Talk:Alpha Phi Alpha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alpha Phi Alpha article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 25, 2006.
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Alpha Phi Alpha is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Ccson, Robotam
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1,

/Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4
If you are a member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated, you can add this userbox on your userpage: {{User Alpha Phi Alpha}}, to display this on your userpage:
ΑΦΑ This user is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity.




Contents

[edit] Interracial: 1945 or 1946?

I have added both years within the article until we can determine the exact year.

  1. Charles Wesley states in the 1981 version of "The History of Alpha Phi Alpha", page 244, that the year of integration was 1945.
  2. The Alpha Phi Alpha national website also indicates the year was 1945.
  3. 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)

[edit] 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:

  1. Integration discussed and approved in 1940
  2. Integration officially voted on in 1945
  3. Bernard Levin initiated into Theta chapter 1946 (as detailed in the Oct. 1946 issue of Ebony)
  4. 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.
Also, are you the same user that making the changes without signing in?--Ccson (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Cite #103

What page # is cite #103? Miranda 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seven Architects

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)


[edit] First or Oldest?

[1] Intercollegiate black Fraternity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.204.90 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


oldest

[2] [3] SexyNupe2000 (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Shows that Gamma Phi is the first black intercollegiate fraternity. SexyNupe2000 (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't want to go thru an edit war which looked like it would happen here, so I did an RFC. [7] SexyNupe2000 (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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 [8] 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 [9] 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)

oldest living. i made a list List of African American Greek & Fraternal Organizations GomabWork (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

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.[10] 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)

Vassyana, I think this issue is considered closed. Mediation is existing among a banned user. :-( miranda 06:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Changes

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)

Mykungfu is banned. He is using IP socks. Thus banned user = not allowed to edit. miranda 01:44, 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. miranda 01:57, 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)
BTW, this is MKF. miranda 17:22, 26 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.-RoBoTamice 14:28, 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)
Point well taken, & thanks for the original question.-RoBoTamice 15:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

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)

i agree to it. i would like mediation for all parties to come to a consensus. thanks for the help RobertOgleFan (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, my question is how in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution proess did me skip from Step 2 to Step 5.8?--Ccson (talk) 13:50, 4 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)
My suggestion is not to mediate a case which was brought up by a sock of a banned user. I am taking this to ANI. miranda 16:49, 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. miranda 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)