfortable knowing that you were a fellow brother making these changes and not just someone trying to police wikipedia.
Alpha was founded in Ithaca by Cornell students. By virtue it was in fact found at Cornell University. Yet 411 E. State St. is not Cornell property or was affiliated with the University at any time in its history. We give Cornell University that right because Alpha Phi Alpha was found for college men on college campuses, so it makes sense to say that Alpha Phi Alpha was found at Cornell. I will NEVER deny that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexboy1 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Alpha Phi Alpha does not own this article, and neither do you. Your comfort level with another editor making changes here has no bearing at all in what the content of this article contain. Your request to have me refrain from editing so someone else can review your changes is not appropriate. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Anything with Alpha Phi Alpha on it, as it is shown to the rest of the world is our business. While we may not own this article we certainly have every right to make sure it is the best it can be. If anyone can put slander, insulting comments and inaccurate information up on this site then what credibility does this lend to wikipedia? If you are not a brother then by all means please refrain from changing this page to reflect some ideal notion of how wikipedia is suppose to be. Why do you have such a profound interest in policing this page? Again, thanks for the comments but I will continue to update said page.Blexboy1 (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexboy1 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Blexboy1 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not denying that you can update the page, I am telling you that per Wikipedia policy, you have zero right to tell me that I can or can not update this page. This is not a place for APA to advertise itself. You can't restrict editing of a page only to members, that is a direct conflict of interest. What this page says about APA is not APA's business, it is Wikipedia's. Justinm1978 (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Blexboy1: Pretty much what Justinm1978 said. Much of your edits—both in the content you are adding and its style of phrasing—are unsuitable. Additionally, often the wording is not only over-elaborate, but is very dated in style; it doesn't necessarily show plagiarism, but makes us think; just saying. I'm happy to give you a few examples, at your request, using the wording you added. Wikipedia core content policies require all content is written from a neutral point of view, and is verifiable to a reliable source; the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. By looking at the article a reader should not be able to tell if the contributors were 'sympathetic' or in 'opposition' to the fraternity—or what the contributors thought at all. –Whitehorse121:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
By updating what was INACCURATE information I am not advertising APA, I am simply updating, going with the times, or what ever catch phrase makes sense here. This page is not for recruiting purposes, but as wikipedia's says for "information purposes". One would assume that the information here would be up to date. No I cannot stop you from changing anything on this page that you would like, but as good stewards of information I would hope that you would yield the updating of this page to someone who has a vested interest in this fraternity and has the accurate information to update it. What this page says about APA is APA's business because we will make sure it remains accurate updated information. Wikipedia, is made of people seeking to create a medium by which information can be shared and easily available, wikipedia is not you or me its all of us willing to share information. So when you say this page is wikipedia's business alone that is legally incorrect....I wont go into the legalities but any information that is posted about an IRS affiliate, 501c group, legal entity on an open network becomes the business of that group. If this were not the case then anyone could slander APA's name and potentially harm its rep. I'm glad that copyright, internet laws exist or else you would actually make sense with your claims.71.178.145.62 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to go into legalities either, but realize that you're not exactly correct in this regard. It is not APA's place to "make sure that this information is correct", since that can lead to censorship. The fact that you have a vested interest is a direct conflict of interest and is reason enough why you shouldn't be editing this article as much as you are. Also, do note that this is a neutral article, and removing of information that paints APA in a bad light (such as the removal of the "Hell Week" citation) is not keeping with that spirit of neutrality. Actions like that can make one question your motives in contributing to this article. I'm not making any accusations, I'm just saying what it can look like. Justinm1978 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the hell week citation because according to the fraternity aim and missions, and you have cited the national headquarter's website often, hell week and such are not sanctioned by the fraternity. I have every right as a user of this site to keep BS, slander etc off this page. I would not be a good steward of information if I did not. If anyone is fervently committed to a topic it is not wrong to update, and/or advocate for this topic. By me updating this as I am, does not bias this article or myself. Thanks for this convo71.178.145.62 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Just because they don't endorse it now doesn't mean it didn't happen THEN. This is white-washing bias, and is unacceptable. I'm going to be removing your edits and restoring the article back to how it was a couple of days ago, since your cited source fails WP:V. Justinm1978 (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It was added back in good-faith by another editor. Whether hell week and such are/were sanctioned by the fraternity is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you don't "like" that a particular thing happened or don't "want" it included in the article. What matters, is whether a reliable source states that it happened. In this case, I looked at the online source and it did not appear to back up the sentence in the article. So, I removed it and explained why in my edit summary. (The source, a then-archivist, had interviewed a DST alumna, discussing her experiences in that org.) If my good-faith belief turns out to be incorrect, another editor may re-add it. That is how it works here. –Whitehorse122:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I have alerted other brothers about the content of this page. They will be looking for corrections and critique just as I have. But anything in the article that cannot be backed by a quality source I will remove every time I see it. There are no points that need to be proven by adding certain things back in to this article. Just as was said earlier, no one owns this article so expect more changes in the coming days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.145.62 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I took out the part about Alpha Kappa Nu at University of Indiana, because the ref failed. I saw two conflicting stories so I thought it best to remove it.
I added back in the founding section because that analysis was not biased and was backed by two diff sources.
I took out the "hell week" comment because I could not find where this ref came from. I researched the link but was unable to substantiate this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.4.123 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I took out the essay since it is not published online for verification and backed up with an online source. Also see early black cornellians.68.34.4.123 (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. I have requested page protection. The vast majority of this stuff is trivial, and the stuff that isn't trivial belongs in the Cornell article. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've opposed it. From what I can see, we now have IP-editors—like the one immediately above— making careful, measured and good-faith attempts to understand verification/reliable-sourcing importance, and work within 'pedia community norms & policies. I'm very reluctant to disallow editing like that. –Whitehorse123:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Justinnm1978 you are taking this personal. I think it would be best if you moved on and stop over concerning yourself with this article. You care a lot about APhiO and you take a vested interest in updating that site, per wikipedia's rules that is out of line as well.
"This period is the time the pledge learns of the organization's history, principles and tenacity of brotherhood. For more than nine decades an Alpha Phi Alpha Pledge was initially referred to as a "Sphinxman", and later an "Ape" during "Hell Week" when pledges were submitted to compounded endurances.[1]"
The information above is not accurate. I re-checked this ref and it FAILS! This article says nothing like it is written. I am going to report your neglect to wikipedia. I have taken all the above critique well and have began to re-do and adhere to the rules for wikipedia. Now you are taking this personal. Thank you whitehorse1, I am seriously going in and checking all of the references to make sure that this information can be backed up.
I agree with Justinm. The information on Cornell University, the beliefs of Ezra Cornell, or the use/purpose of Annie Singleton have no critical basis on how Alpha was founded. Any reader of this article certainly can click on the link for Cornell University if they want detailed info on the school and its founder.--Ccson (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry Ccson but you are wrong. The very development of Alpha Phi Alpha hinged from the foundation and development of Cornell. While I agree that folks who want to know more about cornell can visit the page, please do not think that Alpha Phi Alpha and the history of Cornell do not go hand in hand. Please do your research, and if you are a brother do more than read Wesley, actually visit Cornell and read the archives hand written by the founders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.144.247 (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No. It might go hand-in-hand if the founders decided to apply to cornell because of its background and thought we might create a society that mimics cornell, yet there is no history to show they knew each other before attending cornell and/or that Alpha could not have been founded at other historically white institutions of its day, particulary other ivy leagues schools such as cornell. The history states they wanted to mimic white fraternities on campus, not the founding of cornell, and of course white fraternities existed at many other white institutions.--Ccson (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, who do you think Wesley spoke with regarding the founding of Alpha, probably the founders and they either omitted what you want to add, their views on the founding changed over the years, and/or Wesley simply thought it was relevant to the founding of Alpha which is why it hasn't been included in over the many editons he made to the fraternity's history book because surely Wesley had read what you say is currently available at cornell.--Ccson (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you make very loose claims about the history. I argue simply, that the founders did know stuff about Cornell's legacy and willingness to accept students of color. In addition, they knew of the programs Cornell offered its students (engineering, architecture etc). Perhaps the Jewels did not know each other before going to Cornell, and I never make that claim, it is nebulous to think that they did not research Cornell before hand and come to a valued conclusion. Furthermore, Cornell had and still has the third largest Inter-fraternity Council in the country. During that time White Fraternities were large and influential. No other College around NY has that in depth of an IFC. Yes they were at other schools, but history books will tell you that many of them at other schools were somewhat sacrosanct in their doings, whereas at Cornell this was not the case.
Many of the jewels lived around NY and had ties to upstate. Their hearing of the Niagara movement, early blacks in Ithaca, and the suitable programs at Cornell led the jewels to Cornell. Cornell, having been founded by progressive NY state senators availed itself to negro advancement. Where there were still acts of racism and hatred Blacks were able to study there and progress, unlike other schools. Alpha Phi Alpha was a result of these happenings which I also argue are divine. Be rest assured that Cornell was chosen divinely as the place for the birth of Alpha Phi Alpha, the most sweeping and influential group of men of African descent in this world. I will not yield on that one.
Perhaps you should read beyond Wesley. And for your information, archives at Cornell did not come until after the first edition of the history book was published. Brothers in Alpha Chapter with Cornell aggressively acquired the archives we see today. I spent four years at Cornell looking into early blacks at Cornell. I will leave the conversation there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.144.122 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
What you have stated could be the story of every minority student on any predominantly white campus in the early 1900s, and even today on some campuses. Whether the archivies were available before/after first history book, they were avaialable before Wesely died and he could surely have updated the information in the more than 10 editions he authored. Wesley didn't need the archives because had access to the the Jewels and could cite them first hand if they had told him of Alpha's divine founding at Cornell; surely they knew what led them to found Alpha. I'm not saying the founders didn't share this with Wesely, but that Wesley (a noted historian on more than Alpha) did not find this information vital to include in over 400 pages of the history book, and I and other editors don't believe it vital in this abbreviated encyclopedia form on Alpha. You don't have to yield to your personal opinions; however, you must gain consensus from other editors if you believe that God "divinely" chose Cornell and placed all the jewels there for the intended purpose of the creation of Alpha. There are over 100 references in this article and most of the are NOT from Wesley. Finally, your 4 years of research is simply that, original research.--Ccson (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have further question regarding this article or general help/questions with wikipedia--Ccson (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Channing H. Tobias was initiated into Eta Chapter - in the Alpha Phi Alpha page the chapter was listed as unknown. (Wesley, 247).
George W. Gore was initiated into Tau Lambda Chapter - in the Alpha Phi Alpha page the chapter this was also listed as unknown, (Wesley, 246).
Source
Wesley, Charles H., (1929). The History of Alpha Phi Alpha: A Development in College Life (eleventh edition). Foundation Publishers.
Chicago, IL. (1969). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juju1906 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
And perhaps dodgy assertion too:
each newly elected president is automatically considered one of the "100 most influential Black Americans."<ref name=alphavideo>{{cite video |people=Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity |title=Alpha Phi Alpha Men: "A Century of Leadership'' |medium=Video |publisher=Rubicon Productions |date=2005}}</ref>
Something like this needs an independent printed source. (For one thing, videos don't make assertions. Rather, nameable people talking within videos tend to do so.) And who thus considers him? -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this fact comes from Ebony magazine's annual (est 1963) "The Most Influential Black Americans," they now call it the Ebony Power 150. In fact, a number of presidents of the nine Black Greek orgnizations are automatically listed. Here are links for 2003 and 2004 when Harry Johnson was listed and in 2008 when the president of Alpha Kappa Alpha was listed. Darryl Matthes listed in 2008 (PDF).
The president of AKA is also on the 2003 and 2004 list. There are 46 issues, probably not all available online.
Thank you for the thoughtful and helpful reply. How about:
From 1963, see Ebony's annual "The Most Influential Black Americans" (recently retitled "Ebony Power 150").
Of course this would be rather unusual as a Wikipedia footnote, but there's no rule mandating one drily formatted source per note. -- Hoary (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Legal (or not) mumbojumbo
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
We're told:
The Secretary of State of New York accepted the incorporation of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity on January 29, 1908.
Does this mean any more than that APAF was incorporated within NY state at that date, and if so, what? -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Within this pair of edits, I removed three (or more) incidents of "official".
It seems to me that if an organization has a crest, magazine, journal, or whatever, this can be presumed to be official unless stated otherwise.
For all I know, there may also be a magazine that one could call an "unofficial AΦA magazine". But it's unlikely that anyone knowledgable would call that "AΦA's magazine". So "official" hardly serves to distinguish from unofficial, and the word thus strikes me as superfluous.
there are some "unofficial" publicatons from chapters, regions, etc., but that's not important--your point is well taken. thanksCcson (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
technical restructure
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I am considering restructuring the page a bit to help with the overload of graphics and quotes. basically this would involve moving a number of the images to a gallery at the end of the document, and reorganizing the remaining graphics and quotes to fit better on the page (I'm also considering rebuilding the infobox fraternity template, but that's a secondary concern). would there be any objection s to that? --Ludwigs204:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The box that lists the national programs of the fraternity needs to be cleaned up. We only have 3 national programs. There are partnerships with March of Dimes/Babies, Boy Scouts of America, Big Brother/ Big Sister, etc., but currently we only have 3 national programs. Thanks.[1]PhrozenAPE06 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
List of Alpha Phi Alpha conventions almost ready for mainspace.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've been working on User:Naraht/apac for a week or so and it has gotten fairly extension. Before it gets moved into mainspace, I'd like to have an intro paragraph. It doesn't need to be as extensive as the one for List of Phi Beta Sigma conclaves, but I wouldn't mind if it was. :) Also a similar paragraph can be added to the Alpha Phi Alpha page and the convention page could be added there with {{main| or it could be under a see also. I'm open to ideas!Naraht (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Martin Luther King, Jr Memorial at Dusk.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An image used in this article, File:Martin Luther King, Jr Memorial at Dusk.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This is an archive of past discussions about Alpha Phi Alpha. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I want to call attention to this particular section. Besides the misspelling of the section's name, I'm not sure that this should be a separate section at all. Perhaps it could be merged with Section 3.1: Membership Intake? The links are also inconsistent with the linking schema of the rest of this article.
Also, should the the actual membership fees be listed at all? I ask on the grounds that a) no other organizations list their membership fees on their respective pages; and b) these fees change from one year to the next.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following statement is in the article: "the activities for the fraternity are oversaw by..." and should be stated "the activities of the fraternity are overseen by..." 76.166.131.37 (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Dr.H. Barnes
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Alpha Phi Alpha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Alpha Phi Alpha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Alpha Phi Alpha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 27 external links on Alpha Phi Alpha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Alpha Phi Alpha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alpha Phi Alpha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Alpha Phi Alpha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Alpha Phi Alpha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The statement "There are many lawsuits, suspensions, expulsions, and news stories in existence in regards to misconduct involving Alpha Phi Alpha" is misleading as the term "many" expresses an opinion.
The "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" states...
Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.
Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player. But they will not argue over this.
Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But "Who?" and "How many?" are natural objections. An exception is a situation where a phrase such as "Most people think" can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of a survey of opinions within the group.
The statement in contention is a fact, not a opinion. Quite frankly there's mountain of evidence validating that Alpha Phi Alpha is a problematic organization in regards to misconduct and hazing violations. How many examples of these violations do you need for many to apply? Anyone familiar with Alpha Phi Alpha knows this to be truth. After only 15 minutes of research and I found 10 new stories of serious hazing and misconduct violations involving the fraternity. In fact, in 2010 the violations got so bad that the national headquarters stopped all membership intake in a futile attempt to redress the issue.[3].Broadmoor (talk)
Detailing hazing is not the issue. Some of your edits clearly inject non-neutral editorial, and stretch or omit the "facts" to state things actually not said in your citations. A "mountain of evidence" does not need such help. 137.200.32.54 (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Adding POV & Weight tags. Editor admits NNPOV on talk page ("Quite frankly there's mountain of evidence validating that Alpha Phi Alpha is a problematic organization in regards to misconduct and hazing violations. How many examples of these violations do you need for many to apply? Anyone familiar with Alpha Phi Alpha knows this to be truth."), and some of the statements do not match source material. Also, hazing is already discussed in another section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.200.32.54 (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
All statements match source material, if not show which one. I did not admit to NNPOV, you misinterpreted my words. Serious hazing incidents are a big part of the fraternity identity and culture, many of these hazing incidents made headline news and affects the fraternity reputation heavily. All fraternities with a culture of pervasive hazing incidents has this section, Alpha Phi Alpha is no exception. The problem here is censorship of an unflattering yet truthful narrative. The fraternity page sounds more like an advertisement and lacks neutrality but I don't see you attempting to correcting that. Broadmoor (talk)
Reinstating the removal of the the following citations as they don't follow NPOV and do not contain factual information:
In 1989, Joel Harris, age 18, a student at Morehouse College, died after suffering from what the Cobb County medical examiner's office called "an intensive amount of anxiety and stress" after a night of hazing. Harris had been punched in the chest and slapped in the face multiple times as part of a so-called "thunder and lightning" ritual hours before his death.[4]
Statement at issue "died after suffering from what the Cobb County medical examiner's office called "an intensive amount of anxiety and stress"" As cited in the article "The medical examiner's report didn't declare the hazing to be a "direct cause" of Joel's death, but it stated that he was "under an intensive amount of anxiety and stress" that night." [5]
In 1992, Gregory R. Batipps, age 20, a student at the University of Virginia, died in a car accident after falling asleep at the wheel. He was sleep-deprived due to hazing while pledging Alpha Phi Alpha.[6]
Statement at issue "He was sleep-deprived due to hazing." "Sgt. James Bond said county police were working with the school to determine whether hazing might have been one of the causative factors in the accident." [7]
In 2008, Mcandy Douarin, age 26, a student at the University of Central Florida (UCF), died of hazing induced heart failure while pledging Alpha Phi Alpha. Douarin shared with his family that he was frequently punched in the chest by members of Alpha Phi Alpha as part of the pledging process and his family released photos of bruises on his chest to validate that was the reason why he died. Despite the released photos and statements from UCF students validating Douarin was pledging the fraternity, the university refused to launch an investigation on any allegations against them after the fraternity stated Douarin had not officially applied for membership. The family hired an attorney to help hold the fraternity accountable for his death.[8][9]
Statement at issue "died of hazing induced heart failure while pledging Alpha Phi Alpha." "A university representative said UCF has looked into his death, but there isn’t evidence of wrongdoing and the case has been closed." [10]
On January 29, 2016, Bradley Doyley, a senior and basketball player at Buffalo State College was pronounced dead as a result of a pledging hazing ritual. Doyley as a pledge was asked to drink an unidentified toxic cocktail off campus by members of Alpha Phi Alpha that caused him to suddenly vomit blood according to a close family friend. Doyley was taken to a local hospital for an emergency surgery where he eventually died. The chapter connected with the death of Doyley has been suspended by the college and members of the fraternity are under investigation for homicide charges. Doyley was four months away from graduation.[166]
Statement at issue "pronounced dead as a result of a pledging hazing ritual." A published report Tuesday suggests police are finding no evidence of hazing in last week's death of a Buffalo State College student." [11]
The citations fail to list outcomes, such as cased where the cause of death was not determined to be caused by hazing. Or, in other cases, non-neutral language was utilized.
Rattler98 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Updated Rattler98 (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
^"Archived copy". Archived from the original on December 8, 2015. Retrieved 2015-11-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
ORIGINAL: In 1989, Joel Harris, age 18, a student at Morehouse College, died after suffering from what the Cobb County medical examiner's office called "an intensive amount of anxiety and stress" after a night of hazing. Harris had been punched in the chest and slapped in the face multiple times as part of a so-called "thunder and lightning" ritual hours before his death.[1]
EDIT: In 1989, Joel Harris an Alpha Phi Alpha aspirant, age 18, a student at Morehouse College died following suspected hazing. The medical examiners report “The medical examiner's report “didn't declare the hazing to be a "direct cause" of Joel's death, but it stated that he was "under an intensive amount of anxiety and stress" that night. It was reported that Harris had been punched in the chest and slapped in the face multiple times as part of a so-called "thunder and lightning" ritual hours before his death. [2]
ORIGINAL: In 1992, Gregory R. Batipps, age 20, a student at the University of Virginia, died in a car accident after falling asleep at the wheel. He was sleep-deprived due to hazing while pledging Alpha Phi Alpha.[3]
EDIT: In 1992, Gregory R. Batipps, age 20, a student at the University of Virginia, died in a car accident after falling asleep at the wheel. Hazing was investigated as a factor in his death as he was pledging Alpha Phi Alpha.In 1992, Gregory R. Batipps, age 20, a student at the University of Virginia, died in a car accident after falling asleep at the wheel.[4]
ORIGINAL: In 2008, Mcandy Douarin, age 26, a student at the University of Central Florida (UCF), died of hazing induced heart failure while pledging Alpha Phi Alpha. Douarin shared with his family that he was frequently punched in the chest by members of Alpha Phi Alpha as part of the pledging process and his family released photos of bruises on his chest to validate that was the reason why he died. Released photos and statements from UCF students validating Douarin was pledging the fraternity, the university refused to launch an investigation on any allegations against them after the fraternity stated Douarin had not officially applied for membership. The family hired an attorney to help hold the fraternity accountable for his death.[5][6]
EDIT: In 2008, Mcandy Douarin, age 26, a student at the University of Central Florida (UCF), died from "heart-related failure less than 12 hours after a punch to his chest." [7] Douarin shared with his family that he was frequently punched in the chest by members of Alpha Phi Alpha as part of the pledging process and his family released photos of bruises on his chest to validate that was the reason why he died. UCF students released photos and statements substantiating that Douarin was pledging the fraternity, but the university refused to launch an investigation on any allegations against them after the fraternity stated Douarin had not officially applied for membership. The family hired an attorney to help hold the fraternity accountable for his death.[8][9]
ORIGINAL: On January 29, 2016, Bradley Doyley, a senior and basketball player at Buffalo State College was pronounced dead as a result of a pledging hazing ritual. Doyley as a pledge was asked to drink an unidentified toxic cocktail off campus by members of Alpha Phi Alpha that caused him to suddenly vomit blood according to a close family friend. Doyley was taken to a local hospital for an emergency surgery where he eventually died. The chapter connected with the death of Doyley has been suspended by the college and members of the fraternity are under investigation for homicide charges. Doyley was four months away from graduation.[10]
EDIT: On January 29, 2016, Bradley Doyley, a senior and basketball player at Buffalo State College was pronounced dead allegedly of a hazing related pledging ritual. Family and friends reported that Doyley was asked to drink an unidentified toxic cocktail off campus by members of Alpha Phi Alpha that caused him to suddenly vomit blood according to a close family friend. Doyley was taken to a local hospital for an emergency surgery where he eventually died. The chapter connected with the death of Doyley has was suspended by the college and members of the fraternity while under investigation for homicide charges. A report published, citing unnamed police sources, stated that “here is no evidence of hazing in the death last week of a student at Buffalo State College in New York” citing a preliminary autopsy [11].
@Rattler98: You're going to have to address each of the statements you believe is inaccurate one-by-one instead of lumping them all together and making vague claims of NPOV. If there is misinformation in this article then of course we want it to be corrected or removed! But it's impossible for anyone to know if that's the case when you don't make specific claims that anyone can investigate.
It's especially worrying that nearly all of your edits have been to remove negative information from this article as if you're more interested in promoting this topic than you are to editing this encyclopedia article in a neutral manner. If you happen to have a connection to this subject, please ensure that you're complying with our conflict of interest guidelines. If you have a close connection with this subject (e.g., you're a member of this organization) then you probably should confine your edits to requests and discussion in Talk. ElKevbo (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: I am not attempting to remove negative information, I am attempting to remove inaccurate information. As an editor/administrator I would think that this is a priority for you, as well as trying to reach consensus on the issues at hand that I have laid out regarding each of the citations that contain inaccuracies. I have stated each above in a new section, one by one, for your clarity. If there is are additional suggestions or recommendation I would ask that you follow Wikipedia's policies regarding items that are in dispute by utilizing the NPOV tag and instead of continuing to restore content without explanation and by assert your admin powers by alleging possible COI and Edit warring violations. If there is something that is incorrect, let's work to fix it together. I've stated my suggested revisions above. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
I'm fine with the proposed edits you outlined above. I suggest waiting a few days so other editors can chime in. ElKevbo (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
^"Archived copy". Archived from the original on December 8, 2015. Retrieved 2015-11-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
^"Archived copy". Archived from the original on December 8, 2015. Retrieved 2015-11-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This article is well written and the origins, mission, and current endeavors of the fraternity are all clearly explained. Appropriate citation is given to most factual claims enabling further research or verification on the part of the reader. The structure of the article is organized and accessible and fraternity is discussed in a fairly balanced way.
Some of the sources cited link directly to the fraternity’s website, which may contain verifiable facts and figures but may not be the most reliable source for the perceived interest in and impact of the fraternity. However, there are also various citations that link to news media, online articles, print articles, and books. Nearly every sentence is cited, although some factoids (that are most likely common knowledge to members of the fraternity) aren’t cited at all and stand as unverified statements such as:
Its archives are preserved at the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center.
National programs and initiatives of the fraternity include A Voteless People Is a Hopeless People, My Brother's Keeper, Go To High School, Go To College, Project Alpha, and the World Policy Council. It also conducts philanthropic programming initiatives with the March of Dimes, Head Start, the Boy Scouts of America, and Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.
The founders are collectively known as the Seven Jewels.
The fraternity began to participate in voting rights issues, coining the well-known phrase "A Voteless People is a Hopeless People" as part of its effort to register black voters. This term was coined by the Alpha Omicron Chapter located at Johnson C. Smith University in 1936.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the nation's entry into World War II, the fraternity fought to secure rights for its membership within the ranks of officers in the armed forces.
The types of warfare encountered evidenced the nexus between education and war, with illiteracy decreasing a soldier's usefulness to the Army that could only be addressed with the inclusion of a large number of college educated men among the ranks of officers. Alpha men served in almost every branch of the military and civilian defense programs during World War II.
Being formerly a Featured Article, Wikipedia's Manual of Style is respected to the letter. There is a general adherence to the current use of style, proper formatting of paragraphs, page breaks, grammatical considerations such as capitalization of proper nouns, spelling and subject-verb agreement, and appropriate citing. The content of the article itself is, for the most part, written with a neutral point of view and the only text that could come close to “lauding” or “praising” the subject was to be found (perhaps understandably) in the “Notable Members” section. Also in that section were two Supreme Court cases (Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education) that were not hyperlinked to their existing articles nor cited at the end of the sentence.
The revision history of the article is fairly active with disagreements over point of view, sourcing, quote handling, formatting, copyright violations, and updating dead citations. I also noted that, for an African-American organization that some may view as militant, there was surprisingly little vandalism, racial or otherwise.
Overall, this article has minor faults but remains well worth its former Featured status. It was informative, expansive and detailed. It comprehensively covered most aspects of the fraternity and provided enough resources for further research to facilitate a serious understanding of what Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. is.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KeniseNeal.
There is no citation given for this highly contentious opinion. Almost all greek pottery renders figures as black on orange or orange on black, so pottery is a non starter for claims of a 'fair skinned' greek art. Greek marble tends to be of light colouring, but since these were probably painted and have lost pigment, that is not a strong indicator of 'fairness' either. Given that many 'greeks' were in north africa, there needs to be at least a proper academic citation for a general greek depiction of 'fair skin'.
Done My pleasure to help keep a Featured Article in tip-top shape! Boogerpatrol (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KeniseNeal.