Talk:Sigma Omicron Pi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Style edits

I made some edits to this article which in my opinion made it read better. For example, I changed "women pursuing the interest of teaching" to "women with an interest in teaching", and made several other style changes. I also deleted the statement "Each one of our sisters has different interests and aspirations, yet we all share one common ground - ΣΟΠ" as a truism, and deleted two of the article's four listings of the society's objectives, as being superfluous in such a short article.

None of my edits changed the factual content of the article, and they were not intended as vandalism.

My edits were reverted by user 66.215.218.59 (who I think is the same as user Sk8gr8steph, who created the article, although I'm not absolutely certain), who sent me an e-mail asking me not to make further changes to the article, because the original was the society's commonly accepted statement of its history. I'm sorry I have inadvertently deleted the e-mail I was sent, so I can not quote it precisely. The original article text seems to be the same as the society's history as shown on the society's website.

In my opinion, my edits improved the readability of the article. There should be no requirement on Wikipedia articles to remain true to some external text - Wikipedia is not an advertisement for the society, and the society can describe itself on its own website in whatever way it chooses. Wikipedia should not be forced to duplicate text from an external site.

Does anyone else agree ? If no-one disagrees, I will re-instate my edits.GeraldH 08:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there were no comments either in favour or against, so I re-instated my edits. User 66.215.218.59 has reverted them again, this time without any explanation - either in the edit comment, or on the talk page, or in private e-mail to me.

I repeat that I believe my edits improve the readability of the article, and I draw attention to Wikipedia's status as "the . . . encyclopedia that anyone can edit." This means that user 66.215.218.59 obviously does have the right to revert my edits. But I also have the right to edit the text of the original article - there should be no requirement on Wikipedia to remain true to some external text - as user 66.215.218.59 appears to think, wanting the article to be identical to the text on the society's website.

I again invite other readers / editors to comment here on this page, and would particularly invite users 66.215.218.59 and Sk8gr8steph (they may be the same person) to join in.

If no-one disagrees, I will re-instate my edits a second time. GeraldH 09:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Still no comments, either in favour or against, so I am re-instating my edits.

I had an e-mail correspondence with Sk8gr8steph, but she has specifically asked me not to quote her here, so I am unable to do that. It also appears that Sk8gr8steph is NOT the same user as 66.215.218.59 - I apologise for my previous suggestion that they were the same person.

Because of Sk8gr8steph's request to me not to quote her, and user 66.215.218.59's failure to explain her reversions of my edits, I am unable to give the reasons why people have objected to my edits. However, I repeat my belief that Wikipedia should not be forced to remain true to some external text, such as the text on SOPi's own website. To suggest that Wikipedia articles must remain true to an external text is absurd - for example any suggestion that the Wikipedia articles on the US Republican party or Democratic party must be true to their respective official websites would be treated with derision, and rightly so. People must have the right to edit original articles - it is conceivable that there could one day be some controversial issue affecting SOPi, which they might not wish to report on their own website, but which might well be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. And, I believe my edits improve the readability of the article, without changing any of the factual content.

I again invite readers and editors who disagree with any of this, to say so on this discussion page, especially Sk8gr8steph and user 66.215.218.59.

Here is my justification for each of my edits -

"Pursuing the interest of teaching" --> "with an interest in teaching"

Original is clumsy and unnatural, my edit makes it more easily readable.

"The sorority was active in the Asian Community for the next 15 years. At the advent of World War II, the organization was forced to become inactive." --> "The sorority became active in the Asian Community, although it was dormant during World War II"

Original is clumsy, and self contradictory - the society was formed in 1930, and therefore can not possibly have been both active for the next 15 years (i.e. to 1945) and inactive during World War II (from 1939 / 1941 to 1945). My edit tidies this up, removes the apparent paradox over World War II inactivity, and is more brief.

"became extremely involved in their respective communities" --> "became heavily involved in their local communities".

Original is clumsy and unnecessarily hyperbolic, my edit is more readable.

"earned respectable reputation" --> "earned a reputation".

Original is clumsy and unnatural, my edit is more readable.

Re-writing of the last paragraph - my edit tidies it up, and removes two (or one and a half, depending on how you count them) of the five (or four and a half) listings of the society's objectives. In the original article, these obectives are listed three times in full in the article, once in full in the sidebox, and once in part in the final sentence. This is too many for such a short article, so I removed one of the full ones and the partial one from the text. The article as modified by me still has the two full listings in the text, and one full listing in the sidebox.