Talk:Sigma Pi Phi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject Sigma Pi Phi is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project page, where you can join the project, and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


This page was created as part of what appears to be a coordinated attack on another entry and organization, Alpha Phi Alpha, by NinjaNubian aka Mykungfu. There may also be some copyright issues, as the organization's history book is generally not presented publicly. Below is my suggestion for cleaning up this page; it even discusses from a NPOV what Mykungfu describes as "controversy." --Robotam 19:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

First African-American Fraternity?

Alpha Phi Alpha claims a historical position as the first intercollegiate Greek-letter fraternity in the United States established for men of African descent. However, some claim there is dispute as to whether Alpha Phi Alpha was the first black fraternity.

Some have claimed Sigma Pi Phi, founded in 1904, to be the first fraternity, although others argue this is a misnomer. Sigma was founded as an organization for professionals and college graduates and not as an organization of black college students.[1] [2] Historian Charles H. Wesley, a member of both Alpha Phi Alpha and Sigma Pi Phi, authored The History of Alpha Phi Alpha, A Development in College Life and The History of Sigma Pi Phi and asserts that Alpha Phi Alpha was the first Greek-letter organization among black college men.[3]

Sigma Pi Phi and Alpha Phi Alpha have historically had a congenial relationship. One of Sigma's founders, Henry McKee Minton, was a member of both, as were many pioneers of business and civil rights, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. --Robotam 19:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

posted by robotam 15:40, 14 September 2006

congenial relationships? whee is this stated?

on this page used by robotam

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&oldid=75725088

it states

"Sigma Pi Phi, founded in 1904, has also claimed to be the first although many argue this is a misnomer. . Sigma was founded as an organization for professionals and college graduates and not as an organization of black college students.[64] [69] Historian Charles H. Wesley, a member of both Alpha Phi Alpha and Sigma Pi Phi, authored The History of Alpha Phi Alpha, A Development in College Life and The History of Sigma Pi Phi and asserts that Alpha Phi Alpha was the first Greek-letter organization among black college men.[70]"

the first black inter collegiate fraternity historically is .. alpha kappa nu is shown here


evidence


http://groups.msn.com/NPHCArchivePhotoSociety/yourwebpage2.msnw

this article details some of the controversy that still exists

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=12053

http://www.usca.edu/nununupes/history.htm

www.stp.uh.edu/vol69/138/news/news3.html

205.188.116.134 17:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

coordinated attack

robotam

Came around september 6. his second edit was sept 12th, his third was on the 13th it basically seems as if his whole existance was to sign this RFC. I believe him to be a sockpuppet

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robotam&limit=500&action=history Mykungfu 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Robotam has made it a pesonal mission to destroy pages created by ninjanubian as can be documented by his actions

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

and

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


he opens up dispute pages for the sake of wasting everyone times..

he is also reverting pages twice in the past 90 minutes

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&action=history

Again my friend, sorry, no. --Robotam 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

posted by robotam

In Re: Cleanup

I re-inserted the dispute tag. The factual basis of the article is clearly in dispute, as the editor has yet to find support for these claims on the other pages that he has argued them on (and there claimed them AS issues in dispute). In regards to the cleanup tag, some of the cites refer as proof to a section of "Skip's Historical Moments" that clearly was a letter expressing one person's opinion (and was the subject of dispute even within the citation), on the dispute of whether Sigma is a fraternity, and the claim that they ever had undergraduate chapters. Thanks!-Robotam 12:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Sigma Pi Phi on its official home page states that it is a fraternity. http://www.sigma-pi-phi.net/ . In regards to Skip Mason a noted historian, he is used as a reference in the Alpha phi Alpha article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Phi_Alpha" "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." I find it unusual how it's alright in one section of Wikipedia but not another. Mykungfu 17:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you knew that was not what I said. Your citation on "undergraduate chapters" of Sigma was to an email/letter that someone wrote to the noted historian, which stated opinions that were disputed by the noted historian (your words). Feel free to cite Skip Mason or any other published historian, but it is misleading to cite the POV of someone that he corrected and claim that their POV is "undisputed." Since you agree it is not a problem, we can leave the dispute and cleanup tags up so other NPOVs can weigh in on it.-Robotam 03:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


the official homepage of Sigma Pi Phi states that it is a fraternity. If you can provide legit proof that it isn't a fraternity then we can discuss it. I don't believe you are acting in good faith so i'll move on. unsigned comment149.68.16.97 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, please sign your comments. Mykungfu, "Good faith" is tagging the document to encourage others to get involved in the conversation, since we each seem to have a difference of opinion on who is presenting "legit proof," as you put it. Remember, you are the one that claimed there was a controversy, when it suited your POV on other projects. The article does need to be cleaned up, as well. It seems that you are hoping that no one else will comment on your POV, but I sincerely hope that is not the case. You may well be found to be right. Thanks! -Robotam 19:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


i think a fraternity's official homepage will say that it is a fraternity. if you can disprove this somehow feel free to. 152.163.100.199 21:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


So as to prevent future issues

what do both parties feel needs to be cleaned up and what proof is required?

Mykungfu, the answer to your question is pretty well laid out above, in addition to various minor grammatical edits. I would suggest restoring the tags that you so hastily removed; you might even find some people sympathetic to your POV, in addition to some better cites rather than trying to shield the page from scrutiny. However, it is very unlikely that you are going to find anything reliable that shows (a) that Alpha Kappa Nu was either successful in or even wanted to be a fraternity or (b) Sigma Pi Phi, which had a small number of undergraduate members ever had or intended to have undergraduate chapters. Skip Mason, whom you cite, says the opposite. The rational reasons that the other information you have given is greatly flawed have been discussed at length on other pages as well. Thanks for your inquiry!-Robotam 18:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

a) With the grammatical errors, feel free to help correct them w/o changing the pov or what is being discussed. b) all references are provided, such as the home page of the sigma pi phi fraternity and it's regional chapter websites. why wouldn't these be strong enough? c) i believe the undergraduate chapters statement has been removed. please go over the current page. many things have been removed and cleared up in order to maintain a npov. 64.131.205.160 21:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

anything else?

Removed the POV issues and the undergrad chapter statement as you described. Also placed stub status. The Boule websites are not the issue. Again, for the record, there is no "controversy" or "first fraternity" debate between Alpha Phi Alpha and Sigma Phi Pi; they are two completely different types of organization. -Robotam 19:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Skip Mason

I'm wondering what makes the contributions of Skip Mason any different from a personal website, opinion article or editorial..

Reading this, I wonder if it really is less objective and more subjective

"As a historian who recognizes that laying a foundation for any period of history, I find their omission inexcusable and without merit. Permit me to share some a few statements (and of course my personal commentary in between) from their books: "

http://www.skipmason.com/hm/hm08.htm

on some of his website pages he states "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. " http://www.skipmason.com/about.htm

Self-published sources (online and paper) See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-== Skip Mason == I'm wondering what makes the contributions of Skip Mason any different from a personal website, opinion article or editorial..

Reading this, I wonder if it really is less objective and more subjective

published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources


based from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Phi_Alpha#Skip_Mason

64.131.205.160 01:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC) 150.210.226.6 22:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon Mykungfu

Mykungfu, is there a reason you don't want the article to be listed as a stub? Why don't you want neutral editors to provide input? Everybody can't be in a vendetta against you;, in fact, you would find that if you would edit in good faith, everyone here is ready and willing to work with you. However, false accusations, racial slurs and vandalism cannot be the way to build consensus. We get it--you don't like Alpha Phi Alpha, for whatever reason. But all of the editors here (including those that you assume are members of Alpha because they didn't allow you to vandalize that article) have been dealing with you in good faith, evident by the fact that so many are working to save an article that you clearly created (originally) to denigrate another article. My edits are not and have never been "vandalism;" if you really looked at the works YOU cited for this piece, you would see where my edits came from.(signed by)-Robotam 12:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

list it as a stub if you like, but there is no reason to put non-neutral pov onto the page. you've made wholesale reverts and in wiki policy of be bold reverts were made and it can be brought to the talk section. Skip Mason isn't a credible source b/c he is basically a personal website. anything else just add or discuss.. no big deal with me. 205.188.116.134 14:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mykungfu, you can't have it both ways. Mason is published, but notwithstanding that, you cited him, not me. I edited the article by reading the other works you cited, besides Mason. You then anonymously started the "wholesale reverts" back to the incorrect and biased text you preferred, doing so without "taking it to the talk section" as you acknowledge is the way you should have dealt with it. Note that I made no changes that are not backed up by your credible sources. I, along with the others here, am editing for neutral POV, which you for some reason don't like. I'm interested in knowing what text, placed here by anyone besides yourself, do you claim as "non-neutral pov," and why you feel you have to post anonymously in order to bolster your own POV. -Robotam 15:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

His references have been removed. Due to the editorial nature of his writings a discussion session is being created to go over his writings and if they should be used as a valid source. 64.12.116.199 18:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Circumventing policy

Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a block or ban causes the timer on the block to restart, and may further lengthen it. --- Please note, that according to Wiki Policy, "Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Wikipedia in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy."[1] I hope this helps clarify your rights and responsibilities as a Wiki editor. Thanks!-Robotam 16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


And what MrDarcy also suggested was that you first obey the rules, and then everyone here will be willing to work with you.-Robotam 19:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Skip Mason 2

Valid source? and reason?!

See "Circumventing policy" -Robotam 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You should read it too! Ready to compromise or just go on with the edit war? 64.12.116.199 19:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No edit war, my friend. As you are aware, you don't get to break the rules and demand compromise. I did try to work with you though, even as you have repeatedly broken the rules.-Robotam 19:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I second Robotam's comments. Furthermore, the Skip Mason content is properly cited. It stays in the article until there's a discussion and a consensus to take it out (if such a consensus is achieved). Mykungfu, I also have no reason to believe that you will accept a consensus to keep the content, and therefore, discussion with you is pointless. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Kappa_Alpha#Revert_Wars


When you stop deleting properly cited content from the article, we can discuss a compromise. But the content must stay in the article until the discussion takes place. This is non-negotiable. Disputed content stays in until the discussion is completed. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


The problem will be solved when you stop insisting on removing properly cited content from the article. Until you stop this, we'll get nowhere. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)"

So your opinion totally changes in under 15 hours from compromise to refusal? Don't revert or delete the talk page please! The page is under semi protection meaning i can't edit, but you can. So.... what's truly stopping you? or was it simply a ploy? 64.12.116.199 20:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
Mykungfu, you never stopped removing properly cited content from the article. You were forced to stop by the semi-protection, but you kept right on doing it up to that point. You also continue to remove {{sockpuppet}} tags from your various IPs. Given your clear violation of WP:POINT despite repeated requests from me, Robotam, and several admins to stop, I see no reason at all to believe that you will accept any compromise that doesn't completely fulfill your demands. And I have no interest in working with a user who has shown such disrespect for me, for other editors, and for Wikipedia as a whole. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
you can work here.. since it's semi protected.. if you don't like the compromises here then don't bother.. but AKA is a page thats fully protected.. no one is getting anywhere there. compromise here as a show of good faith.. if you don't feel that good faith is being practiced then you don't have to compromise again. 150.210.226.6 22:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

can i ask you a question? how is mykungfu associated with a user named mikeandike? you might as well associate mykungfu with any random user!150.210.226.6 22:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm only associating Mykungfu with all of his sockpuppets. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


like ninjanubian? that isnt a sockpuppet.. its been on th user page that the account was an old account. have you ever seen it used again since mykungfu came around?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mykungfu

how was mykungfu associated with this account??

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mikeandike&oldid=79366658

that made absolutely no sense! 150.210.226.6 22:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

skip mason Beware false authority

Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject. In general, higher education textbooks are frequently revised and try to be authoritative. Textbooks aimed at secondary-school students, however, do not try to be authoritative and are subject to political approval. 64.12.116.199 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Does "da ghetto tymz" dot com fall under "false authority?"-Robotam 15:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

it may, but it is far more vast in it's account then skipmason, i'd have no problem with them both not being used. 152.163.100.199 16:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Controvery Section

Although this was deleted improperly it did detail that there are conflicting places that show who may actually be the first black fraternity. As shown here: http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.php?id=34371

There is no real controversy and you know it. Members of Sigma Pi Phi have always known that they predate Alpha Phi Alpha and all other Black Greek Letter Organizations. Didn't one of the SPP founders go on to become an Alpha? http://www.skipmason.com/hm/hm19.htm They (Sigmas) don't care about being labeled "The First" because (1)they've existed in secrecy and (2) they are a professional organization. The only controversy is stirred by those who want to somehow discredit Alpha Phi Alpha any way they can. That's the only reason this article exists.

Congenial Relationship?

"congenial relationship with college fraternities" the reference given doesn't state. Where is this implied?

"citation needed" added. -Robotam 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


writing fact doesn;t make it a citation.. if you're going to quote something please state who said it and where. 150.210.226.6 22:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The {{fact}} tag is a way of labelling something that needs a citation, in the hope that a future editor will be able to provide one. It's now deprecated in favor of {{citation needed}}, although the effect is the same. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
fair enough.. is there a time period we have to wait? 205.188.116.134 04:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There's no set guideline but it's good policy to leave it in for a few months to see if someone picks it up with a citation. The tag makes it clear to any reader that the item is in question. I'm going to change it to {{citation needed}} just to make it clear. | Mr. Darcy talk 13:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
{{citation needed}} duly noted. thanks-Robotam 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hank Aaron

I'm skeptical on Aaron's name. The only "sources" I could find were quotes from people who claimed to have seen the secret Boule book, none of which passes the sniff test for me in terms of reliability. Any objection to me taking the Hammer out? | Mr. Darcy talk 02:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No objection. Is Hank Aaron actually a member of Omega Psi Phi?-Robotam 12:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like he is: [2]. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Following up, I've removed the reference to Aaron and the picture. If someone can provide a valid cite for him, we can put it back in. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking over why were so many sections removed.

Athletic Stars Sigma Pi Phi hasn't limited membership to professionals, but to all those who are accomplished no matter what field. Arther Ashe a famed African American tennis star, as well as Hank Aaron MLB Homerun Record holder is amongst it's members.[citation needed] GrandWizard 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This was removed because Ashe is mentioned elsewhere in the article, and there is no evidence that Aaron is actually a member. See earlier discussion of Aaron on this talk page. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking at preceeding comments, can you put down citation needed? Also Martin Luther King is also mentioned previously in the article, but he was kept in another section as well. Any reason? GrandWizard 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
There's no evidence anywhere that Aaron was a member of Sigma Pi Phi; that's why he came out. If someone can source it properly, it'll go back in. I haven't gotten to the civil rights section yet. Let's not treat this like a legal proceeding - the point is to clean up the article and make sure everything is sourced properly. I took out the Athletes section because it contained no new, verified information. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Why not utilize citation is what i was asking? From looking at previous records, there did exist a website that stated his affiliation with the group. If another athlete is found amongst the group of members, will the athleteic stars be reinserted? GrandWizard 03:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say one section of Famous Members would be more consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. We could subdivide if the lists get really long. As for Aaron, I would oppose inclusion even with the {{citation needed}} tag, because it looks bogus to me. I can't find anything online that supports it other than the alleged boule listing. Hank Aaron's a pretty famous guy, so I think if it was true, Sigma Pi Phi would be shouting it from the mountaintops if he was a member. Like I said, if you or anyone else can find a cite somewhere, I will help put it in with the proper footnote. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
They appear to be a secret organization. They don't seem to really publicize anything and already have many famous members such as Arthur Ashe, MLK, and others. It's not necessary to shout and scream membership roster. Look at the Freemasons (George Washington, most presidents of the USA), Harvard, not everyone advertises their roster. GrandWizard 04:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand that this information may be hard to verify, but those are the rules on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability is the policy in question. I have no philosophical objection to the content, and as I said, if someone can verify his membership, we'll get it right back in there. In the interim, though, I would be opposed to its inclusion. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

quick search of yahoo got me

http://thewebfairy.com/911/cia-drugs/Msg01452.html in highlight http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=hank+aaron+%22sigma+pi+phi%22&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-500&x=wrt&u=thewebfairy.com/911/cia-drugs/Msg01452.html&w=hank+aaron+%22sigma+pi+phi%22&d=Ryl0cyQ8NR6d&icp=1&.intl=us

this link Which seems pretty strong. http://www.panachereport.com/website%20channel%20documents/hip%20hop%20gallery/BLACKHISTORYMONTHBONUS.htm With this you can add Vernon Jordan, John H. Johnson, Earl Graves, Bill Cosby, Jesse Jackson, Lynn Swann, Elgin Hayes, David Dinkins, Hank Aaron and L. Douglas Wilder From here it is derived that Hank Aaron is a member of the Kappa Boule, http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=hank+aaron+%22boule%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-500&u=www.nccu.edu/law/alumni/2002OfCounsel.pdf&w=hank+aaron+boule&d=ZCimtSQ8Nd9C&icp=1&.intl=us

3 decently strong references. GrandWizard 06:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those first two qualify as reliable sources; one is a mailing list, and the other is just some random person's Web site. Those are not strong references, because the sites in question are themselves questionable. The second and third links mention a boule or boulé, but neither mentions Sigma Pi Phi. The third link (NCCU.edu) mentions a "Kappa boulé" without elaborating, unfortunately. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

cool not a problem, i looked up kappa boule, from the skip mason website and it states,

"Having socialize and presented to the members of Sigma Pi Phi, the members are much older (in most cases and very well established in their careers). In the meeting that I attended in Atlanta (the chapter known as Kappa Boule), they feast on prime rib and the trimmings each month and conduct the business with very little fanfare and discussion. They all seem to be on one accord and no personal agendas, perhaps because they have reached the highest point in their career."

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:4gbdLXee5IkJ:www.skipmason.com/hm/hm19.htm+%22kappa+boule%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3 GrandWizard 01:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


this website also speaks of the kappa boule, and explains that it is the sigma pi phi fraternity atlanta chapter

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:pe1xUX1WJOwJ:www.morrisbrown.edu/wwwroot/Prototype/College%2520Information/MBCCollegeInformationPresOfficeBio.htm+%22kappa+boule%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=28

GrandWizard 01:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this the only entity known as "Kappa Boule?" I'm just asking; I really have no idea, but it doesn't sound like a unique name. The combined citations from NCCU and Morris Brown would, however, suffice to demonstrate that Aaron is a member of Sigma Pi Phi. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

beats me, i couldn't locate anything that said there is something else called the kappa boule. well i'm off to stacey dash and her fine self. GrandWizard 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Update, havent' found anything close. There seems to be only one other organization that uses boule is a sorority. The athletic starts portion that speaks of Hank Aaron and Arthur Ashe should be reinserted. GrandWizard 18:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've created a Famous Members section, and included Aaron with the NCCU document as its citation. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Add to references

Congressional Record reference GrandWizard 06:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've only read this reference so far, but it says nothing about Hank Aaron or most of those other folks being Sigma Pi Phi members. The only people it lists as members are W.E.B. Dubois, MLK, and Congressman Watt (I assume this is Mel Watt. I'll add Watt to the article, but that's all off of this reference. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Secret Society

Good luck on trying to find any more info than what's already in this article. SPP is indeed a secret society. That's the way they've always preferred it. Adisalee 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless MrDarcy disagrees, this is pretty much it, without getting into original research (see my comments at the top).-Robotam 19:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Robotam's right. I didn't have any luck finding additional information on the organization, although one of its former presidents passed away last week (story). There may be printed sources we haven't found; if any of you has access to a college library, it might be worth asking a librarian if s/he knows of any possible sources for SPF's history (e.g., a book on the history of African-American fraternal organizations). | Mr. Darcy talk 17:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Roberson might've been the president of a Boule chapter. That article also states he was president of Alpha phi Alpha, which was also on a local level. http://www.alphaphialpha.net/alpha/legacy/presidents.html 143.166.226.43 12:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

there seems to be a good amount of research that can be found over here.

http://www.sigma-pi-phi.net/journal/vol66n3/index.html 205.188.116.134 04:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't.

Removal of the name Fraternity

Why is the name Fraternity removed from Sigma Pi Phi by a user here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigma_Pi_Phi&diff=81036327&oldid=80471740, when it is in fact a fraternity as is described in various places as well as it's official website http://www.sigma-pi-phi.net/ . 205.188.116.134 04:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Book

The history is available for sale on sites such as eBay and probably available at certain libraries. If someone buys/checks out the book, they can publish the material on Wikipedia? Real96 08:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Publishing that material would probably be a copyright violation. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry not to clarify, but "publishing" as in rewording the material for Wikipedia. Real96 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You can probably use it a reference, as long as it's not considered confidential, and if it passes WP:RS. If it's written or published by Sigma Pi Phi, it might be too biased for most usage as a reference, except basic, non-controversial details. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) The subject may be considered controversial, since little or no history exists online. I am just here to wikify the information on the page. I don't want the subject organization suing Wikipedia for release of their history to the public audience, if they are a "secret society." However, I do plan to incorporate facts from LOG's book below into the article, since the book is a secondary source. Real96 00:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Secondary Source

Further information of this organization from a third person's point of view can be found in Lawrence Otis Gram's book Our Kind of People. Excerpts can be seen here. Real96 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/g/Talk%7ESigma_Pi_Phi_13fc.html"