Talk:List of Alpha Phi Omega members

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Alpha Phi Omega members article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Scouting WikiProject (Rated B-Class)
	List of Alpha Phi Omega members is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject (Rated B-Class)
	List of Alpha Phi Omega members 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Frank Braden?

"Frank W. Braden – ? – Assistant National Director BSA for Senior Scouting (and other positions), responsible for establishing Wood Badge in the United States" Responsible for establishing WB in the US? Says who? I've never heard of him in any of my readings about WB history in the US. ---Emb021

See Ref added to page. Naraht 13:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How do we know he's an Honorary Member, if the article doesn't say which Chapter, Section, Region, or National honored him?

Also true of several others. This should be found out, or these people should be deleted. Lentower 15:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason that we know is that issues of the Torch and Trefoil have refered to them as Honorary members of the Fraternity. I think if the T&T says something like

"Frank Braden, Assistant National Director of BSA and honorary brother will be the keynote speaker on the second day of the 1938 convention."

that we can continue to include them. We *do* know they are honorary brothers, we just don't know of which chapter (or NHM) they are a member of. I will go back and research the issue that I got the information from, but chapter may not be there. Naraht 19:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please add the footnote!

Then you should do a full ref/cite for each of these Torch & Trefoil lookups!

You go to all the trouble of researching the old T&Ts, and you don't include the citations?!?!?!?

This is Wikipedia, you're suppose to cite your references.

For example, expand

* Frank W. Braden – ?{{cn}} – Assistant National 
Director BSA for Senior Scouting (and other positions), 
responsible for establishing [[Wood Badge]] in the United States.<ref>{{cite web 
|url= http://www.scouting.milestones.btinternet.co.uk/woodbadge.htm
|title= The origins of the Wood Badge
|accessdate=2006-12-04 
|format= HTML
|work= Scouting Milestones
}}</ref>

to something like (needs XXXXXs replaced and testing - delete any "|" line that you can't fill - see Template:Cite journal and Help:Footnotes for details):

* Frank W. Braden – ?<ref name="TandTBraden">{{cite journal
|last= XXXXX
|first= XXXXX
|authorlink= XXXXX
|coauthors= XXXXX
|year= XXXXX
|month= XXXXX
|title= XXXXX
|journal= Torch and Trefoil
|volume= XXXXX
|issue= XXXXX
|pages= XXXXX
|id= XXXXX
|url= http://www.apo.org/show/Publications_and_Forms/Torch_and_Trefoil
|accessdate= 2004-12-XXXX
}} Torch and Trefoil does not say what part of APO conferred Braden's 
honorary membership.</ref> – Assistant National Director BSA 
for Senior Scouting (and other positions), responsible for establishing 
[[Wood Badge]] in the United States.<ref name="TandTBraden"/><ref>{{cite web 
|url= http://www.scouting.milestones.btinternet.co.uk/woodbadge.htm
|title= The origins of the Wood Badge
|accessdate=2006-12-04 
|format= HTML
|work= Scouting Milestones
}}</ref>

Note that:

ISSN's are modern (the "id=" field). I just looked at a recent T&T for it -- no ISSN. I'll talk to the National Office about getting one!
if the "|last= XXXXX |first= XXXXX |authorlink= XXXXX |coauthors= XXXXX", you substitute them with either "|author= Alpha Phi Omega" or "|author= LAST, FIRST, editor"

Thanks! Lentower 03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need citations that show APO connection, etc.

Each of these brothers need a citation that show the APO connection, and how we know what Chapter they are in, and/or what part of APO conferred Honorary membership. This might belong after the Chapter name, or body conferring Honorary membership, instead of the end of each item. Lentower 04:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If no WP article, need citations to show notability

If there is no WP article on a brother, there needs to be a citation at the end of their entry that shows their notability. One to an issue and page in T&T is a start, but there really should be other links as well. Lentower 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Citations need to be added on most of these entries. I don't think individual 'citation needed' tags are needed on everything, so I've replaced it with one main tag at the top illustrating this. Dr. Cash 19:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Both are a good idea. Individual [citation needed] templates show editors exactly what needs to be done, which is more helpful, then the box at the top of the article. I'll add them back when I have time. Lentower 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

True. But they make the article look absolutely terrible. Dr. Cash 08:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article looks, with the [citation needed]s added back, exactly how a WikiPedia article of this quality should look. The WPian thing to do, to make this article look less "terrbile" (your judgement, not mine (the article looks fine with the [citation needed]s)), is to replace each [citation needed] with a suitable reference. If you do one person a day, the article will be free of [citation needed]s in a few months. If others join in, it will happen much faster. Having the [citation needed]s is likely to provide much more motivation to add the references, then the box at the top of the page. Writing a WP article, on those brothers without them, is another way to go. That, by itself, may not prove the connection to APO. It is also more effort, and harder to do. Lentower 13:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As it is, the article fails many WP guidelines, including WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. The only thing keeping it from an Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion is pure chance -- the fact that there are so many of these artcles that fail the guidelines, that it makes finding this one harder. This article, as it is, will fail an AfD and be deleted in five days, after the AfD is opened.

WP is much more about having cited articles -- in this case about notable people -- then their appearance. The appearance of an article is less important, then it meeting the WP guidelines.

As both a WPian and a brother of APO, I want this article to stay and meet the WP guidelines.That's the best way to be of service. So, Derek et al, roll up your sleeves and be of service - do the work. Lentower 13:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Alpha Phi Omega's listing is better documented than either Sigma Chi or Sigma Alpha Epsilon (just to pick two GLOs with long lists). Also, I took the page with the "Citation Needed" entries on it and copied it to UNIX to do a word count. Citation and Needed were the words that occured most often in the page. I *really* don't think that is appropriate. Naraht 14:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparing articles at AfD carries no weight. The only likely effect is to get the other artciles AfDed. Lentower 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the counts were 146 citation and 146 needed. Third place was 140 for the word of. I know that the article for Mark Cuban has been referenced as being *over* referenced and it has about 50 references. And this article should have 146 of them?

I disagree that this article would fail an AfD vote if it was nominated. There were no real problems with the list when it was part of Alpha Phi Omega, and the main reason it was split into a new article was because the list was getting a bit long to be included directly in the article. Splitting it to a new article (page) conforms to the guidelines specified in WP:LIST.

With regards to, "The article looks, with the [citation needed]s added back, exactly how a WikiPedia article of this quality should look." I'm going to take that comment as a matter of opinion, which is fine. Since Wikipedia is a work in progress, I don't think there's any set standard to how an article should look, specifically. All articles are essentially works in progress; as more information is found on a topic, editors add it in. But I do agree with Randy's assessment that 146 'citation needed's in an article is a bit excessive. One simple note at the top of the article asking editors for help ought to suffice here.

With respect to the process of finding references to insert there,... that's obviously going to take some time. Searching past Torch & Trefoils is probably one of the best options here, since famous members are most likely to be referenced here. The difficulty here is that the T&T is not available online prior to about 2002, and searches of earlier T&Ts will therefore have to be done by hand. My collection only goes back to about the mid-1990s or so (pledged in 1992 and became a Life Member in 1995). Randy probably has a more extensive collection. Yeah, I could probably contact the national office, but given that there's a convention in less than a month and they're probably still busy processing AAMDs, I don't think that a request for, "please send me all the T&Ts every published before 1995," is going to go very far.

I've also been trying various combinations of google searches for some of the members, hoping to find an article in a mainstream media source on them, or even a bio page at their work or corporate website. This worked pretty well for Robert Gates, but a lot of these people don't have fraternity memberships on their bio pages, and news articles are fairly scarce that actually mention APO. We can, however, verify that many of these people are actually members, based on looking them up in the national membership database and verifying that the person in question attended the school at roughly the right time that they joined, etc. And I think Randy has been pretty diligent at working with the National Office in verifying membership here. But these lookups aren't necessarily admissable as reference citations in the article. So I'm open to suggestions in how to find suitable references here. Dr. Cash 20:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the T&Ts that I've been looking through are those on a CD that Michael Brown sent out to his fellow members of the History and Archives Committee. Probably about half of the T&Ts and Lightbearers are there, but it isn't an even distribution, almost all of the ones for the 1940s are there and almost none in the 1976-1986 timeframe are in there.

Also, as far as I'm concerned the T&T are primary records. Given the fact that non even all of the 14 founders are on the online records at the National Website, I'm not going to drop someone just because they aren't there (as long as they initiated before about 1980).

I think 146 references looks almost as bad as 146 Content Needed's.... Naraht 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Responding to my own comment. Having said that 146 references are too many, we now have 178. :) Naraht 14:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Many Chapters keep archives of old T&Ts. Contact those near to you and see what's possible?

If you don't like including references in articles, should you be editing on WP? References are much smaller then [citation needed]s, and are links to useful information. Both make them more attractive. Several references in a brother's entry are quite acceptable. Lentower 22:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that references are actually quite an important part of an article, and not just a wikipedia article. For example, in the scientific literature, it's quite valuable to be able to go back to past publications and see some of the older experiments that were done, and compare that to the current publication. In wikipedia, adding a reasonable number of links to articles (or even a non-internet-link to an offline resource) provides someone reading wikipedia with a great resource for future research. Plus, it looks a lot better than adding a bunch of external links into an external links section. But I think we could forego the reference on somebody if they have a wikipedia article and said wikipedia article notes (and references) that they were members of Alpha Phi Omega. Dr. Cash 23:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if all the info in a brother's List entry, is in his/her WP article, and the info is fully cited there, the WikiLink from the List is citation enough on the List entry. By having the only ref be that WikiLink, an editor is claiming this to be true. If it isn't, an editor should either make the article right, or add [citation needed]s to the brother's list entry and the article. Lentower 23:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So where in the line and how many references should there be for each entry? Case A: Brother A has a Wikipedia page referencing them. Case B: Brother B does not have a Wikipedia page. Also, does it make a difference in Case A as to whether there is actually a reference on the fact that they are a brother? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Non-notables?

Does anyone have objections to either any specific members mentioned or categories of those mentioned? The ones that actually seem shakiest to me are a few of the business related ones that come directly from the APO National Web pages. Naraht 14:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Any in particular to mention? The ones I'm thinking of just looking at it might be:

Warren Brown; just an automobile columnist for the Washington Post? An editor is probably notable, but a columnist? How is he famous?

Howard Gossage; just says he's an ad executive from the 50s and 60s. What company? How is this notable?

There's also several BSA members on the list. But how low on the totem pole over there are we going to go? Certainly, John Schiff, a former National President of the BSA is notable, as well as past Chief Scout Executives (James Tarr, James West). But what about someone like James Fitch, a region scout executive (I guess that somewhat like an APO Region Director?). What else did he do to merit being on this list? Or is that it? Or what about Harry Pote (past BSA Director of Personnel?). Is this notable enough? Dr. Cash 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Warren Brown has been a columnist at the Post for the last 30 years and has covered the automobile industry for the last 24. See [1]

Howard Gossage is one of Ad Age's top 100 of the century (20th) [2]

As for the BSA members, I actually dropped several Regional Scout Executives that I found, I included James Fitch for two reasons: One, the amount of time he was an RSE (25 years) and two, he has a Wikipedia Page. I included anyone who was a National Director of XXXX for the BSA. I thought that a national level officer for a national organization was notable enough. Naraht 13:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations for Chapter Membership.

Citations for chapter membership for those with Wikipedia Entries seems problematic. As an example, Bill Clinton. He attended Georgetown University as an undergraduate. What is required as a source? Simply a web page that says that Mu Alpha is at Georgetown or one that specifically says he joined Alpha Phi Omega there or something that says he specifically says he joined Mu Alpha there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Info on WP is suppose to be verifable. You claim X is a brother of Y chapter, you are suppose to provide a citation that verifies that. Lentower 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to find the specific chapter greek letter designations in mainstream media sources. For example, this article on Robert Gates, only says he was in Alpha Phi Omega at W&M, but doesn't mention specifically Nu Rho Chapter. The only publication that is even possibly going to have a greek letter designation for the chapter is the T&T, and I somehow doubt that every person on this list is going to be mentioned in the T&T. For this purpose, we might consider changing the greek letter designation next to each individual to the school name. This would be easier to verify. But just verifying that brother X is a member of chapter Y isn't everything. The reference should also provide some basis of why brother X is a notable member of APO. Dr. Cash 22:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I think what I proposed a while ago is the best answer. Instead of Mu Alpha, use [[Georgetown University|Mu Alpha]], that both shows what it is and makes the reference only need to apply to linking the person to Alpha Phi Omega @ Georgetown. If necessary, a single reference could be to the page on the National website with all of the chapter IDs on it. Naraht 12:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. This has now been done. Dr. Cash 21:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Any idea where to link the National Honorary Membership to? Naraht 13:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. I just left it blank for now. I suppose we could link it to the main APO article, or specifically to a subsection in there regarding national honorary membership, but I'm not sure if that's really necessary anyway. Does the national fraternity even award 'national honorary membership' anymore, anyway? Dr. Cash 18:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(Reset) Yup, at least it still can.

5) HONORARY MEMBERSHIP. Honorary Membership may be conferred by any collegiate Chapter, Petitioning Group upon charter approval, or the National Board of Directors, upon persons who have contributed significantly to the ideals and purposes of Alpha Phi Omega. Naraht 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formby and Fleming?

Why the deletion of the references for Formby and Fleming? In both cases I added a reference to their pages at the Mississippi legislature... Naraht 18:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted those references because the URLs resulted in 404 not found for both of them. Dr. Cash 23:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right... I'll get back to you when the Mississippi Legislative website comes back up. *wierd* Naraht 02:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T&T's but not Lightbearers?

I noticed that the reference entries for the T&Ts got Linkified, but the ones for the Lightbearer did not. The Lighbearers are the predecessors of the T&Ts and in fact the volume #s did not restart when they changed the name (note that these are different than the Daily Lightbearers at the National Conventions. Should they be changed over as well?

Look again. Dr. Cash 17:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

An an additional note, it would be nice if we had a title (and an author, if possible) for those T&T and Lighbearer articles. Although the information provided currently is enough for someone to find the information if they were looking for it. Dr. Cash 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanx. I'll try to find titles and authors if I can. Also, do you have any feeling as mentioned above on [[Georgetown University|Mu Alpha]] for the chapters here? Naraht 17:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William J. Campbell

I've reverted the re-adding back of the answers.com reference for Campbell. I see that the correct one is mentioned on the page, however, I don't think that answers.com is exactly a repudable source on this, and there are two other references for him anyway. Answers.com mainly looks (a) heavily commercial and (b) largely copied from mirror information from wikipedia anyway; so if (b), can't we just find a wikipedia article on him and go with that? But my general feelings on answers.com is that there's too much spam and commercial advertising links on their pages, so I put their credibility in doubt,... Dr. Cash 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a copy from Wikipedia, it is a copy from http://law.enotes.com/wests-law-encyclopedia/campbell-william-joseph that they apparently got complete access to at one point. And I count West's Law encyclopedia as a decent source. Naraht 13:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor editing point - no space before <ref>s

Please add no space before <ref>s per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags. Lentower 19:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are still more of these spaces to remove, if anyone get to them before I do. Lentower 19:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. A minor little nitpick,... but alas, it is proper formatting,... ;-) Dr. Cash 20:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use {{cite X...}} templates?

I like to propose that we use {{cite X...}} templates inside <ref>...</refs>.

Why?

They will give a consistent format and style to the references. Both inside the article, and with all the other articles that use them. Lentower 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But said format is completely inconsistent with reference formats used by paper-based publications!! Dr. Cash 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So WP has it's own style. Many organizations do. And there are many different reference formats used in different paper-based publications. Usually one style for journals within a profession. Lentower 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They give the reader more info then just a URL. Lentower 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is a good idea. But, IMHO, can be done much better and much easier w/o a template. Dr. Cash 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Without templates, holding the style and format consistent with even one editor is a chore. With multiple editors it's very hard.Lentower 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The editor doesn't have to add all the punctation, etc. - the template does it for you. Lentower 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that the punctuation the template adds is completely incorrect with respect to established reference styles!!!! Dr. Cash 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So WP has it's own style. Many organizations do. Lentower 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They remind the editor of all the data that the citation should have. Lentower 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Only IF the editor remembers all of the variables,... Dr. Cash 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you cut-n-paste the template, you have all the fields right there! Lentower 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to cut-n-paste a blank template from each template's page (see below) or the {{cite X...}} templates summary. Lentower 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, not really. Dr. Cash 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's quite simple (guess we disagree about cut-n-paste between browser windows). I have the summary page open in my browser, whenever I'm WP editing. Lentower 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This might work for times when you're quite busy actively editing and writing a page. But a lot of times, I find that you go in to edit something small in wikipedia, need to cite your source, and it's a bit too cumbersome to open up the template page to cut-and-paste to and mess with that. Now, if some sort of little widget could be scripted to automatically format the reference using the template, I could see how that could be useful. Dr. Cash 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A widget that worked in all browsers would be nice. You could come back and clean it up later, when you are into a full edit session. When I'm doing a small edit away from my usual environment, I just click Editing help below the edit pane into a new browser tab or window, and click three pages, and I can do the cut-n-paste. It's automatic for me now - but I've been a power computer users for four decades and quickly build up a set of shorcuts in new computing environments like WP. There are those who won't want to learn the WP article link network that well. Lentower 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

They are increasingly being use throughout en.wikipedia.org. Lentower 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with you here. A lot of editors really dislike them,... Dr. Cash 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And a lot of editors like them. ;-} Lentower 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so it's probably about 50/50 that love/hate them. I'll buy that,... Dr. Cash 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen a reliable statistic. Lentower 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

E.g.
{{cite book}}
{{cite conference}}
{{cite encyclopedia}}
{{cite journal}}
{{cite news}}
{{cite newsgroup}}
{{cite paper}}
{{cite press release}}
{{cite video}}
{{cite web}}

Others exist. See the summary page, and Category:Citation templates.

thanks either way! Lentower 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's important to point out that these templates are actually only recommendations. I personally absolutely, positively hate them. It's too much of a pain to remember all of the variable names, and put them in, and the organization of the variables make it very difficult to read edit pages with these stupid things in them. They also do not follow any standard reference format (e.g. APA, ACS, Harvard referencing), and their formatting for dates is completely farked up. It's just much, much easier to manually format the references. Until they fix their formatting issues, I strongly encourage editors to avoid them like the plague. Dr. Cash 21:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They are only recommendations. But WP is meant for the readers, not the editors, and readers prefer consistency within a website, particularly one they use a lot. The {{cite X...}} templates provide that. Currently we have near-anarchy in citation styles, both within this article, and throughout WP. Lentower 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you put a linebreak before each "|", the {{cite X...}} stand out well, and are easily to visually skip while editing. Lentower 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example from this page of the two citation styles. Which is more readbale? That is, in which style can you quickly distinguish the citation from the rest of the text?

What's being used on the page so far

 * [[Frank Wickhorst]] – [[University of 
 California, Berkley|Gamma Gamma]] –
 [[University of California, Berkley]] Football
 Coach ([[1946]])<ref>''[[Alpha Phi Omega|Torch
 and Trefoil]].'' [[March]], [[1940]]. Vol. 15,
 No. 1. p. 5.</ref>
 * Sidney Williams – [[Southern
 University|Kappa Lambda]]  – [[National 
 Football League|NFL]] player for the [[Cleveland
 Browns]], [[Washington Redskins]],  [Baltimore
 Colts]], and [[Pittsburgh Steelers]] (1964-?); 
 [[United States|US]] [[Ambassador]] to
 [[Bahamas|The Bahamas]]  (March [[1994]]-
 September [[1998]]). President and Chief 
 Executive Officer of the Williams Group. Member
 of the  [[Board of Directors]] of OneUnited Bank.
 Husband of [[Maxine Waters]], [[United States 
 House of Representatives|US House]]  Member 
 from [[California]].

The {{cite X...}} templates style

 * [[Frank Wickhorst]] – [[University of 
 California, Berkley|Gamma Gamma]] –
 [[University of California, Berkley]] Football
 Coach ([[1946]])<ref>{{cite journal
  | author = Alpha Phi Omega
  | authorlink = [[Alpha Phi Omega]]
  | journal = Torch and Trefoil
  | volume = 15
  | issue = 1 
  | pages = 5
  | publisher = Torch and Trefoil
  | year = 1940
  | month = March
  }}</ref>
 * Sidney Williams – [[Southern
 University|Kappa Lambda]]  – [[National 
 Football League|NFL]] player for the [[Cleveland
 Browns]], [[Washington Redskins]],  [Baltimore
 Colts]], and [[Pittsburgh Steelers]] (1964-?); 
 [[United States|US]] [[Ambassador]] to
 [[Bahamas|The Bahamas]]  (March [[1994]]-
 September [[1998]]). President and Chief 
 Executive Officer of the Williams Group. Member
 of the  [[Board of Directors]] of OneUnited Bank.
 Husband of [[Maxine Waters]], [[United States 
 House of Representatives|US House]]  Member 
 from [[California]].

Yes, you scroll more with the [[Wikipedia:Citation_templates|{{cite X...}} templates]. best, Lentower 21:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've found that the date format thing isn't quite as bad as I thought. Now that I figured out how to adjust my user preferences to whatever date format I prefer. Still, perhaps they should change the default date format to something that would be more recognizable to the vast majority of non-logged in users; for example, write out the month instead of the all-numerical format that looks, IMHO, kind of geeky and can be somewhat confusing (e.g. Is 2006-04-03 April 3, 2006 or March 4, 2006? You and me might be able to figure it out, but it's not nearly as intuitive to someone non-technical). Dr. Cash 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the way the {{cite X...}} templates format, you can always work towards improving that, as part of the consensus building processes we have here on WP. Lentower 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. These debates usually take a ridiculously long amount of time and many times, they go nowhere,... Dr. Cash 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I find that when I present arguments that are reader-centric, instead of editor-ego rationale, closure happens sooner. Another approach is to come up with a set of citation templates, that work the way you think they should, and get them noticed. Lentower 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now it seems to be editor choice to use {{cite X...}} templates or not. Might be best for Dr. Cash and I to stop posting here, and wait and see what others say. Lentower 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there others? I haven't really seen any sign that anyone other than Dr. Cash, Lentower, and naraht are involved enough in this page to really comment. I mean you've got people who make a tweak due to something like Dartmouth University, but I can't find anyone else who has made more than two edits. (And I support Dr. Cash.) Naraht 13:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll go with the consensus and not use {{cite X...}} templates on this page. Lentower 20:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 72.244.26.2

Those additions were by naraht, I'm not sure why it stopped being logged in. Naraht 17:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper way to do years?

Which of the following is proper

Mayor of Boston (1990-1994)
Mayor of Boston from 1990 to 1994
Mayor of Boston 1990-1994

or some other combination? Also should the years be wikilinked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 14:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death shows (1990-1994). It's inconsistent about wikilinking the years. I personally think too many wikilinks are distracting. It's better to just wikilink the notable items. There is also the convention about only wikilinking the first occurence of a phrase in an article. Lentower 03:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper way to do term of office?

Which is Proper

Ronald Reagan - ABC - President of the United States (1980-1988) or
Ronald Reagan - ABC - President of the United States (1981-1989)

When they were elected or when they actually served?

I suggest you check a handful of the WP articles about Presidents, and see what they do. I expect when they actually served is what WP is doing there. Lentower 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Proper in style usually depends on what Manual of Style you are following. Note Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style which is on the small size for an MoS. Lentower 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would concur that we should mention when they actually served. As with other people on the page, the dates listed should be the dates that they were in the position that it says they were in. Dr. Cash 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured list?

This list is getting pretty comprehensive, and definitely well-referenced. While it doesn't exactly meet the criteria for being a featured article (and probably never will), I think it might be worth trying to shoot for the comparable status for lists, featured list status. Review the featured list criteria here and leave comments on the talk page about possible improvements. Coincidentally, the List of notable Eagle Scouts is already a featured list. So we might use that as a guideline. Dr. Cash 22:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Designating for APO-Phil?

OK, how do we do Alpha Phi Omega-Philippines chapters... Choices

Different wikipedia page
(Phil) or (Philippines) after the chapter name with the chapter name going to a different place so we have Joe Smith - [[Lafayette College|Alpha]] - info and Jose Suran - Alpha (Philippines) - info on him
other ideas?

For now I'm going to go with the second, it should be reasonably easy to split them out later if necessary. Naraht 19:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is the flag of the Philippines

Naraht 13:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've identified three individuals that are members of APO-RP, and have added the flagicon template next to their name. Dr. Cash 01:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List order

I've reordered the list as an alphabetical list, with each letter as a subsection, similar to the way the List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) is set up. Since honorary members no longer have their own main section, I created a small pin similar to the service pin, but with a tiny 'H' in it, to denote honorary membership.

I suppose we could also put the small flag icon next to this to denote famous members of APO-RP, as brother Finder suggests above. Dr. Cash 01:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The list was rearranged from alphabetical order to sorting by major categories, per comments in the Featured List Candidate Review Process. Dr. Cash 21:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Walter C. Coffey is in Business, not sure why... Naraht 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of honors/jobs

What is the standard order to list honors or positions? Chronological, Chronological inverted, importance?

For example, if Brother Mark Plotz was Mayor of Omaha (1970-1976), Governor of Nebraska (1976-1980), Senator from Nebraska (1980-1986) and Mayor of Lincoln (1988-1992), is this the order it should go in? Or should most important go first. The only reason this seems odd, is that doing Bill Clinton and *not* having President of the United States first seems wierd (vs. the time spent as Governor of Arkansas)Naraht 13:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table listing

What do people think of doing this the way that Alpha Phi Alpha is doing it with Templates that create tables?Naraht 13:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't like the table listing, and would favor the current format over it. But several reviewers on this article's featured list nomination suggested it, so I'd be interested to hear what others have to say. Dr. Cash 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I really think the table format looks like crap, and highly favor what we've already got going over it. Justinm1978 04:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current count

Current count of names is 243!Naraht 19:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Listing in articles

What would be the preference for listing membership in an article:

Brother of Alpha Phi Omega
Alpha Phi Omega brother

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Right now the count is fourteen for BoAPO and three for APOB. However it appears that all of the BoAPO are in the article text and all of the APOB are in Awards and Honors boxes. Not sure if that is enough consistency or if we want to be consistent across the article text and the boxes.Naraht 13:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an APO member, so I am soliciting the preference of those with an invested interest in the APO. I have been creating the AAH boxes and noticed I was including this in different ways (probably cutting and pasting from the article.) I have also started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Person about adding an awards field to that template (which is more comprehensive than {{Infobox Biography}}. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Or; should it be "members" instead of "brothers", as illustrated by this article title? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC).

The reason for Members in the title here is that not all notable members of Alpha Phi Omega are brothers, women in Alpha Phi Omega of the Philippines are Sisters. If we attempt to split this article into APO-USA and APO-Phil (which I think is probably coming within the year), then it would be Notable Alpha Phi Omega (USA) Brothers and Notable Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines) Brothers and Sisters. Please use whatever they are, so James Lovell would be Alpha Phi Omega Brother in the boxes. Naraht 12:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK- Alpha Phi Omega brother and Alpha Phi Omega honorary brother. Next question- would "brother" and "honorary brother" in this context be capitalized? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Lower case, I think..., sorry for the mistype.Naraht 14:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem- just want to see what the style preference is here, as the BSA and the APO overlap in many areas. You might want to note this in the talk page header in case it comes up again. See Talk:National Scout jamboree (Boy Scouts of America) for a style messagebox. I think I will note this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Style. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John P. Giesy

Please take a look at http://hcr3.isiknowledge.com/author.cgi?id=1037&cb=15 and http://www.msu.edu/~giesy/ . I think he should be added to the Science, medicine and technology grouping. Let me know what you all think.Naraht 15:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured list

In order to help this list to be featured, you might want to use the templates on FRAT. miranda 02:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JFK

I think I should be the one to address this, as I have some firsthand knowledge of the subject. John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States DID accept honorary membership in the Epsilon Mu chapter at The University of Maryland. He is listed as a Brother on their roster at the National Office. A shingle (membership certificate) was issued as well as a membership card. They are on file at the National Office in Missouri. I have held them in my hands. However, Kennedy was killed in Dallas before the Initiation could take place. That's why the membership materials were never sent out.

It has recently come to light that President Kennedy was Initiated into Eta Phi BEFORE he accepted honorary membership at Epsilon Mu. Brothers can, of course, be members of multiple chapters. I have a friend who is in at least FOUR. However, it seems that the policy on this article is to only list a Brother's chapter of first membership. I support that policy. This article will become a complete and utter mess if we start listing multiple memberships.

To the anonymous editor(s) that keep changing it, please stop. I am a Brother of Epsilon Mu myself. I was disappointed when I found out about the Eta Phi thing, but I got over it. It's been verified. You cannot change history. You must however, change your understanding of it as new facts come to light. Henrymrx (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I'm in the other direction on this. We already have three people on the list with multiple verified chapters listed. Listing JFK as both Eta Phi and Epsilon Mu would not violate any policy on this list. Also, honorary brothers do not have to go through the initiation ceremony in order to become a brother, or to become a brother of the chapter that has offered them honorary membership. If JFK intended to go to Epsilon Mu to accept it in person, then I would count that as having accepted the honorary membership in Epsilon Mu chapter. I would be happy to have both listed, perhaps with a footnote on the Epsilon Mu membership to explain further. That I think would be more appropriate than not listing Epsilon Mu at all. Naraht (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I could go either way in this. I do agree that, for a wikipedia page, we don't want to clutter up the page with 3 or 4 chapter affiliations. But on the flipside, brothers who are affiliated with multiple chapters are still a minority -- most brothers are going to have a single chapter affiliation (it's only the alumni volunteers and advisors that might have two or more). So I don't think it's a serious issue if we had a few of the 'notable members' listed with multiple chapters of affiliation. (PS -- Ms. Stewart, last time I checked, definitely is affiliated with more than four chapters: VT, VCU, Ferrum, Howard, Randolph-Macon, ODU = 6; and probably going to be adding Regent when they charter, and possibly NSU; I wonder if that's a record or something? ;-). Dr. Cash (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)