Talk:Alpha Phi Alpha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alpha Phi Alpha article.
This article is part of WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Fraternities and Sororities. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Featured article star Alpha Phi Alpha is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Alpha Phi Alpha appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 25, 2006.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Wikipedia CD Selection Alpha Phi Alpha is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
Peer review Alpha Phi Alpha has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Maintained The following users are active in maintaining and improving this article. If you have questions regarding verification and sources, they may be able to help:
Ccson,Robotam


/Archive 1, /Archive 2

Contents

Alpha Pin

Why don't you upload the Alpha Pin on the page? Bearly541 01:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Same answer as here: The image is copyrighted and can't be used. If someone here takes a picture of a pin and uploads it, that's fine. Taking the JPEG from another site is not. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
CCSon, take a picture of your pin and upload it to Wikipedia. I will "try" to do the same with mine :-) Bearly541 06:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to polish it first. I'll have it done before the weekend is over. Ccson 13:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles Diggs and Ralph Bunche

Are you sure that Congressman Charles Diggs was an Alpha?

Also, in the Alpha history book copyrighted 1981, Ralph Bunche was referred to as a non-member. Bunche died in 1971. If he was an Alpha, he would have been mentioned in the Charles Welsey history book as a member.

Jsmith212 02:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Both names were mentioned in the Alpha Centennial Documentary. The documentary is linked in the External links section of the article. I did search the web and found this link which indicate Bunche was member Bunche. Ccson 04:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Charles Diggs is listed in Part 4, between 8:30-8:45 minute mark. I will try to locate the reference to Bunche on another day, but the link above notes his membership. Ccson 06:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I just thought he was not an Alpha because in the history book it states, "Ralph Bunche was the first nonmember to receive ... award." That event probably occurred before he became an Alpha.

But yes, he is more than likely an Alpha if he is mentioned in the documentary because the documentary is more updated than the history book.

Jsmith212 14:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ralph Bunche name is mentioned in Part 6, between the 12:00-12:15 time stamp. Danny Davis is speaking and says Alpha must continue producing the MLK King's, the Ralph Bunche's, etc. Please listen and verify. Also, I do appreciate the time spent to read and ensure the article is correct and I hope you will continue. I'm still available to help on Omega Psi Phi. thanks Ccson 14:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I e-mailed an author of numerous Alpha historical books. He replied yesterday and told me that Ralph Bunche was not an Alpha. I contacted him at www.skipmason.com Jsmith212 13:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ralph Bunche Finalized

Ccson, here is the actual copy/paste e-mails between me and Skip Mason:


My original message to Skip Mason was:

Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:16:05 -0700 (PDT) From: " " < @yahoo.com> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Subject: Nobel Prize Winner-Ralph Bunche-Wikipedia To: skipmason1906@aol.com

   Hello Skip Mason,

I am not a member of Alpha Phi Alpha, but I am a frequent contributor to numerous Black Greek letter organization articles on www.wikipedia.org

On wikipedia.org we are having an ongoing discussion about whether Ralph Bunche was an Alpha or not. The link below represents part of this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Phi_Alpha

So I would like to know if you know anything about whether he is a member or not.

thank you,


From: Skipmason1906@aol.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 23:26:39 EST Subject: Re: Nobel Prize Winner-Ralph Bunche-Wikipedia To: @yahoo.com

   Hi Jason,

Sorry for the delay. No Ralph Bunche was not an Alpha. I have always known him to be affiliated with Omega Psi Phi.

Skip Mason

These are actual copies of the e-mails, I only deleted my last name and e-mail address from these messages.

The authenticity of these e-mails can be verified by contacting him at (skipmason1906@aol.com).

Although Skip Mason said that Ralph Bunche was affiliated with Omega Psi Phi in the e-mail, Dr. Bunche was not affiliated with Omega Psi Phi either. Many believe he was an Omega because he won the Omega Citizen of the Year Award in 1948. But he was not in any college fraternity.

Jsmith212 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

"Alpha claims 60% of black doctors, 75% of black lawyers, 65% of black dentists, and close to 90% of black college presidents in the United States, with brothers in over 700 college and graduate chapters in the United States, the Caribbean, Africa, and Europe." is a direct copy and paste from http://www.hartfordalphas.com/alphaphialpha.php?ID=1; please revise. GreatChimp 12:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering the accuracy of the claim as well. Is there any place outside of this website, like a US Census Bureau, government agency, or major news reporting agency that can document this claim. GreatChimp 13:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Sources [1] GreatChimp 13:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One sentence does not make for a copyright violation, especially when it's attributed. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Accuracy of the claim & reliability of sources

Thanks for clearing that up. What of the accuracy of the claim? The Reliability of the source? [2] GreatChimp 16:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no issue with it. The sentence makes it clear that the information comes from the organization itself, as does the citation. The US Census Bureau doesn't exactly track membership in fraternal organizations. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, are there any where else that can verify these claims? 60% of black doctors? 75% of black lawyers? and others in the United States? That would assume that at least 60% of black doctors and 75% of black lawyers are men. It just seems to be very far fetched. Looking on wikipedia reliable sources it states [3]: "Partisan and extremist websites The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although bias is not in itself a reason to declare a source unreliable. Organizations or individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist — such as Stormfront or the Socialist Workers Party — should not be used as sources, except in articles about themselves; that is, they may be used as primary sources but not as secondary ones. They should be used with caution and should be supported by other sources. Company and organization websites Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one." The claim came from an Alpha Phi Alpha website, and I am simply asking for verification somewhere else. GreatChimp 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that as a reasonable position. We're not talking about a partisan or extremist organization, and there's nothing outrageous about their claim. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The second portion of the link of which I posted stated, "Company and organization websites Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one." The claim made in the website presents an obvious bias. The statement that Alpha Phi Alpha has 75% of black lawyers can be said to be false when statistics show that there are 17450 black male lawyers and 16415 black female lawyers. Black males do not make up 75% of black lawyers so how can Alpha Phi Alpha claim to have 75% of Black lawyers if it is exclusively a male organization [4]. That is why I asked for a another reputable organization source. GreatChimp 18:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I read it the first time; there's no need to quote chapter and verse repeatedly. But since you are, let me do the same: "The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available..." You have yet to present another source, or any evidence that the claims made about membership are false. (It was evident to me that the 75% claim referred to MALE lawyers.) I don't see any issue with repeating APhiA's claims about its membership, as long as the claims are attributed properly. Asking for a government source sets a completely unreasonable standard. If you have an unbiased third-party source that can show contradictory evidence, let's see it. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The link provided no where states that they were speaking of male lawyers. It stated black lawyers. I believe the American Bar Association is a strong enough entity to serve to disprove the claim. All I am asking for is a source for the high percentage claims of professional membership. They include, government, newspaper, polling, independent magazines. Thank you. GreatChimp 22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not required under WP:RS, per the passage you quoted yourself. The ABA passage says nothing at all about Alpha Phi Alpha, and thus has no bearing on this article. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

if 75% of black lawyers are members of Alpha Phi Alpha and if about 55% of black lawyes are male. How do you account for the other 20% of black lawyers whom are members of Alpha Phi Alpha? GreatChimp 22:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Asked, and answered. The 75% figure refers to male lawyers. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Where in the reference did they say black male lawyers? GreatChimp 00:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

http://www.black-collegian.com/african/monument1299.shtml Used as a reference to "In 1968, after the assassination of fraternity brother Martin Luther King, Jr., Alpha Phi Alpha proposed erecting a permanent memorial to King in Washington D.C. The efforts of the fraternity gained momentum in 1986 after King's birthday became a national holiday and led to the creation of The Washington D. C. Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation, Inc to collect funds of $100 million for construction.[34]" is a dead link. GreatChimp 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Link Updated.-Robotam 20:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you, i look forward to reading up on this. GreatChimp 00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks that was a great read! GreatChimp 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, MyKungfu.-Robotam 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Armed Forces

I believe the term "Armed Forces" in the context of the article (US branches of service) is usually capitalized.-Robotam 15:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The link you provided is the name of an Album by Elvis Costello. See Armed forces regarding branches of service. It's only necessary to capitalize the first word "Armed" when it is used at the beginning of a sentence. Thanks anyway for for efforts in proof-reading, I do appeciate all the input. If you still disagree, pls reply here and I'll check back. Ccson 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry, wrong link. not major, as i don't believe it is a hard and fast rule outside of the GPO. when specifically refering to the US branches of service (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) as an organization, AF is capitalized, as opposed to describing the military. for ex: Department of Defense: Military Establishment; Armed Forces; All-Volunteer Forces; but armed services. U.S. Navy: the Navy; the Marine Corps; Navy (Naval) Establishment; Navy officer; but naval shipyard; naval officer; naval station, etc.([5] at 3.17.) like i said, minor. though if this is what it has come to in proofreading, it speaks to a clearly high level of editing w/in the article! -Robotam 16:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I will make the change to capitalize Armed Forces. thanks again. Ccson 03:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Revisions and additions!

Just wanted to say great job on the new stuff!! Looks fantastic. 0000-six!! Adisalee 14:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


First of the First

I was told that the letters "Alpha Phi Alpha" stands for "First of the First." Is that correct? 2much 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/p/Talk%7EAlpha_Phi_Alpha_927c.html"