Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] A descendant wikiproject?

I don't think articles on inividual chapters are necessary and violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Individual chapter are not notable, this is akin to writing an article on every single location of McDonalds or Starbucks.

I disagree, and you can begin understand why if you look at the work I've done in this vein. However, I think it's an entirely preposterous assertion to put fraternity chapters on the same level as McDonalds locations (particularly in this forum), especially since chapters have very distinct histories into which hundreds and often thousands of people have put time into building upon and really caring about... in contrast, that sort of involvement is very distinct from some cappucino place in a mall. For background on my contention, please see here. You note indiscriminate information as a reason not to pursue the project, but which of the 9 points of consensus does this fall under? I would argue none of them. In fact, the page notes that there is no limit to what Wikipedia can encompass, so long as it is verifiable and neutral. Additionally as articles warrant, new articles are not only necessary, but encouraged by the community, to fully detail the subject matter at hand. Also note the section on self-promotion, where Wikipedia explicitly condones the creation and maintenance of articles for persons and small groups so long as they maintain their NPOVs and hold to encyclopedia guidelines.

I appreciate your concern, but I think this project is acceptable by Wikipedia standards. If you like, I'll provide multiple examples of how smaller groups are given articles separate from their main articles. Also, if there is a consensus, I'll gladly remove the Beta project as a descendent project of the fraternity project. I must wonder, however, that if the Beta project is not an acceptable extension of this project, if such a project even exists. Tell me how I can assuage your concerns. Pat 04:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How can we verify such information from reliable sources(WP:V and chapter websites are usually less reliable than national websites)? How can we make sure such information is not original research (WP:OR)? How can we enforce NPOV and avoid vanity? Most of the notability criteria on wikipedia calls for notability on a national, not a local level. And local notability is usually reserved for something big, a local crime scandal for instance. I really have problems believing that a component chapter of a fraternity that has been chugging along without much incident has enought notability to be included wikipedia. Besides, when a fraternity story hits national press (and thus gains notability) it is usually somthing bad, like hazing, alcohol death or even racism. I would love to write an article on Delta Sigma Phi, Zeta Omicron Chapter but a Delta Sig Chapter that has been around since 1981 that hasn't amounted to much besides winning a few academic awards and greek week over ten times does not deserve mention in wikipedia. Dspserpico 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think the Starbucks/McDonalds comparison is apt. Chapters are branches and components (or even "franchises") of fraternities, there are special McDonalds (like the one that invented the Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Fremont, California or the one down the street from my house that looks like a California Mission) as is there are special chapters of fraternities. Dspserpico 04:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns are ones that people ask about Wikipedia as a project at the time. That said: On verification -- that is a continual process. Not permitting articles to be created doesn't prove them to be unverifiable, and there are always paper documents that can be cited if the truthfulness of an article comes into question. If citations are needed, those will be noted over time and provided. As you know, this is standard practice. On original research -- that's fixed through the citations, which will naturally come. Notability -- I'm not sure where you got this national v. local definition, but I guess I have to ask: who is Dave Eshelman? And honestly, I'm glad you answered that question by writing that article, regardless of his clear national and regional non-notability outside of northern California. And as far as NPOV is concerned -- that will be maintained by those interested in the articles. My record is a testament to my neutrality on these subjects, and I and others will be monitoring the new articles as they are created. I invite you to do the same. After all, that's how the rest of Wikipedia was formed.

I again vehemently disagree with your assertions about chapters being equal McDonalds franchises and whose differences amount to the shape and color of their buildings, but I'm not going to keep trying to budge you there. Also, that you would not write an article about your chapter really holds no bearing on whether someone else can write something about another chapter. With that said, there is plenty of content on chapters to be drawn upon to justify the existence of articles about them, and there is no reason to curtail such endeavors, particularly given Wikipedia's guidelines rather than despite them. Pat 05:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dave Eshelman passes WP:MUSIC because he has composed music that has been performed by notable musicians who have passed WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Also, he is well regarded in the Jazz and music education circles. The question of "Who is Dave Eshelman" is not unlike the question of "Who is Jeff Tedford?" for those not from Northern Calfornia or familiar with College Football. Dspserpico 05:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And chapters pass the muster of WP:NOT, which is the guideline under which you first presented the subject and have not really returned to. That you merely say that chapters are not notable is not enough, and you still have not answered my first questions to you, including:

• Of the nine points of consensus for what Wikipedia is not, where do chapter articles fail?
• How do chapter pages qualify as indiscriminate collections of information, given the definition of indiscriminate information?
• If national prominence -- as you initially said -- is not necessary and local prominence (NPOV etc maintained) is all that is required -- which I've maintained and which you do obviously ascribe to for your articles -- under what Wikipedia guidelines are local chapters barred from having articles written about them?
• And ultimately, are your reservations not philosphical in nature, rather than rules-based?

I do not mean to sound overly terse, but your direct questions require a direct response, as do mine. I think we just have different philosophies here, and I am just trying to meet your standards and Wikipedia's standards simultaneously, which I believe, in view of your own work and the work of Wikipedians in general, I have done.Pat 06:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability (or WP:N) is an outgrowth of of WP:NOT. Largely it is not a policy set in stone, but there are some that have such a wide consensus that they citing a violation or lack of violation of the guidelines is a valid argument on whether or not to delete an article. You can read all about at the WP:N page.

At this moment, there are no set guidelines for Fraternities and Sororities but there has been wide preceedent that chapter articles have been deleted. I have strongly agreed with the preceedent and have voted to delete on several because every single chapter article I have seen up until the article you have written has been outright vanity written by some member of said chapter.

I brought up the Starbucks/McDonalds reference because I believe that individual chapters should be treated like individual stores a la WP:CORP. Let me just quote the section in question:

Many companies have chains of local stores or franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable—for instance, your local McDonald's. Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that isn't true for the chain in general, we should not have articles on such individual stores. However, a "List of Wal-Marts in Germany" would be informative. Also, an exception can be made if some major event took place at a local store (however this would most likely be created under an article name which describes the event, not the location. See McDonald's massacre for an example). Taken from "Chains and franchises" section.

I think that snippet of the WP:CORP guidelines is perfectly suited for Fraternities and Sororities. I mean yes, each and every individual chapter is different because of location, campus climate and the people in it. But when you really boil everything down isn't every chapter of the a certain fraternity the same? Aren't all members initiatied through the same ritual? Don't they do the same kinds of activities, just with varying degrees of success? Let me quote you for instance:

I again vehemently disagree with your assertions about chapters being equal McDonalds franchises and whose differences amount to the shape and color of their buildings...

Like fraternity chapters, McDonalds franchises are different people in different locations and environments. Some McDonalds are big, some are small, most wear different variations of the uniform. But in the end when you boil everything down (repetition is intentional), isn't everything the same? Aren't they held to the same cleanliness standards? Aren't their receipeis the same? Don't they all do the same kinds of activities? They sell burgers, we provide brotherhood.

At the same time, I am not opposed to articles about a specific chapters involvement in something notably good or bad. This notability has to be newsworthy in a sense that is not a press release but is covered in the news media. That is a notability standard that applied to people and companies and I think the same should be for individual chapters. Unfortunately for me, all the widely publicicized incidents I can think of right now are those that are bad like racism and hazing.

To answer one of your questions I think under the nine points of WP:NOT I think articles on every single fraternity chapter violates Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information outright and has great potential to violate Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. In the end we'll have thousands of stubs that say "BLANK chapter of BLANK fraternity/sorority is chapter located at BLANK university in BLANK City and was chartered in BLANK year" because that is probably the only information we can easily verify through reliable sources. And that is a dictionary definition and violated WP:NOT.

I think this is a healthy discussion and I hope we can come up with a consensus that can lead to a good policy for us to live by. Dspserpico 07:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dspserpico raised some objections to the idea of including individual chapter articles (specific situations aside):

• How can we verify such information from reliable sources?
• How can we make sure such information is not original research?
• How can we enforce NPOV and avoid vanity?

In answer to these questions, I look to WP:V. There I find, foremost, of course, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." More importantly, it continues: " This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." Unfortunately, most of the articles in the scope of this project have trouble with reliable sources. Individual chapters will have even more trouble. To that regard:

A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, and the self-publisher has no professional or academic standing. [emphasis mine]

Now, most of the national organizations' pages rely on the "official" website, primarilly, already. These national organizations have some standing, and, as such, this reliance isn't so bad. However, using lambdachi.org to write the entire article on Lambda Chi Alpha is coming dangerously close to POV, no? How much more so, then, would using a chapter's website to write about that chatper? The definative compilation for fraternity information is Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities — it is 3rd party and reliable, if not up to date. Since an edition can be found at most decently sized libraries (in my experience) it is actually useful as a tool for verifiability. National fraternities regularly make headlines in nationally reputable newspapers, as well.

I would argue that no such resources — commonly available and 3rd party — are available for any significant number of individual chapters. Wikipedia does not need a plethora of articles containing "only a founding date and a school".

While obscure content isn't harmful, we must remember that Non-notable topics do not belong (note WP:N is not a policy or guideline). From AfD Precedents we have that "School teachers, clubs, classrooms or lessons are not notable", and, while some chapters are more notable than clubs... I wouldn't bet there are a whole lot of them. Just because there's more to say about a chatper of a fraternity (this or that tradition, these awards, was this local, then joined this national, etc) doesn't actually make it more notable; it just gives it a longer, more detailed history. I also found the debate (which reached no consensus) on schools' notability to be worth reading in regards to this issue.

In fact, I find this last point, that local chapters are school clubs with a history, to be exceedingly to the point. Chapters, unless they've done something to get into The Washington Post, are just not notable. They don't belong.

Sorry for the long-ish post, but I was working on my thoughts as I went. I guess, in the end, if you don't subscribe to the idea that notability is a requirement, all of this is out the window though. : )  — vijay (Talk) 07:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My post is longer than yours, and I spent almost two hours figuring out a way to express my concerns. :) Dspserpico 07:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This has turned into a great debate. Since it's late here, I'm going to keep this short for now, but I'll just shoot out my initial thoughts.

• First, the notability question is not really going to be resolved by this project, as has been made clear by the "schools' notability" debate and the debate we're currently having. I would say that works in the favor of the Beta project, and as an "inclusionist" Wikipedian, I'd rather have the content while it's not prohibited and deleted only after it is prohibited, if it ever is. Wikipedia loses nothing that way.
• With that said, that schools are continuing to be the topics of articles further lends support to my assertion that fraternities ought to be treated like private high schools (for instance, Jesuit high schools) since they, though ultimately derivative of a common curriculum and heritage, manifest a distinct personality independent of its national body as a result of its inherited background, which (ritual aside) is often very much different from the national fraternity's dictum. You may see these chapters more like "clubs", but there's reason to think differently since members of fraternities are more likely to give back to their chapters (financially or otherwise) like they would to their University than would alumni of the chess team (no offense intended) similarly do so for their respective organization. (Hope that makes sense, and part of that's presumption, but I don't think it's far off.) Long story short, though, calling a fraternity a "club" is like calling the New York Yankees an "organization" -- it's technically correct, but it really says nothing about the relative magnitude of the particular case to the the other constituent parts of the category.
• If we treated Jesuit high schools as we might do for chapters, we would be doing a great injustice to those institutions individually and as a group. Same with Jesuit Universities. And Dark Lords of the Sith. And the Simpsons. Note how many articles about closely related topics there are! And it's really a good thing, because each high school/college/Sith Lord/Simpsons character is different and deserving of detail, if such detail exists. It's the diversity that makes the totality of these articles stronger and, in turn, Wikipedia stronger -- not their blanket streamlining, because something is inevitably lost by such unnecessary syncopations.

It's late. Hope this helps. And geez, you guys wrote a lot. See you on the flipside. Pat 09:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am very wary of the "X and Y are in wikipedia therefore Z belongs too" arguemnt. And I have complicated opinion on the WP:Schools debate. I think almost High Schools, Colleges and Universities are notible for inclusion while I don't want every single educational institution to be included, especially at the lower levels like elementary and middle schools. The way I view things is that the big organizations and articles about fraternity movement in general are like the universities and colleges. The individual organizations are like high schools and individual chapters are like elementary schools. They lack notability and they lack an abundance of verifiable information. You are correct in saying that Jesuit high schools need their own separte articles. But do you think it is really necessary to do a full article on every single parish school even if the enrollment is really low. The are forty seven parishes in Diocese of Oakland that offers primary education. Then you add in all of the non-Catholic private schools and public schools in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and that, is alot and not really necessary when you can do a write up of each school district. Creating thousands of two sentence stubs adds no value to Wikipedia.

You also point to character lists as a justification for the inclusion of chapter articles but if you click through most of those links do not link to individual articles, those are linked to list articles where each minor sith lord or simpsons character has a short one paragraph blurb. One major characters can have their own articles like Darth Maul or Homer Simpson while minor characters like Manjula Nahasapeemapetilon and Kaox Krul are in lists. This follows the notability guidelines set in WP:FICT, minor character articles are merged into list articles. In the scope of our project we already have chapter lists.

By the way, it's 3:17 AM in California, I need to go to bed. Dspserpico 10:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm finally awake. Thanks for asking Lar to offer his thoughts. Here's what I'm thinking.

• Agreed, some of the links on the Simpsons pages go to lists, though not all of the links on those pages I noted do (looking through the minor Sith of the Old Sith Empire that link somewhere, three of the four have their own articles (and these are minor, 98%-of-all-Star-Warriors-have-never-even-heard-of-them-before characters like Shar Dakhan, Dor-Gal-Ram, and Tritos Nal. That's pretty consistent throughout the article.)
  • Also, I would point to the list of X-Men as another great example of how a list may exist for a given subject, but it is supplemented by individual articles about its individual members.
    • However, my contention on fraterntities is only minimally-based on these character assertions, so I think we can depart from that topic and just say that sometimes characters have their own articles, and sometimes they don't.
• Yet further and more importantly, I think the XYZ connections I'm trying to make here are very relevent because in an area where firm standards do not exist, it is absolutely necessary to look outside to other similar categories to see what the groups have in common and follow that lead until a superceding Wikipedia rule is put into place. I too have a similar hesitency to include grade schools on Wikipedia, but that topic is ultimately a red herring that is mentioned for its slippery slope connotations (with all due respect). Universities are a relevant startng point as you have said, but grade schools are an outlier not worth mentioning if we're going to look at this topic as part of a hierarchy.
• D, an important thing to note is that you're skipping a whole category in your article hierarchy comparison for universities and fraternities. A university really is not logically on the same level as the fraternity/sorority movement, though movements toward universities would be. For example,

• Your take:

A fraternity movement results in national fraternities which leads to chapters

• Logical extension of that for Universities:

A University movement results in University associations and philosophies which leads to the Universities themselves

I see your framework, modified so that it remains consistent, as a great framework for chapter articles to 1.) be justified and 2.) be created. Have I taken too many liberties with your statements?

• Doesn't Baird's actually touch on every chapter in the country? And if so, wouldn't it make sense to include that information in Wikipedia, properly cited? This is, after all, not a paper encyclopedia.
• Finally, one of my biggies. Perhaps my biggest concern with the "national prominence" requirement is that it actively would keep chapter articles out while only really being relevant when chapters do something bad; given the presumed definition of "national prominence" (which, btw, hasn't been defined), is there a single chapter that has accomplished a single feat of national significance that has been positive? Are there any examples of this? This national definition pigeon holes chapters into a "do something bad and you'll be written about, do something good and it will never see the light of day" conundrum, which is partially derivative of the media's culture but also does not reflect a NPOV. Not that chapters would care, but if we are indeed going to maintain the NPOV of fraternity/sorority articles, it will be impossible to do so with the "national" requirement because it disproportionately lends weight to the negative aspects of Greek life (because the media won't report good news nationally, or even locally) while actively ignoring its positives, which are often greater but on a sub-national scale. The rule is, in short, un-encyclopedic and, subjectively speaking, unfair.

I think fraternity chapters are very much justified under your framework, and I think the national prominence requisite is a recipe for disaster. Am I being dissonant at any point? Pat 20:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is how view the "heirarchy of topics": University movement results in University associations and philosophies which leads to the Universities themselves which leads to a fraternity movement results in national fraternities which leads to chapters. Fraternites and sororities would not have existed (at least the ones were talking about) were it not for universities we are much lower on the totem pole than you thing. I am not against having chapter information on wikipeida, but I am against chapters having individual articles on wikipedia. I wouldn't mind much if you were to have writtien a humongous article called List of Beta Theta Pi chapters and included mention of every single chapter active and dormant with founding dates, list of notable alumni and stuff of the sort.

I have always interpreted the notability requirement as a "major" regional as opposed to "national" for my chapter of Delta Sig to have its own stand alone article on wikipedia I think it should be mentioned in major regional newspaper. Here's a sample "media heirarchy" I use, I'm sorry for being San Francisco Bay Area-centric, but it's all I know:

• Not The Pioneer (student newpaper at CSU East Bay)
• Not the Hayward Daily Review (local newspaper)
• But major regional media outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury or local TV stations and news radio.

Also such media coverage has to have relavance to just the chapter. For instance, a year or so ago there were many stories in the Bay Area media on the UC Berkeley Alcohol Moratorium for Fraternities and Sororities and many fraternity/sorority/IFC/panhel people were interviewed and the coverage was balanced and not "anti-greek" but the exposure can only lead to an article about the Moratorium and Cal Greek System and not say, the UC Berkeley chapter of Beta Theta Pi, Tri-Delt or FIJI.

I've been interviewed by a number of TV news stations when baseball season started mainly becuase I was one of the first people at Oakland Coliseum parking lot, does that make me pass WP:BIO? No, because the context of the media coverage was about the A's and A's fandom as opposed to me. I guess Kenneth Louis and Kenny's marinated flank steak will have to wait for another day. Dspserpico 22:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Baird's does not touch on every chapter, except to provide a chapter list for each national fraternity including founding year, chapter designation, and school name. Baird's does include the coat of arms, "active" and "pledge" pin (I don't know why it doesn't say badge and "associate member" where appropriate), and a history (I'm guessing supplied by the organizations themselves... but that could (hopefully) be wrong.) of each group listed. Baird's also includes now defunct organizations. Baird's criterion for inclusion of local fraternities (at least in the very old edition I last read) was that they have been in continuous existence for 50+ years at one school.

Regarding Pat's next point though: I entirely sympathize. It is much easier to get bad press than good press. However, this is exacerbated by the fact that single chapters of national fraternities don't have much, if any, 3rd party NPOV resources for us to use in writing articles. This is because single chapters of national fraternities are essentially as notable as the campus Peace and Justice group--except that the members are in it for life, and they tend to write down and talk about their organization's history more.

Just like these characters Shar Dakhan, Dor-Gal-Ram, and Tritos Nal, local chapters of national fraternities would have about two sentences and a catagory stub in their articles. Rather than creating a lot of really useless stub articles with little hope for future development, why not add chapters when and if they become notable. I just read and learned about the whole "inclusionist" v. "deletionist" thing, and I'm not exactly sure where I stand. I agree that wikipedia's not made of pulp, but I feel like adding many very short and uninformative articles would dilute the quality of the wikipedia. On the other hand, I do want chapter information included in the wikipedia. I think that national fraternities should have List of chapters of Alpha Beta Gamma articles, that would provide the basic information and links to chapter websites. Let the chapters themselves tell us all about themselves--they have a 40 year old drinking goblet, they throw a killer party, they were founded as a secret club devoted to the eradication of classes without extra credit--most of that wouldn't be citable anyway, unless the chapter has a published history.

Ah well, at this point I'm in danger of repeating myself, and I'd rather not turn this into a shouting match. Pat, I really appriciate your "inclusionist" view. More so, I am glad you wrote Zeta Tau Chapter of Beta Theta Pi to show us what a good chapter article can actually be. If you can add citations to the rest of that article, and get some good work done on the rest of the project, you might see me change my tune in the end. The citations will be the hardest part.

Until then, I offer my final conclusion (for now ;-) ):

Individual chapters of national fraternities should not have articles unless they warrent them under their own, independent merit. They must be notable enough to have significant material published about them by 3rd party NPOV sources. These articles must be very closely monitored for POV writing, as they will be more succeptable than even the Fraternity and Sorority articles we already have.

Meanwhile, general individual chapter information should be available on wikipedia. However, this information should be kept brief. A link to an individual chapter's website is appropriate and encouraged. Lists of chapters and links should be well maintained, as difficult as that may be, for this wikiproject to be successful.

I think that covers it for now.

Looking forward to my next change of oppinion,

 — vijay (Talk) 05:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I heartily agree with many of your points and I think the notability standards in Bairds are also good for locals, possibly because Baird's is the only real reliable source we have. Do we have a consensus? I feel that were close to a policy, at least for this project. Dspserpico 07:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bairds Manual is a reliable source, but the editors do request and receive most of their information from the organizations themselves. The address of the Baird's Manual Foundation is the same as the North-American Interfraternity Conference. However, since the manual is not used as a "rush tool" but as a historical reference, it represents the "official" history of the organizations contained therein, and has been subjected to some editorial standards. Though dated, it is the most reliable resource out there.--g-law 01:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)